Skuit

I live overseas but have been enjoying a brief sojourn in back in Oz of late. The highlight of my trip so far has been my introduction to the bullet ninga-whizzo bizzo, I used to mock it's solesonic microactive blade technology but now I'm a convert. The trick is to freeze the bananas before-hand.

Insightful Gary. Done deal then.

Ba-hum.

Tell us more. I've been adding vanilla essence and cinnamon to mine but perhaps just throwing the chaser in the mix is the go. And then chasing it with an additional chaser of course.

Can I come?

What has Future Gawn got to do with this?

I suspect the ins and outs were pre-scheduled according to some loading formulae.

Just a play to give Prestia a giddy-up while there's still cash up for grabs. But seriously, I know times have changed, yet I have this nasty sinking feeling with the thought of our future core midfield comprising of a couple knee surgery veterans. God forbid if Jones had ever gone down during the darkest days (knocking on a Trojan horse worth of wood).

Without a doubt. It was the first thing I was ever taught in junior football and used to get great applause every time I did so. Just have to wonder how many old school defenders like Fletcher would fall by the wayside without the arsernal to do much else against bigger-bodied forwards.

Felt like much later. Or at least in its current interpretation. They could retroactively assess prior opportunity and deem the passing possession the prior - if a player takes the wrong option and handballs to player who is immediately tackled the first possession was the prior. We would be doomed.

Would be an excuse to trade Garland and Dunn at least.

So I've softened on the idea of reducing interchange rotations (and thanks to all the contributors here for making this one of the most reasonable discussions I've encountered to date on DL) as I can't imagine now it would result in any crazy unexpected harm to the game - does Hogan really need to have a spell after slotting one 30 seconds in? We could drastically reduce without a major impact but hopefully a small beneficial one. But I still wouldn't want to see the interchange spots lowered for the variety and flexibility it adds on game-day. Anyway, back to Munga's OP premise of carrot over stick - evaluation of result changes over rule changes - any ideas? Only brief thought I had, and it's not well thought out as yet, but if you switched the W and % percentage columns to some degree on the ladder it could make a major difference in encouraging an open attacking game-plan. Say if you placed percentage into percentiles (rounded within groups of 10% for example) as the first ladder position determination and then-after relied on games won to split the difference within brackets. So, on current standings, the Hawks in the 170-180% bracket would be on top, followed by WC on 150-160% and then Freo (120-130%). These brackets can be adjusted obviously but the onus on playing a more attacking style would be there as there's more of a margin for error in boosting percentage here by developing an attacking sensibility over playing shut-down and hopefully teams wouldn't go into cruise mode either or simply give up. Apologies if I haven't explained this very well. But best of all, it would be great to hear a player in a post-match interview say, 'we're just happy we came away with the 120 points'.

I can't access replays of the game but my memory of the start of the Geelong match centered around our insistent use of the corridor. That we fluffed our first couple of forays through the middle but surprisingly didn't drop our heads and persisted. Can anyone confirm from their recollections? Did we possibly concede this game as unwinnable or at least ungrindable and go out there with different more singular attacking tactics?

Drunk? Just a renowned podophiliac from what I've heard.

Didn't JKH get pinged for the latter against the Bears?

Fair enough point DC. It still worries me when they tinker though as there's the possibility of unforeseen consequences that may do more worse than good and then the tinkering with tinkerings has a cumulative effect and we end up with the sub rule et al.

It always strikes me as an odd notion to reduce interchange rotation numbbers in order to tire players - i.e. make them play poorer in an effort to improve the game. Although I understand this is a facet of other sporting contests. The worry for me is then it may become even more of an athletics carnival as endurance players will be favoured over more pure footballs. I'd argue that professionalism is actually the greatest change seen in our game and the reason it seems so homogenised now. Looking back at older games they certainly seem more entertaining and a greater spectacle but it's due I think to the lack of professionalism - defenders not knowing where to run and in patterns as much along with greater freedom and creativity in attack etc. (not to mention more interesting characters and a bit of biff). I don't know what the solution is.

The problem is differing weather conditions Munga. If you look to rugby league where there's a pure points differential rather than percentage - a team coasting to a 40-20 win on a dry day is unfairly better off than a team winning 18-0 in a wet slog. I also wouldn't want to see bonus points awarded for say scoring over 100 as this would unduly reward already better teams as well as be dictated to a degree by the weather again. But I like your line of thinking rather than the intro of zones and/or greater interchange restrictions. Maybe the percentage formula could be tweaked a little to give greater weighting to points for somehow (too early in the morning for me to conduct any mathematical analysis right now).

So it's not about race. The point has been made. So then it's about endless harassment. Are you comfortable with that?

Would you feel happy if Goodes retired? Which of course he'd be labelled a sook for but would be a move most of us would take if we faced the same sort of harassment in our workplace?

If you just stopped arguing against the far-left for a second Munga and thought about it in terms of what is actually happening and how that makes another individual feel, do you continue to support ideology over ethics and feel good and noble about your stance to defend it?

Cool. So the answer is to vote for Trump?

It was Paul Roos. No wait, it was Dawes. Or maybe Watts. The rain possibly. Let's just blame it on Stretch looking a tad tired.

Fitzy any chance to get up and run with White? Would beat him hands down in tunnel-ball, leap-frog, rounders, fiddle-sticks . . .

So as constructive discussion/criticism of the 'loonie left.,ABC, whatever Ali' and so on people make their case by bullying someone through collective cow noises who has expressed hurt in that regard?