Mazer Rackham

Not much from the Dogs box, for example [censored]! damn! [censored]! they are too good for us, [censored]! [censored]! etc.

One game recently, can't remember which, the ump waited until one ruckman had dragged himself from one end of the ground to the other to get to the ballup. It's such bullshlt. And why oh why does the boundary ump have to wait until everyone has settled in and had a nice cup of tea and a scone before throwing it in? JUST THROW THE ****NIG THING IN. THERE IS NO NEED TO WAIT FOR ANYTHING. If a team isn't ready for it, it's on them! Duh! Throw the ****nig thing up! One player max from each team goes up for it. "Ruckman" or not. The AFL lost control of the refereeing of the game some years ago and now don't know what they're doing.

Well, more power to the Saints. I think more clubs should appeal, and serve up all manner of previous inconsistencies (of which there is no shortage), if for no other reason than to embarrass the AFL. If they have any shame at all -- long bow, I admit -- maybe that would force them into some kind of consistency.

I reckon if you're defending yourself, in a more or less passive act, then if heads clash, so be it. Split happens. Like the Robinson one a couple of weeks ago. He wasn't trying to do anything but protect himself. But it you take positive action, an aggressive act, even if it's a football act, to bump a player, either to unsettle him, dispossess him, or sit him on his backside, then the onus is on you. The AFL have (as usual) not been clear on this. That the head is sacrosanct only applies in situations that no one can clearly define, including the AFL. Nonetheless, Ryder was not in the "passive" category. He could have tackled or shoved. The other guy didn't help his cause by changing direction. But in the new "head is sacrosanct" world, a suspension is not unreasonable and Ryder can only rue that it's a fair cop. (He can further rue that others should have gone too.) Business as usual for the AFL. Precedent means nothing to them. The MRO should be sponsored by whoever makes floats for fishing. Just bobbing around in the current this way and that, with no clear direction. They make it up as they go and have done so for 10 years or more.

The stand rule isn't ridiculous. It's only going back -- broadly speaking -- to the way the game was played for a long long time, until recently. What is ridiculous is the way the AFL have allowed this unfold, over years. Some years back the AFL started allowing the player on the mark to roam sideways when the player with the ball drifted off the line of the mark. Sometimes this way, sometimes that way. Instead of calling play on, the umps permitted this. Then they allowed the player on the mark to roam sideways even if the player on the mark remained stationary. Then they changed to rule to enshrine all this wandering around sideways! That was around 2015 I think. Could have been 2017. Then they changed the rule back -- not because the first rule change was stupid (it was) -- but because it added to congestion. But no-one took any notice, least of all the umps. Then because of the congestion they had this brilliant idea to make the man on the mark stand on the mark. And to call play on if the player with the ball moved off the line of the mark. Like the game had been played for over 100 years. Talk about reinventing the wheel. The scorched earth enforcing of this "new & improved" stand rule is just typical AFL icing on the ridiculous cake they've baked for themselves. All they had to do in the first place was adjudicate the existing rule and save themselves years of hand wringing and frustration.

The latest numbers have mean -0.1667 and standard deviation 16. All results are within 2 standard deviations except for Dogs but they are still within 3 standard deviations. Nothing to see here. (In fact last week's table was more anomalous re Dogs.)

Bacteria. That's what got the Martians.

There's got to be a German word that describes something that seems like a good idea to exploit an advantage but actually entrenches a disadvantage. Something like Umsteigenzudenlinienfünfundfünfzig

Over the summer, I would watch the GF on replay and laugh out loud at bang-bang-bang. Now the season's started I still laugh out loud when I read things like this, and some of the oppo supporters takes. The respect, the fear, the despair. It's good being premiers.

This is what I don't get about the Underwood criticism. Sure she doesn't have the loveliest voice, but does Gerard? Then we have the ones who do horserace-style commentary on TV, and then we have the clown prince of commentators, BT. She doesn't really stand out that much.

