Kit Walker

The call by Bruce was the correct one, the execution by Meesen was incorrect. If you watch that passage of play, Meesen's next kick should have been a short-medium length forward kick to Bruce (how's that for irony) who had led to a position in the clear about 30 metres away towards the centre of the ground while 15 metres in the clear. It would have been the correct option and better than a 50 metre kick to a contest on the boundary. Retaining possession does not necessarily equal kicking backwards. To have continued up the line would have been stupid. Had the proper decision been made, it would have opened up space on the opposite side of the ground.

Both of those occurred in the second quarter. The first was a contested mark and he used excellent body positioning to take what was effectively in the end a chest mark on his right hand side. Probably a 60/40 ball. The second one simply went about a metre and a half over his head. Just a poor kick to a player 10-15 metres in the clear. I remain to be convinced (both in consistency of workrate and skill level), but this wasn't the game to have a go at him after. Have seen games where he went to ground too easily or seemed to give up - yesterday, there were definite second and third efforts.

The only one that I would definitely tag is Deledio. We don't have a midfielder that is in the ballpark of him at the moment for skill/potential impact so it would be madness to go head to head.

Then it is equivalent to a driving whilst disqualified charge. Same legislation, just a different section if you'd like to look that up. Only applies to people who have already lost their licence - losing a right to do something they otherwise would have had. Not that difficulty really. You were not questioning the effectiveness, you said repeatedly that it was impossible. I have provided you with numerous evidence but you have chosen to ignore what has actually been done in the UK and elsewhere and replaced it with an opinion based on nothing. Not your finest work. There was no point made. Laws are obeyed by people who don't break them. Those who break them are punished. Adequacy is often a matter of resourcing and this can be done if there is the will of the government, venues and sports involved. Again, overseas experience proves this. You claim I have no evidence then produce absolutely nothing but an unjustified opinion. Did you read the essay I linked? You stated it was impossible, not that it would be ineffective without sufficient money and resources. That is what I have said all along in this thread. Banning orders are something that are effective as much in the observance rather than the breach. Probably more so. Not what I have said at all. But you read what you want, you're obviously going to anyway.

How do you know drink driving legislation works? By looking at the level of fatalities/injuries caused by alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. The same rationale applies. BTW, these measures are regularly supported by the Fleet St press, hardly the least inquisitive or opinionated lot. But they must be believing the spin too...... You accuse me of coming up with a simplistic view and then post this. Remarkable. As I've said (and posted a link to a lengthy essay on the subject), there is evidence that banning orders can be appropriately policed and monitored. Why would anyone report that Peter Hore has not attended a sporting event? Again past experience would tell us that if he was at one, he'd be either causing trouble or desperately trying to drum up publicity. Is it not better to do something that may have an effect than do nothing in the knowledge that it won't? A comparison of the level of crowd violence in UK (and European more generally) soccer would show you that there has been a substantial decrease over the past 10 or 20 years. As for coralling entry, that may occur in European Cometition (UCL etc.), but it doesn't and couldn't happen in say London where there are a myriad of clubs. You are never going to get them all, the same as you will never catch every drink driver or murderer, but there are steps that can and should be taken to catch some which will provide a deterrent to others.

Presumably you meant to use the word "infallible" when describing it as a tool. I didn't say it was infallible, but rather that it can be successful if used correctly. Old Trafford has a capacity of about 76 000, the Camp Nou has a capacity of about 98 000, and the Millenium Stadium has a capacity of about 73 000. What you have described as impossible is utilised at all three. If what you said about laws was correct, then we wouldn't have any. It is the penalty that has both the deterrent and the punishment aspect. Either people obey the law, or they are punished repeatedly and more severely each time. That is how the whole legal system works. Otherwise you may as well throw your arms in the air and live as a hermit in the Alaskan wilderness. As for the last point, you highlighted one sentence while completely ignoring the following one which qualified it. Also see that you didn't answer that particular question. Even a cursory search of the internet will show you instances in the UK where people have been charged and convicted of breaching "banning orders".

He wouldn't be my vote for the toughest of all time (ridiculously difficult question btw), but in recent times, I think Jason Porplyzia would be right up there. His efforts last year playing with a shoulder that would dislocate every 5 minutes was an outstanding demonstration of toughness over an extended period.

