Chook

I disagree with that. I'm probably a few years younger than you though, so that rule is pretty much the only interpretation I've ever known, but I like it that way.

When's the deadline?

According to Aker, that's a little bit less this year.

The only way I could defend the umpire on that one is that it happened right near the interchange bench and that he couldn't reasonably expect to be tacked, but really, that's just bull.

Expect Brock McLean to look like a turtle tonight against the Dons.

Okay then. Those comments you put in bold were totally serious lol and you should be really offended lol at him defamating your caricture lol. P.S. In case you can't tell, I was being sarcastic.

True dat.

That thing you put in bold was supposed to be sarcastic. I don't know why you'd take offence to one of the only people defending you in this thread.

That's some real genius humour right there.

The fact that you think Bruce's role is to kick goals just shows how little you know about him. I'm glad you want him to succeed, but just be aware that he's not, in fact, finished, despite you pointing it out time and time again without backing up your claims with any form of reasoning other than the catch-all cry of "terrible decision-making". If he were finished, then he'd be out of the team. As for the argument that he's not taking us anywhere, I would argue that wherever we get to in the future will be a result of the actions of the people who are there today. And that goes for off-field things as well. Bruce is a fantastic runner and in a game in which endurance and work-rate is key, I think he is, at the very least, a fantastic person to teach the work-rate required to play well.

Me too, but until they do, Melbourne really need to make sure they know the rule and how to take advantage of it. In professional sport, exploiting the rules is, in my opinion, fair game and a good sign that a team has done this is when the rule gets changed because of it, similar to the Joel Bowden kick-in incident two years ago. When I was ten years old I would say to my grandpa "why don't teams that a few goals ahead just waste time like this until they win?" He never payed attention to me because I was just a "silly little kid," but lo and behold, it happened. It took about eight years for the AFL to catch up to my incredible tactical nous, but eventually it did.

There was only one time I can think of on the week-end (and I've watched the game live once and on TV three times, where a poor Bruce handball cost us a goal, and that was when he received a kick-in on the 50 metre arc, handballed it to a flat-footed Strauss (I think) with three players up his clacker. Strauss then turned it over trying to give the quick hand-pass back to Bruce (not his fault), and the ball was picked up by a Pie and a goal was scored against us. Other than that, I can't think of any other costly Bruce turnovers but he was involved in four of our goals, so I'd say he had a net positive impact on us winning. If there is another player who is available but not in the side who would have a greater impact than that, by all means somebody name him.

Is it okay for Gardner to grab a guy around the neck and throttle him from behind? To me, that's worth a free kick. I didn't see what caused the 50 metre penalty after that, though, but I think that Leigh Brown cannoning into Riewoldt's back 50 metres off the ball also deserves a free kick, don't you? BTW, the commentators thought the umpires did a great job tonight and I would agree. When it comes down to it, the best team won, and as long as that stays the case, then I'm happy. Of course, I'm even happier that it was at Collingwood's expense, though.

I hope this guy isn't the kind of person on whom stats are wasted, because those are some good ones.

I agree with that. I said on the other O'Brien thread that we should do the same for Davey when he marks the ball, at least unrtil the rule is changed. For the record, the rule as understand it is that as long as you stand behind the player on the mark and at least 5 metres from the player who's taken the mark, anyone can be as close as they like. And once the umpire has called play-on, then normal rules regarding shepherding apply.

I'm thinking that too.

Forget about that. Despite winning a massive amount of the ball, almost every single one of his kicks tonight has been long to the forward-line, whereupon it is marked by a St. Kilda player and swept effortlessly back where it came from. If he lowers his eyes a bit, his possessions might be a little more effective.

Perhaps, but he's still not pathetic.

Don't call Melbourne players pathetic.

If Cam was finished then he'd be out of the team. The fact that he isn't means he's not, if you follow me. Strauss wasn't good last week. Should we just go all-youth, do you think? I'm glad you're not on the selection panel. You have no idea.

How do you know s/he's a man?

Couldn't agree more. Have nothing to add except to say how right you are.

There'd probably be a few people here who aren't even old enough to go to the pub. But for those of us who can, it's worth it if you can find a good one to go to.

This. I'm glad they stuck with the guys who got us so close. Not that close enough is good enough, though.

You're right, they aren't. So why deny them the opportunity to do it this once? What's it going to hurt, besides your idealised values of who "deserves" to wear the jumper? I think you're the one on the high horse, doling out edicts as to who does or doesn't deserve this or that.