Aus in Engerland

Were we watching the same M vs. WC game? To make sure, I watched a replay of Q4. Ignoring non frees to both sides, the paid free kicks were... 19:47 - WC - Cripps in the back. Nothing contentious. 18:17 - WC - Darling holding. Called by the commentators before the whistle, so clearly there. 17:55 - M - Harmes taken high by Kennedy. Clearly there and advantage called by the umpire and taken by Frost. 17:19 - WC - Jetta HTB on Smith. Contentious. Ironic that the only reason this incident happened is because everyone had stopped expecting Yeo to get a free for his tackle 2 seconds earlier. 15:59 - WC - In the back to Hutchings. Very obvious. Didn't cost anything as ball spilled to another WC player who goaled on advantage so would have been a goal anyway. 11:21 - WC - Fritsch holding the man on Sheed. Possibly the most obvious free of Q4. What was he thinking? Note - at this point the TV showed a free count of 5-0 for the quarter, so I had to go back and look at 17:55. The umpire blows his whistle then calls 'advantage, advantage' while giving the right arm play on signal. Clearly paid a free and gave advantage. Just weird this is not in the count. 6:17 - M - Gawn for holding. Pretty obvious. Umpire calls 'holding, Melbourne, advantage'. Advantage taken by Viney. 5:23 - M - Jones for holding. Advantage taken by Hunt. Clearly see the call/signal and hear the 'advantage' call. 00:57 - M - Viney - high contact. Soft but there. Played on with a HB to Oliver. 00:12 - WC - Hurn - holding the jumper. Pretty obvious. So the actual free kick count in Q4 was 6-4 in WC favour. Again, ignoring the non frees (for both teams), the only paid free that was in any doubt or in any way contentious in Q4 was the Jetta one. All the others were pretty obvious.

We know the AFL is outcome based on these things. The actual tackle was superb. No way was he getting the arms free, no way was he disposing the ball. Genuine ball and all tackle. Holding the ball all day. The problem obviously occurs when they go to ground. Was it dangerous? Was it careless? Was it a reversal of what was clearly a HTB? I give you an independent view from HB Meyers of The Mongrel Punt. Lewis Jetta tackled Tim Smith in the last quarter, and Smith was driven into the ground. The commentators cried for a dangerous tackle. The post-game show called for Lewis Jetta to be suspended. The umpire called holding the ball and Lewis Jetta was rightfully awarded the free kick. That’s right – RIGHTFULLY awarded the free kick. Let’s get this straight – I am sick to death of players with zero wits about them being bailed out for being pinged holding the ball. It is not Lewis Jetta’s fault that Tim Smith stood there like a stunned mullet and held up the play. It’s not Lewis Jetta’s fault that Tim Smith made an incorrect assumption, and it is not Lewis Jetta’s fault that Smith didn’t hear the umpire calling “play on”. Tim Smith stopped. Tim Smith got caught. And Tim Smith was caught holding the ball. Lewis Jetta took advantage of an opponent’s inability to react. He’ll get suspended because that’s what the AFL do these days – suspend people for great tackles, but I am so glad that Jetta was awarded that free kick, and that the Eagles went forward and goaled from it. I’m not a fan of rewarding ineptitude, and anything other than holding the ball would have rewarded Smith for one of the dumbest plays of the season.

On the WC site they are saying exactly the same about the umpiring, but that it favoured Melbourne all night. I give you... 'I've seen some **** umpiring and heard some **** commentating in my time, but that takes the cake. The non holding the ball decisions all night did my head in. Came home and rewatched last half and am even more annoyed by the crap umpiring. The commentators were literally barracking for Melbourne and when we drew at 61 all in that last quarter, there was just silence. They could not think of one thing to say. Just silence, awkward silence. After the game all they could talk about was the ONE instance where we may have thrown the ball (when Melbourne got away with it multiple times all night)' And I must confess that I thought the umpiring was pretty poor. But it was equally poor for both teams. Missed frees for throws both ways. If there is one umpiring positive, it was that they were consistently bad! And the general consensus all round is that Vardy was a tool for the Gawn incident. Was thrashed all night and did a ****head act. 'Was just watching the replay. Vardy getting into Gawn for being the step ladder for Ryan was not on. Vardy had been absolutely destroyed by Gawn, doing that was cheap.'

Remember that Margetts is a Freo supporter who hates WC, so it wouldn't have been a deliberate decision. His mother was a Fremantle politician and his partner is one of the Fyfe clan. Jetta will get a week. Seems the standard for that.

8 frees to 1 to WC when WC on top, previous to that 21 frees to 13 to MFC when M on top. Paying the team that is playing in front/doing the tackling/playing the ball etc. All this whingeing about the umpires, and MFC won the free kick count (22-21). Hate to see the rage if the umpires actually favoured the opposition.

Well, there's an hour of my life I'm never getting back. Wish I'd done something more enjoyable like scrub the toilet or clean up the dog poo from the garden.

