tiers

Weed played as a ruck to relieve Maxie. Jackson's spot. TMac should stay as a forward. He does more at ground level than Weed and we have enough marking strength already. Sorry for Weed but it is time the coaches figured out how to use him to his maximum advantage.

Back when this started there was a suggestion on this site that any player subbed out was definitely not available for the following game (allows for byes) and the player subbed in must be selected in the 22 for the following game. Teams will think twice before they try to game the system. Otherwise the system makes sense to try and ensure a fair contest of 22 v 22. Although it should only apply to match day injuries, not injuries (mostly soft tissue) that have not healed or are aggravated. Similar to cricket.

+1. Certainly the most versatile and capable ruckman and the most impactful leader (r 23 2021 and PF) in my time watching the dees (60+ years). Watch him as he acknowledges and encourages the team after every goal and great effort. In one final last year he ran down the ground to high five the defenders whilst we were lining up for goal. That's a leader.

All of them. There is a bakers' dozen (13) so I declare that there is now a Demons Dozen (44).

On a discussion show they mentioned that Ed's tag was not so much a run with and spoil but rather a positioning between Ed and the boundary so that he had less space to work in. I have only watched the replays of the 2nd and 3rd quarters in detail and it seemed to me that, whilst Ed was quieter than usual, his supposed tagger was quieter still and was not so close when Ed did win the ball. Ed plays his best when close to the boundary. Surely he would be just as effective running through the middle. His speed and ability to offer as an out for his team mates would be just as good. Let's confuse the oppos.

I have posted about this issue before but it seems that nothing will ever change. A differential of 94 frees between the two outlier clubs is concerning, more so because their numbers are twice that of the nearest clubs. Seven extra frees per game for the doggies and 6 fewer frees for the toiges is disturbing. What if it was us on the losing end? There has been some statistical analysis of the numbers showing that they are not as outrageous as they look but our great game does not readily withstand such extreme variations that clearly fail the pub/BBQ test. The AFL should/must investigate or the credibility of the umpiring will be lost.

That comment is offensive and disrespectful. They were the best three in those positions that we had at the time and they deserve our support and respect as Demon players. That they were not as successful as the current three might be due to the combination of the structure of the club, coaching, administration and player development. Who knows how they might have progressed with today's club.

We also have great option givers - player who run to places where the ball can be securely delivered. Best example is Petracca's goal.

Vision and decision making are the key elements of taking good options. I have noticed how Spargo and ANB, when in confined spaces, will always look for the best option and more often than not succeed for the teams benefit. As for taking good options, how about Fritsch's handball to Petracca. Both of them took the first and best option.

Petty, Bowey, Jordon, Sparrow, Rivers, Pickett and Jackson are all young players who have shown that they are close to best 22 in a premiership team. Too early for AA but they all show potential. And to think that they have many years to learn from playing with Gawn, Petracca, Oliver, May, Lever, Brayshaw, Langdon Spargo, ANB, Hunt and Harmes, experienced premiership players, who all still have many years to go. Add in Weideman and Smith who might still make it to the top. I cannot recall any other recent team that had so much potential to develop further. But let's keep it to one game at a time.

+1.

That explains a lot. Goody is/was smarter than we think. GO GOODY GO DEES

Viewing from one end is often the best vision for discerning ball and player movements. I would hope that the club has spotters high up at each end for all games to provide info for the coaches in the high level box. I believe that this is standard practice in american grid iron.

In schoolyard footy the free kick was paid for "around the neck" ie. a (coat)hanger style tackle. It was not for nominal "high tackle" or for "over the shoulder" or for any other euphemism for a tackle that might be above the waist but not dangerous at all. How many times have we seen players, especially ruckmen, in a contest where, as a result of the pushing and shoving, one hand slips on to the top of the shoulder and a free kick is paid. Why and what for? It is neither "around the neck" or a high "tackle". Just a stray hand without any impact on the contest. Time to do away with such technical style and strict liability free kicks and revert to the intent and spirit of our great game. I descending order of priority, free kicks should be paid to maintain the safety of the players; to encourage an even contest; and finally to enhance the spectacle of the game. If the roos' current position is any reflection on B Scott's efforts then please Gill make him return to coaching so he can't make a mess of the rules and our great game.

I have been attending amateur matches for over 50 years. There is regular, loud, critical commentary from over the fence (to be expected from partisan spectators) but this very rarely reaches the level of abuse of the umpires, mainly, I believe, because the adjudication by the umpires in the ammos is often better than senior footy. So far as I have seen, the ammos strictly enforce any complaints against the clubs.

As I recall the two players in recent times who kept running to a gap but were not used were Jack Watts and Simon Godfrey. Never stopped.

Probably because the coaching didn't/couldn't understand his strengths. Goody and the coaching team did. Perhaps also Goody sought him out for this role even through he wasn't playing this way at Freo. Speaks of good intuition, planning and development.

The recruitment of Ed Langdon has, in my opinion, been the most significant adjustment in our game plan that has brought us a flag and continued success in 2022. His up and down running has forced the whole team to adopt a "wave" pattern attack on the game like a reciprocating piston. The whole team moves up and then back as required to ensure solid coverage in all parts of the ground. Superior fitness and outstanding discipline are the keys. GO GOODY GO DEES

Freo's leading midfielders are Fyfe and Mundy, both on the way out in terms of age. No matter how hard they try to copy us, without players like Clarry, Trac, Gawn, Jackson, Viney, Langdon, Brayshaw, Sparrow, Jordon, ANB, Kozzie, who all have plenty of footy life left, rotating through the midfield they will be struggling. It's not just the system, it's the right players for the roles. We have them in place, no one else has.

