Mazer Rackham

Larry Bell then?

Bob "Bridge Over Trouble Water" Dylan and Dion "Summertime Blues" DiMucci

Is that young Jake Bowey on your arm? Must have been playing on Hawkins. (Please tell it's it's on your arm.)

No wuckers mate. Or, as paraphrased by the Duke of Edinburgh: thou hast a desirable lack of fornicating angst, o my brothers.

In Association Football (you know, the code of football that has tried to reserve the word "football" as its own exclusive possession), there is no doubt. Last touch = other side gets possession. No ifs or buts. No reading players' minds. All the players know it and accept it. Of course the AFL loves reading players minds. So no chance of a clear cut rule, even if it's not as draconian as the one in Association Football.

The SANFL out of bounds rule: "The SANFL has decided to award a free kick against the team that kicks or handballs a ball out of bounds without being touched in a bid to lower the number of throw-ins and total stoppages. "Players won't be penalised if they spoil or carry the ball over the line unless the umpire deems the action to be deliberate." https://www.afl.com.au/news/92454/sanfls-bold-new-out-of-bounds-rule-and-50-rotations-per-game#:~:text=The SANFL has decided to award a free,the umpire deems the action to be deliberate. Meanwhile, harking back to ye ancient times ... 1911 laws: 7. When the ball goes out of bounds, it shall be brought back to the spot where it crossed the boundary line, and be there thrown in by the umpire towards the centre of the playing space. Immediately the ball leaves the umpire’s hands it shall be in play. Should the ball drop out of bounds from a kick-off, a free kick shall be given to the opposite side at the spot where the ball went out of bounds. (A kick-off meant after a behind was scored.) 1928 laws: Free Kicks 3 7. The field umpire shall blow his whistle and give a free kick against any player who: — ... (viii.) Kicks or forces the ball out of bounds without its being touched by another player, or takes the ball out of bounds, the free to be given to the nearest opponent. If the field umpire is in doubt he shall direct the boundary umpire to immediately bounce the ball five yards inside the boundary line. 1944 laws: FREE KICKS. 37. The field umpire shall blow his whistle and give a free kick against a player who:— ... (viii) Wilfully kicks or forces the ball out of bounds without its being touched by another player, the free to be given to the nearest opponent. In all other cases of the ball being kicked, forced or taken out of bounds, he shall direct the boundary umpire to immediately throw the ball in over his head towards the centre of the field to a distance of between 10 and 15 yards and not less than 10 feet high. After that, the next set of rules I have is from 2015, so not much use in terms of when they next changed out of bounds/out on the full. I think the "out on the full" rules was brought in because of Norm Smith and Brian Dixon. But clearly this has been on lawmakers' minds for a long time.

I think touched kicks should not be goals. Just remove the score review of them and leave it to the umps "just like in olden days". In this case the score review has not added to the game at all. Adopt the SANFL rule, which is roughly what Macca outlined above. Last clear possession. So much simpler, but the AFL have lost control of the refereeing of their sport and don't properly know why they have umpires at all.

No disrespect, it's harmless fun

How about Steven May in his first season when he was giving Frosty a big mouthful one game? At that point is was a question of: is the new boy overdoing it and upsetting team cohesion, or has Frosty buggered up and the new boy is setting standards? I think we know now!

You could also do one of these names for no 31 but the auto censor might arc up

Harking back to an earlier era ... Flobbie Rower

It's not costing them any money, so where's the problem? Also ridiculous: Caleb Daniel being swung 360 in a tackle while firmly holding on to the pill. Play on. Ball whisks down to the Dogs end for the goal that ties up the match.

