Mel Bourne

Concussion for Langdon? Damn!

Shellacking the Tigers then thumping the Dogs! Does that make us giant-killers? No. IT MAKES US GIANTS!

Weideman was extremely lucky not to give away that free kick. What is he doing out there?

I think you’re being pretty generous suggesting that five dropped marks is a good thing.

To his credit, he nearly got a goal with that handball.

Hey, it turns out we can replace Sam Weideman with.....nobody. And we still go alright.

Are we certain we won’t be getting the 70s-sitcom-style “crowd” tonight?

Will they be dusting off the old “crowd noise” button for this one?

Agreed. There are many more legitimate criticisms that can be levelled at him than this.

What would have been an idea (months ago) was to put stranded citizens in “hot” countries on a form of jobkeeper from a distance. The majority of people who needed to return were stuck for financial reasons. Keep them there, but keep them financially supported.

Oh no, didn’t take it that way. But the comparison of fully-vaccinated Americans vs Australians really does serve to illustrate just how inept the government has been at both rolling the vaccine out, and getting the messaging right. And of course our ever-degrading media have been dreadful with their insatiable appetite for content. This blood-clot narrative is on them. I’m not suggesting blood-clots don’t occur (extremely infrequently) due to the vaccine, but when was the last time you saw a news story/article about clots relating to the contraceptive pill? You simply don’t, because it’s not “interesting” enough, even though the risk is significantly higher. I could go on about this, at times, pathetically apathetic country and it’s so-called “leadership”... Excuse my spleen. For a bunch of personal reasons, this particular lockdown has timed even worse than the other ones and I am fuming today. Better to try and stay away from comment boxes...

The comparison was against fully-vaccinated Americans.

Dude, we are at 2%. Yes, you read that right.

Depends how dodgy his ankle is. ANB is the team’s best runner, and should be able to stick with the little bugger all day. Anyway, if Salem is unfit then it’s gotta be Lockhart (not Bowey) who replaces Jetta.

Someone’s got a case of Monday-itis. Very much hoping Jayden Hunt can put a sock in the naysayer’s gobs next match. Admittedly he’s fallen off a little of late, but I refuse to believe the improvements he’s shown this season are flukes.

Mitch played against the Hawks.

But is it to seek reprisal? Genuinely unsure.

Genuine question: With regards to official club complaints about umpiring decisions, what’s the desired result? Is it to seek a reprimand for the umpire in question? Or is it’s main aim to apply pressure to the AFL to edge closer to the kind of reform @Mazer Rackhamis talking about?

Or just desperately trying to find sense in the utterly senseless.

All fine mate. In summary, IF that umpire noticed the touch and that it had caused a noticeable deflection, then quickly ran his mind through the rule book only to discover the call was left up to his “vibe” and then made the call.... But of course that’s not what happened!!! It was gutless, costly rubbish!

I was wrong to state as blithely as I did that an opposition player touching the ball between release and the boundary would rule out deliberate. As I said earlier, logic guided me to that conclusion. I did however correct my stance when the notion of “interpretation of the rule” came into play, and said I’d be happy to be enlightened about what the rule actually is. As we’ve seen from Mazer’s post, the rules are not clear enough to definitively tell us. Personally, there was a part of me that wanted the call to be the correct one, if only to take the sting out of what to the naked eye was nothing but a horrendous decision. Just posted it because there was a very lively and nuanced discussion about it on the AFL Reddit page and thought it interesting enough to share here. I kinda wish I hadn’t

C’mon dude. Why the angst? As I said in my last post, I’m willing to be educated on this rule. Nobody has done that yet. Edit: I hadn’t seen Mazer’s post at the time of writing this because I was engaged in a weird act of self-defence.

I meant that I doubt the rule us if an opposition plsyer touches it voids a deliberate call. I know that’s what you meant. And I’m saying that because you “doubt” the rule is that, means it’s a grey area and perhaps not something that can be so emphatically shut-down. Logic says to me that a player in Spargo’s position touching the ball would immediately make it a “dead ball”. I’m willing to be educated here, but I’m yet to see anybody properly explain the minutiae of the deliberate rule in this particular scenario. I realise we’re into semantics here, but let’s face it, it all is unfortunately.

Very true, but they’ve proven they can whereas we’re all still waiting for Sam’s breakthrough game. He’s yet to kick over three in a game, and while that shouldn’t damn him, it would be better for him to beat that personal best sooner than - if he’s allowed- later.

I’ve watched it slowed-down and the footage is well and truly “inconclusive”. Not sure how you can be that confident.