So ... Demons win. Check. Geelong win. Damn. Pies lose. Check. Dons win, just. But in a way that has their fans spitting chips. Pass mark. Hawks lose. Check. Blues lose. Check. I rate this weekend 8/10

Wonder if he'd like playing 1st CHF in a top team? Would need to get Melbourne-fit first though.

They're incompetent and don't know what they're supposed to be doing. Rudderless.

[censored]! Just when they were premiers and everything. Now the AFL will have to scratch out their name on the cup.

Now I want to see the Suns make the top 8. Good for football.

Someone tell Chol that Dew ... ... what was it Buckley said about Treloar? Tell him that.

I could handle having Chol in our side. Is it too humid for him up on the Gold Coast?

No one knows. The umps certainly don't. They [censored] around with talking back to the ump and encroaching 1cm sideways of the mark if a player fakes a handpass. But what about the fundamental rules of the game? Leave contentious things like holding the ball/man out of it for the moment. They allow flagrant rugby passes. I'm not talking about slick handpasses where it's hard to tell if it's legal or not. I mean full on two handed scoops. They allow kicks that go 7 and 8 metres. They allow players to run more than 15 metres. They allow flagrant pushes in the back. Things that have not been seen in the game since year dot, until very recently. They're adjudicating to an imaginary version of the rules that only exists in someone's head. They can't get basic, fundamental laws of the game right. They are incompetent. The umpires are incompetent because they are led by incompetents who don't know what they are supposed to be doing.

Reckon the Saints are slowly putting something together. The Pies are like Essendon under Knights. All out attack is great when it's working, and not when it's not. And when the other teams have worked you out ...

So the Carlton player kicking in after Davies put it out on the full moves one way, then changes direction (to kick across goal) while still outside the playing surface. That's out of bounds & a throw in. Do the umpires not know the rules? It's fair dinkum amateur hour.

That's alright mate. Your heart's in the right place.

The severe problem with interpretation is that there is interpretation. The umpires department lacks the courage of its convictions to referee the game according to the written rules.

"Now Nick, Iet me explain the rules of the game to you. I know as a professional footballer you may be unfamiliar with them. You can't be expected to know them! But I can't just adjudicate what you do according to the rule book. I have to nanny you too."

No stats, but it appears the only practical effect is that they concede territory.

Danger, when tackled, ALWAYS tries to go to ground to force a stoppage. He even does it when he only thinks he is about to get tackled, and ends up on the deck when he could have dished it off to a teammate. Last week against de Goey, half the reason for the "sling tackle" is that Danger was desperately TRYING to hit the deck. You would think a player as talented as Danger would not need to resort to this cheap and lazy tactic. The actual rule: 18.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT ... 18.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player makes any of the following Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player: ... (b) pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back; That's it. Talk about open to "interpretation". But how it can be considered legal for a player to be driven into the turf full length by another player on his shoulders is beyond me. Players lying on other players, rolling over players, driving other players into the turf, has been rampant and until this year, never got paid. Even this year it's one in about 100. Made even worse by the fact that they've backed off on their scorched earth "no talking back" bullshlt. And their crackdown on "360 holding the ball" never got past training sessions in the pre season. They have tried to crack down on throwing -- some have been paid this season! -- and holding the ball generally, but the lack of consistency seems to be worse than previous years. Why oh why are the umpires talking to the players at all? They've lost the plot when they have to explain decisions, nanny the players about the "protected zone", etc. Last week our friend Danger was taking a shot for goal after a mark. And trying to crib on the angle. The ump was trying to get him to move over. "Two metres, Patrick. Two meters. ..... Two metres. Two metres Patrick. Patrick!" Danger pretended not to hear. Finally he moved over. It makes the umps look stupid and weak. 18.8.2 Free Kicks - Umpires A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player or Official who: ... (e) fails to follow the instruction of an Umpire;