dworship

From someone at the game 32 to 55 Maj to Kozzie to Vanders. 50m penalty Goal. Maj doing well in the Ruck Haha Gus got fooled a beauty. Box Hill player called his name and he handballed it straight to him.

Oops, I hadn't thought about that part

Sorry but I've only just caught up with this thread. Mrs Dw and I are still on our way to Launie for our anniversary. Now I'm in a dilemma regarding accuracy re comments about attendance. How would I potentially give our tickets to deserving supporters who can navigate the system.

Sorry NC but I think that's a bit harsh on Harmes. From what I saw he was expected to be our number one mid for the day and also expected to try and shutdown Bont/Macrae. Some will try and say that the number one should have been Trac but he doesn't have a shutdown side and had little real influence in the midfield hence his move forward in the last, successfully to some extent. I also think the call on Baker is premature. Many think he should be as good on his wing as Langdon is on his. What I see is development in Baker under a fair bit of pressure. The opposition know his is the weak side wing and are trying to exploit that. Conversely, we are trying to use the Langdon wing because Langdon is more effective. What this amounts to however is a discrepancy that I'm sure the coaches understand. We need a better player than Langdon to take Bakers wing. Is that player Tomlinson? Clearly not. I would prefer Baker continued to develop in the position and was impressed with his performance in the game against Richmond when he continually kept his width and didn't get sucked up into the contest. I think it's important to acknowledge that the Dogs play a great brand of Football that suits the Marvel dimensions. We get to play them twice during the regular season and it will be interesting to see how they play the wider wings of the MCG. I think we will give Baker plenty of opportunity to cement his wing with games at the MCG and therefore think he's a lock for round one. Frankly, I think talk of any of the first year players being tried on a wing in the early rounds is ludicrous and as for Salem I believe he is better positioned to hit up the likes of Baker and Langdon or targets further afield as appropriate.

Other teams don't have the burden of the Norm Smith curse ...... no offense.

What's the word on Meg Downie? She's not shakey.

While I agree, I'm starting think it's a sign of the times. My wife and I have needed to contact/question the Club a number of times over the years and have always had a reply back in short order. She rang the Club 10 days ago with a membership question and got the recorded message and asked for a return call.... still waiting.

This relates to my previous post, it's not like Pickett to be effusive in a positive way. Any over the top posts in previous years have tended to be negative biased. It's why I've taken more notice. As I've said, I can't remember PF doing many training reports in previous seasons. Perhaps you could get along to a few sessions and confirm or deny the observations directly.

Thanks PF excellent reporting again. Please don't take this the wrong way but for a while I had you on ignore due to your negativity around the team. So I have this question in my mind about you attending training sessions out at Casey vs how often you got to see the boys train at Goschs. As I said; don't get me wrong, I'm trying to understand the new positiveness and I'm looking for some perspective between what you're seeing at training now as opposed to anything you might have seen on game day in the past. I don't remember you doing many training reports in the past.

Burgess started it last year.

This is why I said this thread should be closed. There are multiple subjects being raised within the premise of the title. Much of these are click bait. While I can't necessarily disagree with your comments about McGowan how am I to reconcile my feelings with the AFL's disrespect of Tasmania 's attempt to have it's own team?

Great summation

I'm really hopeful about the training out at Casey having an impact on our performances at the G. I thought there was some evidence of that today at the game. I thought both wingers kept their width and provided plenty of space and options going forward.

Spot on Bob, I normally don't go near the Game Day thread, I stopped today at page 7. The thread is always overtaken by either "premature celebrator's" or "premature flagellator's". I felt like posting a link to the Alphamaleclinic.

Is your opinion more significant than the media muppet's that started this BS. Yes, because I'm assuming you barrack for the Dees. You've had your opinion, I agree with Praha, close this thread "move along, nothing to see here"

So let me get this right, with 3 rookie spots available you don't want him to get one because you think someone else should get the spot. You don't think he should develop here in our system. Let him stop living with his Dad go back to WA and if he works on all the things we instruct him to and he goes ok over there, then let Fremantle get in his ear and let them take him in the draft.

Not really, as an "unofficial" practice match we can play as many players and have as many interchangeds as we like.

I didn't realise Oliver had been in rehab.

Umm, maybe I'm missing something, regardless of the "stand" command what you said is the current rule and has been so for many years.

I think the only thing that can be added to this is; the coach's believe he has the skills and mental fortitude to carry out the role. Boy in a man's body? We should see Friday if he has a boy's brain or a mature brain to go with his other attributes. If he answers those doubts, then he should play round 1 regardless of age.

Mrs DW and I are celebrating our 30th wedding Anniversary in Launceston. So that's two Redlegs that won't be attending. Anyone that knows a good place to watch the game in Launie please let me know.

The Hawthorn/Sydney tactic you mentioned is the stuff I hope it stops or at least deters. The other one is the delay of game stuff that is never enforced. The hanging on while the player with the ball tries to go back behind the mark (watchout if the Umpire has already called "Stand") and the other time waster where the defender wanders around the mark pointing at the ground. I, like you, hope we are ahead of this but I also think this will suit our normal style of play when we have the ball.

"minimal lateral movement" I'm not sure the "Rule" says this at all. Demon3165 has quoted this from a news item apparently on the AFL website I've asked if he can verify that's actually the rule but haven't received a reply yet. We could also go back to the start of this thread where JnrMac stated; "The AFL has warned in briefings to clubs that even the slightest movement to the left or right from the man on the mark will incur an immediate 50m penalty". I hesitate to call it "fake news" because I don't want to be ridiculed again but there is a chance it is as said.

Sorry but he hasn't been forced to kick over the mark for years. I've said elsewhere that the defensive players who regularly crib and anticipate the movement are the ones who are likely to suffer the most in this rule change because they will give away 50m. Will there be unseen consequences of this rule change; quite possibly. The change has been made, we wont know till several weeks into the season whether it's a positive or a negative. It will be fun to watch and there will be a lot of fans who will be "up in arms" but aren't there always? I'm still amused by the number of fans who still shout out "that's dropping the BALL" when that rule hasn't existed for years.

I feel suitably chastised. I was feeling particularly pithy at the time. It was good of you to weigh in and pull me up. With regard to the Standing the Mark quote; it says "only permitted minimal lateral movement on the Mark" can you confirm that that's what the new rule actually says, as opposed to the media release?