Take another look. It gets updated reasonably quickly when news comes to hand.

The 16 weeks (4 months give or take) was the length of time estimated on the Melbourne website. I'm not sure where they get a lot of their information from, but generally when I've looked at it, the estimates and injury descriptions have been reasonably accurate.

If operated properly, CCTV can and should be used to prevent incidents, stop those that are in progress, and to investigate the aftermath. And CCTV is one tool that is used along with the vigilance of security, police and to some degree, the general public. As I've written previously, it is difficult but it is not impossible. The experience overseas shows us that. Soccer Hooligan Article Unfortunately this is a very long article, and some of the measures used are far in excess of what is required here, but it does highlight in particular the use of "spotters" and the assistance of supporter groups. Given the reaction of the vast majority of Collingwood fans to this particular incident, that is not unrealistic in my view. Your argument regarding legislation is fallacious, and quite frankly disturbing. There are two rationales for criminal penalties, deterring the individual and deterring the rest of society. Even if the individual is not deterred, the majority of society will not act in this type of manner because of either their general lawfulness, or the fear of the penalty. Those that do are punished accordingly. We don't know for certain if Peter Hore has subsequently attended venues from which he has been banned. But when was the last time you saw an article or news report showing him making a nuisance of himself?

I'm not sure of the CCTV coverage at the MCG, particularly outside the ground and there has been no statements one way or the other as to whether the alleged assault was recorded. Either way, I would expect that any video coverage would be much more significant inside. Titan is right in saying that it is difficult, but it really is no different from banning a person from any other venue, just that the scale is larger. It can also work by legislation enforcing an exclusion zone (say 500 metres) from the venue between certain dates/times. To say that it cannot be done is incorrect though, because it is done elsewhere in stadia of comparable size to the MCG. It just hasn't been in Australia as yet (as far as I know) - although there was talk about Peter Hore being banned from a number of venues a few years ago.

He's talking about losses this year so we don't win more than 4.

They do it in soccer quite regularly in Europe. I'm not sure of the mechanics of it, but I believe they use CCTV and reports from the public as well. Generally if these people do something bad enough to warrant a banning order, they are recognisable enough that someone will notice and dob them in, even if they do get through the front gate. I believe they would then be charged with criminal trespass as well. The English have additional legislation on top of this as I understand it for further penalties.

You wouldn't look at either Dunn or Bail for Bennell. Haven't seen the Collingwood game yet, but he didn't quite look physically mature enough in the North game for me.

It depends on what is meant by a pedestrian midfield. Sydney's has been so successful because they are so good at locking down the play then winning the clearances. No one would ever accuse them, as a group, of being overly quick though. I think you overestimate the strength of Sydney's list and underestimate Roos' coaching ability in making them into a team that came within a whisker of winning two flags. They were clearly inferior to West Coast, in terms of sheer ability at least, but made up for that largely by the tactics employed (in my view at least). Must say I did have a chuckle at the comment that Kirk is not an elite midfielder though. Would be an absolute walk up starting 18 player in any side in the competition, and quite possibly the best captain in the league as well.

You were spot on. Shocking news.

The AFL won't force anyone who is uncontracted to go. That said, if they don't really want to go, chances are they'll have signed a contract won't they......

Where was the criticism? And where is the value in not keeping members/supporters informed about injury decisions?

If that's the case, then surely you can share exactly what the problem is......

I had Frawley in my best 6 for Melbourne this week. Thought he was very good both with and without the ball.

From our defensive kick-ins, I thought we were much improved from last year. The use of short kicks and handballing triangles were much more effective than the blind kicks to 60m out that were a feature of last year's play. There were some risks taken, but that is how you have to play to try to beat a zonal defence.

The evidence that he can take "good strong marks" is thin on the ground at the moment. That said, he did contest well yesterday while permanently outnumbered, which unfortunately is not something that could be said about Bate. He's no chance of being dropped on yesterday's form, although he simply has to make the most of his opportunities when he is having a shot for goal.

I would be surprised if at least one of Dunn, Martin or Meesen doesn't make the bench, simply for the reason of "team balance". Of those three, Dunn would be my choice as the most versatile, and probably the best at this point.

Round your signature up Jaded! <_<

Or the journo mistook Bailey saying "Jetta" for "Jurrah".....