Mazer Rackham

Mentored by Dawes perhaps. Needs Choco Williams to get in his head, make him believe. He has the ability.

Don't say they don't have any degree of culture. Seen on a Collingwood fan forum: fan 1: "Did ya see Pendles on the weekend? He played so loose, no one could get beer him." fan 2: "Sidey neither. No one could get beer him neither." fan 3: "How about Daics? No one could get beer him neither." fan 4: "Did youse ****s get beer? I couldn't even get in the ground. Some **** locked us out." fan 5: "Yeah, we was locked out. Couldn't get beer the Ponsford stand!" fan 6: "Ya reckon Nafan Buckley will win the Brownlow this year?" fan 7: "Hows about this: no one could get beer de Goey."

Challenge accepted. "I like to relax with a half skinny/half almond soy milk double shot Tchai kovsky, with caramel syrup, when listening to death metal." That's the best I can do. Sorry.

Would have to drop Melksham, so would be a waste of list & cap space

Schubert: nuggety, short, round, rover type. Talented with the ball, good on either side of the body. Poetry in motion but never took care of his body due to too much alcohol consumption in season. Little known fact, he wrote every clubs' song. Hayden: prolific scorer. Beethoven: stingy defender. Holds record amongst "classical" era composers for total weeks suspended. Reinvented the way the game is played. Could have been a great coach but would never listen to his assistants.

Hear, hear. She's a solid reporter and seems to have good contacts, but ultimately, she's not a sports reporter. She's a society reporter or gossip columnist. More interested in who hates whom and what happened in such-and-such a scandal, than in why MFC are on top or why Buckley can't get his troops firing.

The umps in the Pies game allowed a plethora of short kicks and "protected zone" invasions. They might not like the rules (and let's face it, some of them are bad rules) but they don't get to decide which ones to enforce and which ones not. The AFL don't care.

"She was in everywhere where it was rough and hard, boys. Using just her one arm. Of course she got pinged all the time for incorrect disposal 'cause she couldn't handpass. So she adapted, boys, she learned. She taught herself to throw the ball instead. Now I want youse all to go out and remember that hero, that lady, and throw that ball as hard and as long as youse can!!"

Word of advice: don't waste your time going to the 'G today. Horrible game.

Don't worry, you wouldn't enjoy it.

They'll get those 5 goals back in 10 minutes of good footy. At match sim training on Tuesday. If Buckley had any sense of decency, he'd get them up to beat the Cats & their next opponent, to help drum up a crowd for Queen's birthday, and also to get his contract extended. Hopefully for another 10 years.

Who's this no 26? Is he any good?

We're all too sloshed to remember

A few samplings from their equivalent page: "I can highly recommend the Five Dragons. Yez can play all rows of the reels on every roll an' change the credit rate any time yez like." "The Lightning Cash machine at the Auburn RSL pays out jackpots more than any other machine in the joint. I should know coz I've been on the machine next to it every bloody time!" "If yez play Emerald Fortunes at Crown, the payout percentages are higher than any other joint in Melbourne. But don't tell no-one or they'll prob'ly fix it."

Martell Cordon Blue "Extra Old" Baron Otard "XO Gold" Chabot XO armagnac Couvoisier VSOP and Camus Ile de Re, which is no good -- I soak cumquats in it for 3 months to make a pretend Grand Marnier.

Oh, Lord. I hesitate to tell you how this turned out. But they weren't on top of the ladder at the end of it.

Totally agree. The last few weeks -- since Richmond -- we've been learning to cope with being the hunted. Prior to that we were the ones who had to be "up" each week. Now it's our opponents psyching themselves up for a big effort against the ladder leaders. We'll learn to cope with that in time. But no way will we be coasting tonight.

Dwayne really is not the sharpest. Listeners often call up to make a point and unless it's something very obvious, it many times goes right over his head, and the caller's wasted half and hour of their life waiting on hold to talk talk to a brick wall.

Korda's calling the drive for an EGM a "coup" in a letter to supporters that didn't go to members but to the Hun, when he's on a board who just parachuted in someone not eligible to be a director, and whose ex-president bragged about not having an election in 23 years. He's clearly all about due process. Slowly tearing themselves apart.

No cigarette? Richmond match committee now excitedly planning that exact thing. Hardwick reminiscing about punching MFC players in the throat.

All time? I thought Alfred Thornton and Harold Moriarty were pretty good back in 1885.

Lethlean's gone and so has his interpretation, it seems. Because that's not the written rule (now or then). But which players? The one who disposed of it, or all players? "Likely" to get a free kick? Even the interpretation needs interpretation. The whole point is that the rules have to be interpreted because they're poorly worded and practically create anomalous situations. If the frees were tripled (and I don't think they would be -- if the first free is paid, the other two don't happen), then so be it -- it would reveal the underlying dogs breakfast. Umpires in the past didn't seem to have such a hand wringing experience as the current mob. I know the game is faster, etc, but that doesn't account for all the amazing clangers we see week in and week out. Tightening up the rules would in effect be doing this. (But who trusts the AFL to tighten them the right way? Ruck circle, third man up, deliberate OOB, protected zones ... the only one they've got right is this season's standing the mark and that appears to be an accident given it was untried and rushed in.)

They are so well mannered they only give half moons? Such good breeding!

I ask (rhetorically, not of you) what use is a rule that requires "interpretation"? Incident A happens this week and results in a free, but the same incident last week didn't. The week before it was something else again. Yet the rule stayed the same. A rule that requires "interpretation" is a poorly framed rule. (We see shades of this "interpretation" nonsense in the match review department, where Christian doesn't know if he's coming or going. He's the one who needs a concussion test.) In the umpires' defence (God strike me down) no one understands it because it has holes in it you could drive a truck through. "Interpretation" is required to fill in the gaps. Rule does not say what happens if another player allows the ball go out. Just some feelgood about "best intentions". The umpire on the spot gets to invent the outcome. Rule also does not say what happens if the ball is deflected. All of bigfooty and most of the media convinced themselves that Spargo touching it (if he did -- vision was about as good as most goal review replays) meant it couldn't be deliberate. But the rule is silent on that point. No-one understands the rule! Not even the people who wrote it. "Interpretation" is a bogus concept and it's one of the great con jobs that the AFL has everyone from Gil, Shocking, clubs, coaches, players, media and fans, accepting it as a normal part of the game. I'd like to know when it first reared its ugly head. It's a joke and a travesty. It's like being at a school where the English teachers can't spell, and the maths teachers can't do arithmetic, and the school manages to convince the pupils and parents that that doesn't matter & it's a normal part of schooling ..... and those pupils & parents accept it as a frustrating but unavoidable part of the school experience. "Interpretation" is utter bull-sh*t and should be eradicated from the game.

Well, they would, because they've completely lost sight of what the [censored] they're supposed to be doing in the umpires' department. They're bereft of direction and Shocking is incapable of providing any. High scoring game with a close finish: must be good. That game, our deplorable skill errors aside, felt like in every incident the umps were tossing dice. 1,2 = Crows free 3,4 = Demons free 5,6 = play on. Regardless of what was actually happening. I watched the Pies/Power game yesterday and it was also horrendous. The most obvious frees going on right in front of the umps' noses. Play on. Then when they did pay a free ... "hang on ... why then did you NOT pay that same thing down the other end a few mintes ago???"