Jumping Jack Clennett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Watching the Burns goal live ,at normal speed, I wasn't 100% sure it was a goal, but thought the replay would be interesting. After the slo mo replay, it was obviously a goal, and I wondered how the Ump could make such a stupid error. Then they replayed it at normal speed, and I could see how the goal ump erred. It was a tough decision at that speed. I thought it was grossly unfair of the commentators to write off that goal ump. saying "he should never again be allowed to officiate at an AFL match." Goal umpires take a pride in their job, and guys who make it to the AFL have had to show a lot of diligence and good judgment to get there.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Surely you realise that if you're not interested in a topic, you don't have to read it. Why belittle a poster for raising a subject which many posters find interesting and important? It's conceivable that posters could make suggestions which the football dept. could consider worthwhile. I'm sure they occasionally refer to the unofficial websites.( Mark Riley sent me a personal email when he was at Melbourne, in response to one of my posts on point kick-ins).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree that we take too long. Watch Coll. and Geelong. The kicker-in runs to collect the ball and quickly gets it back into play before the opposition have time to fully set their zones. But James Strauss???? Did you watch him at Casey? Gave two goals away with misplaced short kick-ins. I really hope this guy makes the grade, but at present he doesn't get the ball enough, and his kicking is far from infallible.

The MCC is running the election for the committee members whose time has expired.We have to pick 3 out of 5 candidates. It seems to me the best candidates from the MFC's perspective are .....Stephen Smith, Steven Spargo and Jane Nathan. Do other Demonlanders agree? Does anyone have any strong feelings, or inside information? There must be quite a significant numbrer of MCC/MFC members who read this forum. I think it's vital we have a fruitful relationship with the MCC>

Dean Bailey is about to be interviewed by KB on 1116 SEN radio. I t might be worth a listen.

What's happened to "Gizzards?" Is it 4 to 6 weeks?

Useful!!! But remember round 1 in 2008(I think). The Hawks had at least 3 stars out suspended(?Buddy , Brown and Hodge), and several other injuries. We thought we were a good chance because of it. They walloped us by over 100 points.Bateman ran wild. But we've put up good efforts against Hawthorn about every 2nd meeting, without winning. I reckon we've improved now.(wait a minute....we have to beat the in-form Tigers for it to matter!) Meanwhile, did I hear correctly that Harvey will be playing his 300th against us in round 22? I hope he misses a game or 2 before that. We don't want that little stager giving them extra incentive. Especially after some derogatory comments from him in the media about us.

When we started watching the game tonight, my 8 yr. old said......"oh no!.......we're not in that horrible white uniform again! We never do well in that!". Thank heavens we overcame the hoodoo!

I don't think you're correct worrying about the "little dash being perceived as breaking the line and playing on." The mark is 50 m. further on, straight toward the goals. As long as the recipient continues on that line, for less than 50 m., he's not off. Also, I'm dead sure it's more advantageous to the attacking side for the ball to arrive inside 50 m. unexpectedly quickly, than for the defenders. Also, Rhino, with respect to trying to benefit from the advantage rule,I don't know the exact wording of the rules, but from my observation, the umps pay 50 when the players actually KICK the ball, not if they run, bounce and handball. (when they play on, incorrectly assuming that the free has been paid to their side).Collingwood do this all the time, and I've never seen them penalised. ps I've never known you to agree with me about anything, but I agree with your comments on tattoos in the Dane Swan thread.

I notice poor Dane Swan was the victim of an unprovoked attack at a nightclub on Saturday night. Could any Demonlanders refresh my memory about another incident involving Dane and street violence about 4 years ago?

There is one slight downside to automatically trying for the advantage. If advantage is NOT paid,and it IS our free, the ball has to be brought back, and time is wasted allowing the defence to set up. However, on balance, I'm sure we should ALWAYS be on the look-out to take the advantage from frees outside the 50m. arc. When the free is in easy kicking range, the "advantage taker" has to show good judgment whether or not he's a better chance on the run than the set shot.

