dworship

I don't want to turn this wonderful thread into a racism subject but this is so atypical of the ignorance and intolerance out there. So many of the haters wouldn't even know that May is a proud indigenous man. Much like Franklin he isn't "seen" like that. Some people are just stupid and don't seem to recognize that EVERYONE has value ( well, except the bigot, fascist, bully boys). Damn, now I'm caught in a web of my own making, if everyone has value, do bigot's, fascist's and bully boys have value? OMG. I'm starting to sound like RM.

I liked your post but feel that's not enough, Nibbler in word and action has demonstrated what is possible, when you put the work in and you believe. I love the fact he has become a leader and can show through his actions what is possible . You hear the " experts " talk about "role players" and I agree with the acknowledgement of their worth, but the contribution to the ethos and determination of the team is worth so much more to the team.

Not sure that would help. I am curious however about the rotation of Umpires through the season. Anecdotally, I think we get Nicholls, Williamson and Margetts an extraordinary amount of times. Would love to know if there was a table for this. If not I intend to keep one next season.

My recollection is his manager saw a big pay day.

Can someone enlighten me regarding clearances and free kicks. Are free kicks counted as a clearance when given at ballups?

Can confirm it's on Kayo/Fox at 1300hrs

That's my point, stay and you are still an optimist ie you're still alive and have hope. If not (dead) why are you here?

I'm one of those absolute optimists (although I may have had a relapse at half time on the weekend). Now if I was a coach or player it would be a problem but if "I'm" blind to problems it matters not, as I have no influence over the issue. I don't want to get into peoples personal situations but the old saying "hope for the best but plan for the worst" doesn't really apply. If you have bought a membership or watch a game without one you are by definition an optimist. Alternatively, masochistic tendencies could be prevalent.

I would like someone to explain what happens between the 2 half's. If I have this correct: First Qtr frees; 4 to 14, Second Qtr frees; 4 to 7. Entire 2nd half frees; 3 to 4. I suppose I should be grateful that the first half trend didn't continue but what changed and is this the norm? How do you go from 29 frees payed in the first half to just 7 in the second? Did Melbourne suddenly become more skillful? I would think that fatigue might cause more frees in the second half but that obviously wasn't the case. To answer your question; in the first half the dogs got an additional 13 free possessions and it was like having an extra player out there. Those extra possessions resulted directly in a number of clearances and forward entries and at least 3 goals. I'm stunned we only went down by 20pts and managed to get it back to 4 at one stage in the last.

Nor Nicholls ?

Is that "tag" new as well Jack?

Love the new emoji's Andy. Thanks also to Nasher as well?

Not on Kayo, so waiting on Ch7. Our game is 3rd Vs 5th so should be match of the round but just watch Woods Vs Blues get the nod. 7th vs 14th a Blockbuster in the making.

Will be warmer than at Mars Stadium as the wind chill factor for the GWS and Sydney game will make it bitter. Buddy isn't going to like it. Being from Ballarat I don't have a problem being "committed".

That's what it says on the Ticketec site

Was going to go and then saw it's on Kayo free

Bias and manipulation definitely exist in the AFL. Anyone who doesn't believe the AFL influences certain things is naive. Look at the MRO and it's other iterations. What does history tell us? Barry Hall anyone? Other name players; Buddy (Marquee player in Sydney, so he's just clumsy and of course he has an arc when he shoots for goal, but he's good for the game), Dangerfield (isn't he the President of the AFLPA and a Star of the Game). How many weeks should we give ANB? He's a nobody and plays for Melbourne, so let's set an example. Let's continue this theme to umpiring; The Umpiring Boss/s meet with the group or an individual the messaging is "whenever Mumford plays Gawn he punches him in the head occasionally, watch out for that" or, "Gawn's been complaining about head contact from Mumford, it's only glancing and in the contest, don't get sucked in" Does that make the game rigged? No but it does push an agenda. Especially in these times, GWS is important to the AFL bottom line, it cannot have another basket case like the Suns. If you are going to manipulate the draft to give the "Love Child" teams an advantage then it's ok to influence other things is it not? Do you think the Umpires are oblivious to the AFL's agenda? Would you be oblivious to the agenda of your employers at your work place? What would be the consequences? Unconscious bias is still bias. In Margetts case he is as biased as you can get.

That's 8 mins of my life I'll never get back, but then it is Demonland

PM away.

What have I missed from the "Commentators". Not sure what that has to do with umpires not paying frees against Mumford unless you mean the umpires are scared of him. Gawn was having a Cow?

I don't know if it's a directive but I said to Mrs DW, you watch Mumford punch Max in the side of the head at least once and there will be no free kick. I had to wait till the 3rd qtr (I think), sure enough Mumford punches him in the side of the head hard enough to send Max to his knees. Margetts looking straight at the contact; "play on". In the last qtr you can clearly see the lump and bruising on the side of Max's head. Max has been wearing a beanie all week, including on the podcast. That could be the "Ruckman Code of Silence" or it could be he didn't want too many looking at it in case concussion was brought up.

I am suitably chastened, although I do feel you are taking on a Mods role and trying to censor what I say. Perhaps you could coach SWYL as it was he who felt the need to reply to an old post that went up prior to me knowing he wasn't permanently banned. You seem to be a nice person and we haven't had any discernible differences previously but as I said SWYL can look after himself and we have a long history of disagreements going back many years until I put him on ignore. He is back there again. This thread has shown me he is the same as ever and I should have known that. Hence the "if the cap fits" comment. With hindsight I shouldn't have started with that because it's like throwing burley on the water. Because I am who I am, you don't get off scot free. If you re-read your last line above, doesn't "unlike your good self" sound a bit condescending? Now, I'm not always articulate and get the meaning of words confused from time to time but I'll see if I've got irony sorted. It's ironic that you've chastised me about not PMing and discussing non-footy issues in public.

On the Gus & Gawny podcast Max was pretty self effacing. He said that 100 games for Ed Langdon was a bigger milestone.

Yep, I have been alcohol free for 6 weeks now. I have retained my sense of humour and my thick skin. It's interesting that you think enough of yourself to excuse me for being less than you want (although it does appear you've reached your breaking point ). If I wasn't so thick skinned I would think you're being abusive toward me. That couldn't be right could it? You do have a propensity for reading what I post in reply to others and then pass judgement on my failings. Do please continue, you might get me to think right.

No, however I do have history, it was SWYL who instigated my avatar after 10years of not having one. I'm not sure why your dragging the Mods into this, you've implied that they are somewhat cavalier but not as cavalier as myself. I suppose it depends on your definition of "cavalier". If you mean it in the sense of not taking account of peoples feelings then that's true but with caveats. I find it mildly amusing (now that is condescending) that a handful of posters have decided to give me a "dressing down" because of a few comments between SWYL and myself. He is quite capable of defending himself and we have exchanged pleasantries in the past. I would think that would be a matter between us and perhaps I should have PM'd him and saved everyone's outrage. My post that you have quoted wasn't meant to be condescending. I admit I have my character flaws and it's one of them that I'm blunt. If that offends you don't read what I post.