rpfc

That was my favourite moment too. Footy is fun when your mate puts you 16 points up with an outside of the boot torpedo. Grimes' effort was something I see elite players do.

Absolutely, these scenarios he is throwing up is hardly the proper way for a competition to interpret its rules.

Excuse me? He should take his eyes off the collision and expose his back and the back of his head? What is this nonsense?

Why couldn't lynch and Georgiou get out of the road?

I will add my two cents: Viney has very little momentum into the contest - he actually gets pushed back in the direction he came in, so it safe to make the judgement he tried to stop. Lynch never controls the footy so Viney can't tackle, and the ball itself is 5 feet in the air so there is no protection of the ball player with his head over the footy. Lynch is losing his feet at the time, probably due to Georgiou's pressure, and brings his jaw into play rather than his chest. Lastly, Viney touches the footy. The ball is in dispute and he braces for contact, Lynch doesn't. All these are mitigating circumstances that should see Viney play this Sat night. I hope it goes well.

I wouldn't think so. Bloody expensive ruse.

I don't know why he has regressed. He may be injured now so it might be moot, but the reason he was effective against Carlton is that he was moving into created space and meeting the football in the air. He didn't have a great player on him which helps, but since then I have seen him ball watch his way out of good spots, lead through good space and into bad space - usually near the boundary. And the worst thing is he was trying to body out after a lead and take marks out in his hands - waist height - while turning - degree of difficulty would be much higher than just getting your jukes out and trying to take it with pressure behind you. I don't see him push off his opponent often, even Jack Watts does this, and it is not intuitive to players who haven't played forward but should be for him. He has spent 5 years dealing with the best forwards in the game doing it to him. I am frustrated because I know he can do so much better. I hope he can recover for Sat Night.

He's been lost since the Carlton game. I watched him closely against GC and he was running around making some terrible leads and hitting all the areas you don't want to go.

Yeah, if we want to move away from comparisons - I like that he is neat, takes the game on and tries to not waste a possession. He's composed. He doesn't have great speed, but he does know where the footy will be. That's the toughest skill to learn for a mid.

Learning to play CHF is a slow burn. It really is tough if you haven't done it before and haven't had a chance to prepare for it. We should have groomed him but I guess we didn't see the need before Hogan went down and Dawes had his issues and Fitz hasn't come on... He needs to meet the footy and demand the space at CHF. He has all the ability to do the job.

I wanted to get away from the forward-midfielder comparison to a pure midfielder comparison. He finds the footy and links up well. Stanton does the same (from time to time), he is neat but not explosive. He is a good player Stanton. JKH can punch through this ceiling but he has already shown me that this is what he can get to on exposed form.

He's got to be able to stay on the park long enough to be something. When he was drafted I said 'see you in 6 years' to the groans of many... He has time but it is running out, he needs some luck and some form. I guess we will find out soon enough whether Roos and co. rate him.

Yes, he made me look foolish last year for thinking he could be a good second ruck option. There is a spot for him if he continues the way he is going - your second ruck needs to be able to play elsewhere - you can't hide on the bench anymore.

The reason why it is at the Tribunal, in my opinion, is because they couldn't agree on the first criteria - the conduct charge. Was it reckless or accidental/incidental? Because the first is the second highest charge for conduct and the latter means the charge is thrown out. I don't think the MRP could agree.

He reminds me of Brent Stanton, minus the clangers of course. Wins the footy, can link up, knows where to run.

^^That's it.

I got it in the mail IIRC. Or they emailed it. I'm really sorry I can't find the deal. The front page of the website has the New Balance deal - but it might be for the $90.

Referring it is better than applying the MRP's system - it would have meant fighting a 3 or 4 week charge. Now he can have a chance to get off as the contact was incidental to him going for the ball. I'm not holding my breath though - this stuff happens in footy but is a look they don't like to see. They would like Viney to not bother with the ball in that instance. Lynch braces himself and this is not something we talk about and he doesn't have a broken jaw. Players need to learn to protect themselves.

Sassy - If Frawley leaves and we bring in any FA, we will not get Pick 4 as compensation.

They are selling a thousand $60 3-game memberships right now with a $100 New Balance voucher... There are still 300 left. The details are on the website. They are trying to pad the numbers in the month before the cut off. If the Dogs and Tigers fall we will get 40k members.

Byrnes was never a good player? And how do you know he isn't performing his role very well? His career at the Dees is 7 games old in my eyes and while he may be moved past very soon, the reason of 'he is not the future' is diabolical. Of course he isn't the future - he is there so that those that may be ready to play AFL are confident, in form, and ready to play his role. We always bemoan playing our youngsters too soon, and that we have to make them earn a game - and here is that situation and we bemoan the bloke making the kids earn their spot. Matt Jones, Giorgiou, Pedersen, Bail, Cross, Jamar, Byrnes - they are all players that will most likely not be playing AFL footy past 2015. But are they important right now? They are important for the reasons stated above. 26, 25, 27, 25, 31, 30, and 30 years old. When we lose they are the first looking down the barrel (save for Cross) but who would be their replacements and who would play their role if they weren't there? Over-exposed youngsters asked to do more than they can and more than they should be asked to do.

Please, Billy, you are exposing yourself. The previous few years of Ablett and Scully have certainly been an affront to the game where we have players running around knowing they will leave their current club at the end of the year - they have already signed a contract. But that is not the vast majority or even the vast minority of how players are moving clubs. A more robust and expansive Free Agency system would have rules in place that banned players and their agents from talking to clubs outside of the FA Signing Month, and from their own club signing them outside of that month too. This would mean that the AFL enters the 21st century and has a set up more akin to the NBA and the NFL - two draft regulated sports where FA is a help to poor performing clubs - not a hindrance.

I doubt I ever posted that I think Scully would have re-signed - only that we shouldn't have cursed him for his dithering. This is where I was wrong - it was done a year in advance. There was no dithering. I really don't know what to think with Frawley - the new era of Free Agency will bring more players delaying their contract talks until the end of the year for whatever reason they care to proffer. I am still inclined to believe he has not signed a contract - call me naïve, but I think that it will be a more frequent occurrence as we move into FA.

A harder, bigger Dal Santo. Pendlebury is a very high shelf... Love his attitude and confidence - never rushed, short memory with mistakes, doesn't give the footy away in close.

What makes you think that? Dawes has a knee that he will be managing for the rest of his career. Dawes out, Fitz in. Future.