I think the umpires try their best to do a good job. I think undesirable cultural elements have crept in ... Razor Ray chatting up a player before the game? Wrong and stupid. (Same as when he low-fived Angus.) It corrodes the integrity of the game. It goes two ways ... players egregiously mouthing off at umps for instance. I do not believe it is possible to umpire to the letter of the law when there is no letter of the law. What game apart from ours has "interpretations" of its laws? Where an action can lead to one outcome one week, but a different outcome another week, "correctly", when the wording of the law has not changed, but the "interpretation" has? "Interpretation" is possibly the biggest blight on our game and successive administrations and umpires departments have bought into it. It's just wrong and reveals the laws to be poorly framed. I don't blame the umpires for the dire state of the refereeing. I blame the AFL and the umpires department for losing sight of the fact that we want a game that's played fairly and adjudicated fairly. They think it's a reality TV show and BT and his clowns are the celebrity judges. Really, who would be an umpire in an environment where the game's custodians think you're a secondary concern?

Neale ran too far when scoring Lions' last goal. Bulldog players repeatedly ran 25 - 30m when kicking out after a behind. Dogs players, more than any other team, play to drop like a sack of spuds at first contact to win a ball up rather than holding the ball. (Correction: Geelong also do this.) Dogs players also seem to be coached to lead their opponent into the protected zone, then quickly peel off to leave him stranded and giving away 50. The oppo seem to know it and are careful, but the Dogs got a 50 last night from this. Ironic, as the Dogs themselves casually strolled through the "protected" zone multiple times. Dogs are clearly coached to exploit the way the game is umpired. Throwing, dropping, other smartarse tricks like the above one. Imagine full time, professional umpires who spent their days analysing and learning of trends in the game like that. Who weren't lawyering or grave digging Monday to Friday and then showing up to a big occasion game only to be blindsided by coaches who eat, breathe, sleep, dream football 25x8. (Not to mention learning how far 15m is, and how to bounce the ball.) But no, we can't have that, because two or three highly-paid lawyer/umps simply have to retain their highly-paid day gig, otherwise they'd be LOST TO THE GAME. Really, could the standard get any worse than it is? Maybe making umpiring a vocation would mean some good umps would be FOUND TO THE GAME?

Absolutely brain melting, the inconsistency between what the umps see as a free kick to the Dogs versus play on for the Lions. God the Lions missed Hipwood. Playing a man short with big Joe on the ground.

The Cats just seem to collect these unpleasant fellows, or maybe it's just that their worst nature is brought out in that environment. Who in the Geelong FC could possibly be encouraging sooking, whingeing, appealing to umps, "unsociable football", etc?

"CAN'T YOU SEE THE NUMBER 14 ON MY BACK!?!?"

Let's see ... intentional, high contact, low impact. That's 3 points, which means mentions of "captain courageous", "warrior", "good bloke" and "he wouldn't mean to do something like that" in the media this week.

LAWS OF THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL GAME OF FOOTBALL Issued by the Victorian National League 1944 PART I. INTERPRETATIONS AND DEFINITIONS. 1. In these Laws, unless inconsistent with the context or some ether meaning: is clearly intended: ... Handball. (6) Handball is where the ball is clearly held in one hand and knocked with the other hand.

1.1 DEFINITIONS Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of it by hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand. And now the umps allow a scooping motion which more clearly resembles a throw than hitting or tapping. That's crept in this season for no good reason. They're happy to read players' minds when it comes to whether they meant to keep the ball in play or not. But they're too timid to call something which is obvious and is not clearly "hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand" Oh, for the day when we get an umpires' director who understands that we want a sport that is played and adjudicated fairly, not a reality TV show, with celebrity judges, that is manipulated for ratings.

Just to keep the soap opera going .... MALTHOUSE

Yes, they would be, except for the ones who wouldn't be. Every coach appointment is a risk. Very few clubs, if any, will pin their future on a proven dubious track record.

And if you're not? What board is going to entrust their precious list, supporter goodwill, sponsor goodwill, etc, not to mention a minimum 2 years of everyone's life, to a coach who failed last time around? On the off chance that maybe this time he'll come good. A board would look at that as setting themselves up to fail. It's resignation time if Mr Failed Coach (Maybe Not) turns out to be Mr Failed Coach (Actually Yes).

Nathan has already had his fairytale ending, by getting to 300 games with dignity, instead of retiring as the guy who embarrassed himself against the Swans in his last game of 2020.

Jones: "SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THERE'S A CHANCE"