Chook

Spelling pedants make me pewk.

I was told on BigFooty by some very involved Eagles supporters that we shouldn't judge by possessions alone. I countered that this must surely mean that Schofield would have stopped Tommy McDonald's goal in the dying minutes instead of being completely unsighted. Not much in the way of a response.

Not me. Not during the halftime break. If Viney had done it during the quarter I'd disapprove but say "that's footy." Elbowing someone (let alone in the neck) as they're going to the changerooms is not on. Oliver shouldn't whacked Shuey either. The "dive" Oliver took when (was it Higgins?) got him the other week was much worse than this one because he should've expected it and was probably looking for a free. This one? There was no incentive for him to dive, and no expectation that he would get hit.

If there's anything this whole Clayton Oliver thing has taught me is that no matter what your club does, opposition supporters will start to get scared when the status quo begins to shift and the laughing-stock is no longer quite so funny. Draft picks, AFL "charity", Paul Roos being given to us by the AFL, "tanking", the premiership drought and associated irrelevance of the MFC, low supporter numbers, "staging" (during the halftime break no less).... The list goes on. The only people whose opinion on the MFC we should give a rat's tossbag about are Melbourne supporters. Everyone else is irrelevant.

On the MCG I'd bring Wiedemann in as another marking target. OUT: Garlett, Salem INS: Kennedy-Harris, Weidemann I'd play Hannan in the Garlett role, Tom McDonald as a roving CHF, Pedersen as a decoy, and Weideman close to goal. JKH as an accumulating midfielder (none of this small-forward stuff. He's no more a small forward than Jetta is). Frost on Franklin, with instructions to play a slightly more close-down role. Make him pay on offense if there's an opportunity, but contest every ball delivered to Franklin, who is actually not a great contested mark.

On the MCG I'd bring Wiedemann in as another marking target. OUT: Garlett, Salem INS: Kennedy-Harris, Weidemann I'd play Hannan in the Garlett role, Tom McDonald as a roving CHF, Pedersen as a decoy, and Weideman close to goal. JKH as an accumulating midfielder (none of this small-forward stuff. He's no more a small forward than Jetta is).

Atrocius, Just atrocius. Should anyone tell them that Oliver actually practices handpasses and clearance work the like of which surpass any 20 year-old in history?

With our injuries, against Sydney on the big stage, will be a mighty win if we can get it.

Fantastic. I think Schofield’s 1 week penalty should have been upheld, but I’m glad the AFL is taking a strong stance on non-football acts that cause serious injury (i.e., concussion) regardless of the personal character of the perpetrator.

I’m amazed that the prime minister of Australia doesn’t have anything better to do than to play favourites with footie players. I guess this clip was truer than even we knew Richmond when they found out about Houli’s initial 4 week suspension:

I reckon it was a fumble. I have my own question. Can someone explain to me why Jack Viney runs to the attacking side of the ball-up at 2:23 on that clip? Surely the smarter play was to try to clog it up and force another ball-up.

I like Bachar Houli on the interchange too. That's a good look.

I'm actually finding it really hard to get over the fact that a 19 year old kid was hit and people are treating him like he's the one who did something wrong. It's just so awful.

As long as it's inside the sirens, I'm fine with it and Oliver should expect it. If it's with elbows and fists during the breaks, then there is something wrong with that.

I'm furious about tonight's decisions. Oliver and Houli's reputations have both been destroyed by this week's tribunal verdicts. Oliver is now and will forever be a stager in the public eye, and Houli is going to be booed hither thither and yon because the AFL Tribunal wasn't strong enough to give him the 4 weeks he deserved.

All the media agencies are running with images like this one: instead of this one, which actually shows the contact:

No, I don't suppose they will.

If it's 0 weeks, then the public will be adamant Oliver staged. Surely that's the worst possible outcome for him and for footy.

Riewoldt: "I'd love for him to get NO weeks." Poor from Riewoldt there. He's a team-mate but you can't put your football hopes above justice. Pathetic.

A person's off-field good character shouldn't give them any more lenience than a person's gang ties or tattoos or anything else should give that person an extra penalty. It's an absolute farce, and underlines the fact that there should be an extra loading for "non-football acts" in future.

Striking isn't football.

Ok then. Let's not talk about a defining issue of our times.

In this day and age, it's very bad publicity for the AFL to be harsh on a Muslim...so they decided to be ridiculously lenient instead.

Tom McDonald as a forward in the team of the week? Tell him he’s dreamin’! I never would’ve picked it.

I reckon there's a serious case for us only losing one more game for the season (GWS at Canberra). Assuming we don't blow up and we keep injuries at bay, we're a massive chance to make top 4. The other scary game in that lot is Port after a Darwin game. But it's at the MCG which you'd have to presume would give us the advantage.