This issue of demonstrative dissent is becoming murkier and murkier. Watching Robbo last night the folllowing questions were raised: If there is no free kick awarded but a player waves his arms, what happens next? 50m can't apply if there is no free kick, can it? Do they award a free kick anyhow for dissent? If player from both teams wave their arms, who gets to decide? First come, first served? If a player at CHB waves his arms about a free kick awarded, or not awarded, at CHF, what happens next? How far away from the incident does a player have to avoid a 50m penalty? Can the other 2 umpires award a 50m penalty for arm waving when they are not at the coal face, so to speak? What about those on the interchange bench? At what point is waving arms when on the mark considered to be dissent? Who the hell will judge? At what angle away from the body will it be considered "on the marK' and not dissent? Should Brad Scott revert to being a coach of a failed football team? Would it extend his career? Does Gill really want this fiasco to be his final rules act as AFL CEO? These are far too many questions that need sensible answers for this rule to continue to be implemented in accordance with the spirit of our great game. Currently our spirit is not happy at all and at a time when the demon spirit should be at its peak, it is being deflected by this absurd rule. Get rid of it in its current form. One last point. A 50m penalty is far, far too much for such stupid reactions. I have posted before that Sheedy put a stain on our great game and it is time for his stain to be cleansed. One further last point. The rules are far, far too complicated to adjudicate and there needs to be a greater emphasis on ensuring a safe, fair contest and move away from the ridiculous rules that do not derive from an unfair contest. If two players are both jostling for position in, say, a marking contest, unless one seriously interferes with the other, it should be play on. How often has one player been penalised for what the umpire could not see on the other side? Hand in the back without a push, slight jumper pull without affecting the contest are not legitimate reasons for a free kick to be awarded. They are big boys, let them contest. This will not end pleasantly. It is sad that our greatest era in nearly 60 years is being tarnished by stupid administration at the AFL.

Given the wealth of options available to the FD with respect to the backline, let's not rush Salem back into the side. Give him maximum time to recover and find fitness and only then, with an abundance of caution, slowly bring him back. He is too valuable to takes risks with.

I have already posted on this topic but I have time to reflect and reconsider how this fiasco could be rectified. In my opinion, hands out and rolling eyes is not disrespect or abuse and should not be penalised, especially with an over the top and at times cruelly imposed 50m penalty. The 50m penalty is a relic of Sheedy's days of gamesmanship when coaching the bombers and has always been a poor response to the then problem. Today it is an anachronism in a professional sport. My preferred option would be, as suggested in an earlier post, that incidences of abuse towards umpires be subject to a heavy monetary penalty to be decided after the game in a match review process. The monetary penalty should be in the $5k+ range for both the player involved and for the club. For repeat offenders who might scoff at the monetary amount, the number of transgressions would be totaled over a season and, if there are more than say 5 penalties, the club would lose 2 premiership points. A 2 point penalty would still allow a club to remain above other clubs with fewer wins but might relegate them to a lower ranking when compared to clubs with the same number of wins. Could affect finals or order in finals. Adopting this method will force the clubs themselves to police the players.

Protecting umpires from demonstrative and evident abuse or remonstrations is OK. However acts of frustration, disappointment, dismay, annoyance and similar sentiments by a player are not abuse and should not be penalised. Maxie's standard eye roll for unknown infractions are surely acceptable as is extending arms to stand on the mark. The status of umpires at this level should not be affected by occasional expressions of regret by players and the AFL should rapidly clarify what should be acceptable conduct. Otherwise the football world will slowly lose respect for umpires. These comments are directed only at the most senior levels of footy. At all other levels below AFL and perhaps VFL there should be zero tolerance for any response accompanied by a 25 m penalty and broader club penalties for repeat offenders. The place to eliminate poor behavior against umpires is at the level where the game is played.

The notion that the finding and the penalty is dependent on the extent of concussion to the player is totally unsatisfactory. The magic of our great game has, until quite recently, been that free kicks and penalties have been awarded from the contest, not from the outcome. What happens when a fair and timely bump causes a concussion? And what happens if a bone shattering bump that is marginally on the edge of the rules causes no ill effects? Based on the outcomes, is the first one a two week penalty at the tribunal and the second one maybe, but not certainly, a free kick only at most. What happens when a Ryder makes contact with a Daniels? It can only be head high but if the contact is within the rules what is the decision? Should Ryder withdraw? Or should Daniels withdraw to protect his own head? Where is this discussion leading? It's nuts. It might be time to reconsider the application of the rules. For example, should the rule be framed in such a way that any front on contact is penalised whereas any side contact is not? Could it be that the player who initiates the contact by driving his head into the body is penalised as suggested above? How to define front on will be the next consideration. Ryder was definitely front on but perhaps Rioli was not. How to define making contact will also be difficult. Here's a job for Gill in retirement. Rewrite the rules so that players, umpires, MRO, tribunal and spectators can clearly understand their intent and their application. When we were young in school we only need a few rules for a game - in the back, round the neck, trip, holding the ball and dropping the ball. I commend these simple rules and meanings as a starting point for Gill.

He led the league through two horror years of covid that ended with dees as premiers. For that alone he deserves our gratitude and thanks for a job well done.