When a player is awarded 50 metres, the first thing he should do is RUN LIKE HELL straight towards the goals .Too often our players jog up to the new mark, allowing the opposition to organise their defence. Though it may only apply once or twice in a match, it may be worth a goal each time, due to the panic it can cause opposition defenders. Another "one-percenter" is to ALWAYS try for the advantage when we have a free-kick. Inexperienced opponents sometimes momentarily hesitate when the whistle blows for a free, allowing the possibility of a breakaway. Here's a unique opportunity to try the ambitious handball over the top, to run and take a couple of bounces or attempt to baulk a couple of defenders. If it doesn't come off....no sweat, there was no "advantage" so the ump SHOULD call it back. If the ball somehow gets to a player out in the open, a dangerous attack should result. Of course it's too dangerous to KICK the ball in these circumstances, in case the free is going the other way. So players should run on and bounce the ball a couple of times, or handball, but don't KICK the ball until the word "ADVANTAGE" is heard from the Umpire. Another benefit is that in the case of the free going to the opposition, it takes a while to bring the ball back, allowing defensive zones to be set.(I notice Collingwood frequently do this)

I love the trumpeter(s). But why the Collingwood scarf?

Did other Demonlanders notice the underhanded ploy by the Tassie Hawks pretty-boy, Bateman on Sat. v. Geelong? Geelong's Burns was trapped in the centre square under a pile of Hawks on his back, and penalised for holding the ball. Any one of about 5 Hawks equally would have qualified for the free, but the ump nominated one, not Bateman. When the dazed Burns was able to stand up after they all got off his back, Bateman beckoned him to throw him the ball, which he did, assuming it must have been HIS free. But no.....he'd thrown it to the wrong player! The result....50m., goal!!! Should we resort to this type of deviousness? Is it worth employing this type of tactic to try to convert a free in the centre square to an easy shot for goal. Also, we should be alert to this, and be clear WHOSE free it is(it's usually anyone's guess!), before throwing the ball back.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- this a dangerously useless statistic.

I'd be ashamed to see a Melbourne player punching an opponent in his broken arm when the ball is up the other end. Yes,it's ruthless, and winning is all-important. But if you can,t win a premiership without such unsporting tactics, you don't deserve one. Ling's an effective negative spoiler, but he doesn't resort to gutter tactics. People like Baker and Judd deserve to have heavy suspensions.

I just watched the replay of the first quarter. All of Collingwood's 4 first quarter goals were direct results of poor kick-in tactics. I think this is of crucial significance in the result of this match.

You'd HAVE to vote for "Flash" after the Collingwood game today.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ OK, "dee-luded", would you like me to change the title to "Kicking in from Behinds". If you're not interested, don't read it. Dean Bailey talked a lot about point kick-ins in his after-match press conf. today. At last HE seems to be taking an interest, and he emphasised the importance of kicking in quickly.

We must develop a better strategy to defend opposition kick-ins. Collingwood were lethal today. When Aaron Davey took over our kick-ins, we did much better. Like Collingwood, he kicks in quickly, and often to long options.

Essendon lost by 71 points tonight. They'd find it much harder down at Kardinia Park with almost NO Ess supporters, on the long thin ground. Oh, but I forgot. Ess, Coll and Carlton don't have to play down there. No Mooney or Hawkins, either. Great effort Bombers.

I reckon it's interesting. This topic rouses no interest on Demonland. It seems it's the same with the footy dept.as far as point kick-ins go. No interest. No tactical change . No innovation. The result???? We play at an enormous disadvantage to the other teams, who regard the opposition scoring a point as a turnover in possession and a chance to set up an attack. I do not think it is a lack of skill in our players compared to the other teams. It may be a lack of running......small "engines" in younger players, but we're not much younger than a lot of the sides(eg Haw.,North, and Coll.)who seem to be much more active,running around providing options when they're kicking in. Have I underestimated the thought put into this aspect of play by the footy dept? Do I over-estimate the importance of kick-ins.? I know that one is much more liable to notice errors and defects in one's own team, but I watch non-Melbourne games on TV with a relatively open mind, and I keep thinking we're deficient in comparison. I know I seem obsessed by this, and bring it up over and over again, but I can't help feeling it's of crucial significance.

I think that Mark Jamar, despite his excellent year in 2010, is too predictable in his hit-out tactics. He always palms the ball back and to the left(even if this means the ball goes into the opposition goal-square.) It becomes easy for opposition midfielders to anticipate, and "shark" his hit-outs if he doesn't vary it. And he should NEVER tap the ball into the opposition goal-square!

I felt that our inability to clear the ball from defence after Carlton points, plus our inability to stop Carlton surges into attack after our points, were important factors in our downfall on Saturday. Do any other Demonlanders think this may have been of significance? I do not think our players lack the skill to perfect this art, or at least do it as well as Carlton. I think we should watch replays, study Carlton's zones, and the way they by-passed our zones. We should then attempt to copy them against Collingwood. We wouldn't do worse than our tactics against Carlton.