Deemania since 56

Horrible! Best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery, SPC, from us all.

Brilliant!

Holistically, they sure did! Saw it appearing in the first, second and third quarters where we built a lead in the game by an impressive margin - with an allegedly 'lesser side' than Geelong. With a 'lesser' game plan. The final quarter decisions almost en masse were the icing on the intended cake.

It would almost seem as if the decisions that they dish out during the game are not actually legitimate but work to even the score by keeping a team like Geelong in contact...and that the umpires do not pay these decisions as frequently in the critical last quarters because the intended result would be in jeopardy.

Just presume that we did make the finals and yes, Geelong were the team we played against in the first round as you suggest.(I mean, it is a possible scenario, even now.) Could we also presume with any legitimacy that the umpires might suddenly improve in their balance of decisions between MFC and GFC? Would the umpires do so more fairly, consistently and not so blatantly affect the outcome of the game - or prevent a Geelong loss through their inteference? Whaddya reckon?

One likes to be seen to associate with footballers and showers them with soft-touch decisions, and the other likes to shower with footballers capable of deciding who is a soft touch.

''Atta boy! How are we supposed to sit back to accept a 'nice loss' when supporters start out with limited hope of a win. That is the second time in one season that we have been nuzzled out of a win against Geelong - and it is not good enough. Mental toughness is critical to sealing a game and win/loss is all that matters at the end of the day. We do not even get a fair shake of the saveloy to inspire the team to a higher plane - the AFL/umpires appear against it. Many of our opponents seem to be able to sense preferences onfield and are permitted by selective attention and rule stretching to do as they might please to 'extract' a contributed win.

Not sure about the 'we' bit but there are exceptions, obviously.

B: Weideman Frost Jetta HB: Salem Pedersen Jones Mid: TSmith Brayshaw Fritsch HF: Petracca TMac Melksham Fwd: Garlett Hogan Spargo R: Gawn Oliver Tyson Int: Wagner Vince ANB vandenBerg

He's probably on a bonus pay system for every goal he kicks ...

Sadly, it may also mean these two may not actually disappear - as these should. If the AFL have said that '...no more rule changes...' will take place, then scrapping a rule is a change and thus, will not take place. What the AFL does when it has these genius moments is pile heaps of controversy down the track without thought of the consequences, the implications and the net effect to the stability of the game. There are talented people who have played football at the top level - these are the people who should be leading and regulating the AFL - immediately.

Well, why not? Errors permitted lead to acceptable stains on the game. The precedent has been set by Dangerfield! All approved.

They will do absolutely nothing about it! It was definitely staged free, for which the Geelong team - as one of quite a few clubs in this regard - is so adept at 'pulling' in some annoited opinions of some equally annointed umpires. It has now become a standard part of the game for which the 'lesser' teams of recent footballing history pay dearly. This game last Saturday against Geelong had 'constructed' victory written all over it with several, highly obvious umpiring decisions 'shaping' rules violations to the distinct advantage of a Geelong win. It is impossible to believe that a selected umpire or two, working in tandem, did not see or evaluate or be concerned of a rule violation where a legitimate penalty would apply (had it not been Geelong playing against the MFC); key evidence of confirming examples of this wilful rules abuse to the advantage of Geelong in the last quarter of this game include: the penalty against Gus with a staging Dangerfield, and its outcome the kicking in danger of Harmes' hand and wrist for a goal (Ablett?) the penalty against Harmes for running into the protected zone on a Geelong mark despite indicating clearly that he was already located in that position at the time of the mark and was moving carefully outside that zone in compliance with the rules of the game, and its resulting goal. An official review is essential although now, nothing can be done to right these wrongs, and Geelong know it.

Of all places, heard it on a train from some yobbos. Not going myself, until the Dees win a few.

Don't, rumours are around Adelaide, already. Buy a seat or watch it on Foxtel.

By now, you should be aware that Geelong, Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon can do anything against the rules if it is to their advantage and moreso if it enables a quick, scoring return. I think that one as you describe is a non-decision once again that was purposefully ignored. Accountability?

After all of the complaints and concerns expressed so far this season on DL, it remains an enigma that had the MFC received a fairer shake from the umpires this year, converting disfavour into a capacity to lose games at the discretion of the White Brethren, so many times - and to lose games due to a lack of momentum on this unfair playing field - we would be: on top of the ladder at present in no danger of going very deep into September and when on a roll like that, being the Club of choice for the new recruits and free agent masters of the game

But the internal clocks of the players at that stage of the game (at least within the last 10 mins) echo: Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick, Tick and why not? The umpires delay the ball-ups until the MFC opposition are in place, the Geelong players delay frees and marks being taken as we go forward, and the Filth have radio-controlled tiny handpieces linked directly with the timekeeper with the siren button that indicate: 'Siren, now! Siren, now!' should they be ahead any time after 24 mins in the final quarter.

Balance? That is precisely what is missing!!!! So let's play better without the balancing acts of the unsure.

Great! Still would get a kick, too. Just imagine improving our backline with the return of Hibberd and Lever, then call upon Pert and Roos to re-plan and work through a backline development stronger than Fort Knox.

Whilst he is fit, more mobile and ready, it is about time Pedo came in! Roles await forward and back. Provides talls/big swaps in functions and he is a core focal plane for winning games. Next, we need to get Vanders back into the team. Wagner, as well, for multiple roles but replacing Lewis is a key role. Kent, as well, ASAP.

Selective attention from umpires under instructions is the cause of this malaise ... how many times has it occurred in the past five years? (I am unable to keep count of these outcomes this year, as it is.) Gus suffered Sat night, Hogan suffered Sat night, Harmes suffered Sat night, etc, etc, etc.

Recovery is the key for Jones, recovery from each stint of effort and a series of smaller stints. Lewis is in the same category, only worse off - it is an age thing, muscular and O2 tirednesses/lactic acid saturation. There is no place on the ground these days for recuperational resting; that is the difficulty. Played off an on the bench, the recovery can be achieved and thus, it is yet another factor in the strategic (and highly valuable) use of the bench for 'sudden impact' players. Without doubt, Jones is still one of these types of players and bloody effective, at that. Lewis is less impacting, less recoverable, as well and thus, less effective. My thoughts are that Jones needs to be the first cab in the rank for the weekly bench allocation. We must think of the bench in new ways, as well. It is not a 'sin bin' for lapsing players or those selected in the team after someone better is listed as onfield. It should be a place for the application of instant changes to the game - refreshed players with dynamic skills that may be well utilised at any given moment in a game. These categories of player value and bench utilisation really characterise Jones' latter years and football value. The 'reserves' on the bench are saturated with big picture, current images of the state of the game at any given point, assessing and measuring the performances of the team as a whole, additionally in specific positions/plays, and in the assessment of opponents' strengths and weaknesses onfield. In Army terms, I'd see Jones as the perfect assault pioneer flanking and impacting the state of the game at key points of application.

Probably would still win a kick or two, a few sore heads and a free kick!

Jack and Eric wouldn't think so....how else might they have come up with 'Sunshine of Your Love'?