Grr-owl

As well as anger, I'd like there to be some fear. Fear of having weakness exposed. Fear of being found out as a hypocrite. Fear of the supporters coming up the drive with torches lit and sharpened pitchforks....

Was disappointed to hear BBB mention 'learnings' at 3qtr time....

Well, we aren't fitter, so if that was our ace-in-the-hole, it's a bust. As for the basics, we can't tackle, can't kick and can't mark. Anyone notice how many big, fit, strong, young blokes the Dogs have?

How dare you say that!

I heard somewhere that Eddie was trying to get a show just like it up for all teams, being as there is a huge market and 5 months scheduling free. A reality TV kinda thing, you know: "Meanwhile, out at Casey, yet another injury setback has the coaches scrambling to fill key positions blokes from the local pub." Cut to Goody interviewing bloated bogan couldabeens over a parma and pot... Anyone else heard that?

Intention is the pivotal word. Should we judge the word by the intention or the interpretation?

Don't let it loop. The cries scrape my soul like fingernails down a blackboard...

Sweet. Thanks for that. Great to hear someone this aware and open discussing such things. Can only hope MFC players and coaches are thinking this way...

Painful to look at....

Voldemort?

Gus in boots.

Rucked, roved... Maxtion, Traction, Clacktion and Action.... imagine...........

"This means teams cannot “hand over” who is standing on the mark from one player to another. Often the man on the mark peels off to defend a player running past the player with the ball, and is replaced on the mark by a teammate. This can no longer happen. It also means a tall player such as Collingwood’s Mason Cox cannot replace a teammate on the mark when their opponent is taking a set shot at goal." So, which player is chosen to stand on the mark? The closest? That's going to cause issues. Or is it their designated opponent in terms of starting position? Other issues.

This is a good question. Any answers?

The cop station?

Coupl'a corrections from a strine pedant. "Berfday" is speld "berfd-e-e." And you can't say, "You've brought disgrace to this family," it's "You've brung disgrace to this family."

Mr bother play U19's and 2's for the D's. At Victoria Park they would station people around the boundary to abuse the opposition.

Eh.... I'm not too bothered. Imagine if we hadn't recruited Brown and it was Weid who was injured: We'd be going into another season with a dodgy forward line that'd just got dodgier. Now it ups the ante on the others to shine so they keep their place once the Brownster is back and fighting fit and pluggin' 'em....

I hear Dave Sorenson's daughter is a chip off the old block... Something' to watch out for!

Boyz, use a VPN to locate your net address outside Aus, then take an international membership at MFC which gives you access to the WatchAFL app at a minor discount and you get every game, plus Fox Footy shows, no ads during play and all the sauce.... Not exactly right, but not exactly wrong either....

Any chance the report contains evidence? Not saying it does; not saying doesn't; I haven't read it yet. But if the conclusions are validly drawn from credible evidence, they're probably legitimate. Legitimate enough. Regardless of political point of view, certainly of identity, then it should be taken seriously, and death with.

Even if the author is biased, the racism could still exist. The report should be judged by the evidence, not the identity of the author. If the conclusions are credibly drawn from the evidence, the report is right. If the conclusions are erroneously drawn from the evidence, it is bollocks.

Yeah, well said. The author's identity may bias the outcome; then again it may not. In any case, what matters is the evidence. Take identity out of it, all previous tweets and tv appearances, everything, and answer the question: What conclusions can be drawn from the evidence?

I suggest we, as in Demonlanders, do something unusual as a group these days: Not fling insults. Instead, why not have a reasonable discussion re the evidence? I'm going to read the report first, and then comment. And while I'm reading, I'm going to analyze myself for biases either for or against the author, the club (especially the club) and the personalities within it, and people in general. Given some time and little compassion I reckon I should be able to come to a reasonable conclusion about the thing, based on the evidence...

Champ. Captain next season...?