MFC is managing the whole thing like Fremantle did when they first played finals. Blaming next years poor start on a reduced pre-season, less injury/surgery recovery time and so on. It's no excuse. Clubs like Hawthorn, Geelong and Sydney plan their whole year around having an off season that runs from early October to February. Clubs like St Kilda and the WB (and it looks like MFC as well) plan an off season that runs from the end of August to February. And they don't seem to be able handle an off season that included some September action.

True. Even umpiring in favour of MFC wouldn't have saved this debacle. And as someone said. Losing Getting thrashed by the St Kilda Spuds makes it so much worse.

The AFL really didn't think this one through did they? Come on, how thick can you be? I don't care if they are the best band in the world, the next Beatles, whatever, but guys and girls.Come on! Beats head against wall.

Hear, Hear. They were temporarily punished but got the keep otherwise ill gotten gains. They got to keep the #1 draft pick in 2016 and got to keep whoever turned out alright from their top-ups and rookies. A MacDonald-Tip for one.

If indeed O'Meara signed a back-ended deal to help free up space and the rumours about Tom Mitchell and Chad Wingard doing the same are true, then... 1. The Hawks have space to chase Coniglio, and 2. They are setting themselves up for a bigger than Buddy budget hole when all the back-end pay comes due on players on the age slide.

I think a few of us choked on our cornflakes at the beginning when the Swans gave a 9 year, somewhat back-ended $-wise deal to Buddy. At the time they didn't have salary cap to spare after signing Tippett, so they had to back end. It was a financially risky deal at the time, that after the loss of the COLA now looks like dotcom boom silliness. The Swans set themselves up for the 2020-2022 financial troubles by leaving that $3.9Mil to pay in those years. There was never much doubt that, no matter what a great player Buddy is (was?), that he was never going to be the 'rip a game apart, week in/week out' type in his mid 30's that he was in his mid 20's. There is not a club in the land that would take Buddy for 3 years for those $. Not a chance. The only chance would be if the Swans were to pay a substantial part ($500k+), and even then I'm not convinced anyone would bite at Buddy for 3 years at ~$800k. He is now an impact player who is likely to become even more sporadic in output. No thanks in answer to the original question. And the warning for any clubs thinking of offering 10 year deals to anyone in this risky game is... DON'T. Just as an aside, one of the biggest problems hitting the Swans now is recruitment and retention of mid tier players. Jake Niall saw this coming in 2017 when he wrote 'The combination of no COLA and the Tippett-Franklin deals (which prompted COLA’s removal) means the Swans can’t pick up many mid-range players from other clubs.'

I obviously needed an irony emoticon. Dodgy selection decisions were the preserve of tanking clubs and that is the only game WC did the dodgy selections. Therefore, no tanking. And as for tanking to get Gaff? Makes no sense. Pick 4 was for finishing last, not a priority selection. So as a carp team they were getting pick 4 rather than pick 5 (Brisbane). Are you seriously suggesting that a team would tank, and get the only wooden spoon in the clubs history, for an advance from pick 5 to pick 4? And a mid 20s priority pick? No way! Maybe if the 2009 draft situation was in place where the priority pick was pick 1 and finishing last got picks 1 and 2. Then I might buy it. And as Hillary Bray says, the club had been ripped apart and was a mess both on and off the field. Gardiner, Cousins and Chick had gone though the legacy was still there. Chad Fletcher was not so much off the rails as completely out of the station. And Kerr wasn't far away. Thankfully, he for one, appears to have broken away from that group when the club re-invented itself.

Great effort. Well done. Even just a simple list helps bring it into perspective. Made me reflect, that's for sure. Couldn't help but see the two names at Villers-Bretonneux, France, where I was privileged enough to be a part of the ANZAC day ceremony in 2004.

I think we all accept that Carlton were the master tankers of tankland, and Melbourne had a good run at 'bringing the game into disrepute' *cough *cough, but as to the rest, I'm not so sure. Collingwood and Hawthorn, maybe/maybe not, but West Coast. I don't buy it. The reason is that the only two years they got priority picks were in the compromised GC and GWS drafts. Their reward was pick 26 and then pick 28. No top of the first round rewards, only end of extended R1 picks. Hardly tankorama stuff. We also have to remember that at the time they were basically rubbish. In 2005-7 they had the best midfield (possibly ever) and a good defence, but the forward line was rubbish. Ash Hanson? Q Lynch? And they were best of them. By 2009 even Phil Matera (2005) and Ash Sampi (2006) along with Hanson and Lynch were all long gone. Kennedy had arrived but was yet to fire and there was no midfield left. Judd had gone, Cousins was gone, Kerr was on his last legs, as was Cox. The fallout from Chick (who Hawthorn couldn't have been happier to offload) and Cousins's antics, along with the finished midfield and never-existent forward line meant they were just rubbish. The only game they made questionable selection decisions was the 2005 Grand Final where they left out their two best goal kickers (Lynch, Matera) for questionable reasons. But I don't think that even Carlton would tank in a GF! No need to tank, and no reward if they did. Let's put it another way. If they tanked, they were f****** rubbish at it.