Graeme Yeats' Mullet

And gave us one

Really good Melksham

Good contests from Weid x 3 Keep it up!!

Good start Weid

Petty bringing his clumsy skills tonight 😬

Why didn't Spargo man the mark at boundary 52m?? Ffs

Ordinary free kick

Ch 7 barracking for WBD tonight then...🤦‍♂️

You probably pay too much tax...

One more try... They were a game (4pts) behind, and 14 odd % (as good as 2 games behind) Now they are half a game behind (2 pts) and 14 odd % (now irrelevant) (as goodnas 1 game behind) If we win, we'll be 6 pts ahead and % (as good as 2 games) If we win (and freo had won) we'd be 4 pts and % (as good as 2 games) The draw was effectively as good as a win for Freo w.r.t. Melbourne

You're missing the point If they won, they'd be same pts, well behind on % (effectively a game behind) If they lost, they'd be 4pts behind, and well behind on % (effectively 2 games behind) A draw is 2pts behind, %.then irrelevant, (effectively a game behind) Hence, a draw is effectively as good as a win I do agree tho - if we win tomorrow we are further ahead than we are today...

That's my whole point The 20 vs 2 may be a small (but I think unnecessary) change, but then the nominations committee seems to only close the process more. There's nothing in here about opening the democratic processes, and the incumbent Board has no interest in doing so Hence my objection to the recommendations, as solutions looking for a problem

A draw was as good as a win for Freo (relative to Melbourne)

I tend to agree But we don't have a frivolous candidate problem now... so why do we need a solution? And what's the downside even if we did when voting is electronic and low cost?

Yes But if freo had won, and we win tomorrow it would be 4 pts and 12% (as good as 6 pts)

Don't think so, Freo well behind on % were basically extra half a game behind so basically haven't gone backwards relative to Melbourne Now just officially half a game behind

Unfortunately doesn't really help us Freo draw as good as a win with relative %s when compared to us

Righto. What am I missing here... ? The premise of this review is desire to allow electronic voting to reduce costly postal elections - fair enough But also to increase requirements for Board nominations to have 20 members signatures, rather than 2. How many times has the election process been overwhelmed with candidates? And given the low cost online voting amendment - why would it matter? Additionally, the formalisation of the requirement of a nominations committee, is there something I'm missing here? Is the current committee lacking some sort of legitimacy? Will formalisation of requirement for this committee allow for Board to give committee stronger charter?? Seems to me these 2 elements are designed to increase the power of the incumbent Board to choose new board members. The way the Board campaigned against that member (Peter Lawrence??) last election made me feel quite unneasy. Is this an effort to make the Board more of a closed shop than it currently is? As for the consultation process, the online forum is faux consultation, questions easily managed and controlled and a mute function... Someone slap me down if I'm wrong, but I get uneasy when I see a solution searching for a problem... ?

I smell a rat...

Lever carrying injury and facing test. Tomlinson a chance to play, or otherwise hopefully sub BBB could hardly walk Tuesday, massive question mark on him you'd think? Weid late cover for him

What happened to all the Perpetually Offended on Behalf of Others, baying for blood over the Bali video?

Jaidyn Stephenson has been a raging success at Norf - the betting on a games you're playing in thing should've been a red flag. Presume he'd have failed the MFC's "No Jaidyn's" policy in any event... Problem with DHs is you're in a hiding to nothing - if they fail, it was obvious to anyone they were going to fail...

Agree And if he misses the goal, what's to say he hit the target for the pass...

Unfortunately her disposal efficiency and pressure acts are sub-par, so she can't get a game...

Totally agree We don't usually negate well, it's all or nothing. I thought Harmes did well yesterday playing mid and pressuring around the ball (8 tackles, 26 pressure acts) - should persist with more of him in there