pitmaster

Great banner this week. One of the best ever.

This is the sort of knee jerk, sweeping, unprovable statement that makes demonland so special.

We cannot fall out of the four and cannot control how the four finally shapes itself since there is a faint chance of movement above us, so even with the pre-finals bye coming up is there a case to rest anyone next week for an extra spell? The clearest case for mine is Viney. His form has been terrific but he does have that shoulder issue. Who replaces him? The obvious prospect is Harmes although there may be a case for a debutant, not exactly a like for like (since there is none) but would Howes benefit from senior exposure? I'd like to hear other's thoughts. Also Bowey's disposal has been off. Maybe he needs an extra spell. Hibberd is the obvious sub. No other defender should go out since Goody likes to keep the unit together. Gawn is belted every week but seems to thrive on work. If he the fitness crew reckon he could use the extra week then Grundy would love the chance to show what he can do solo. I hopeLaurie is given another chance. He showed plenty yesterday. Without consulting the replay I remember couple of score assists - handpass for Melkie's first score in the city end pocket and a clever kick under pressure to set up a last quarter goal, a great tackle in midfield on a bigger opponent and covered plenty of territory, along with a couple of fumbles but he was not alone there.

Great photo at the head of this. Sicily looking snakey and Worpel looking stupid. Rooey celebrating.

AFL football: The only code where rules ain’t rules

It's amazing two days later and I keep being told by neutrals and Blues supporters that it was a goal. At the time I copped it sweet but the problem is with the first call. If the ball is kicked and passes through the goal posts the default call should have been "Goal" with the umpire then requesting a check to see if it had been touched. With no definitive video it's a goal. Fact is, the goal umpire stuffed up. Should have called goal with a request to check touched. End of story, except it isn't.

Mostly we worry about umpiring discrepancies within games but yesterday, briefly watching St Kilda - Richmond there was a decision so at odds with our game on Saturday night that it was scarcely believable. It resulted in a goal to the Saints, of course it did, because it was 12 metres out and directly in front that the umpire could have kicked it himself, and might as well have done so. I think it was King's sixth goal of the day. The "infringement" was against Grimes. There were only the two of them in the contest. As the ball approached there was slight contact. From one angle there appeared no contact at all, but on replay Grimes arm connected slightly with King but not enough, in my view to prevent King pursuing the ball. It was so fleeting that I could not help think of the mailings Carlton were permitted on Saturday. Two different games and two utterly contrasting umpiring styles. Whoever runs umpiring ought to be made to explain this variation in standards, but I know they won't.

Nah. I didn't think that was why he missed. I reckon he has a brain. Buuuuuut...it can't have helped.

Oh, and by the way, one for WCW: What is the protocol for holding up the target symbol behind the goals because when JVR lined up in the first term I was right behind him and the target was positioned right in the middle OF THE POINTS. that is, the EXACT MID-WAY BETWEEN GOAL AND POINT POST? Now it may be that the players ignore that stuff but JVR's kick went perfectly straight...and midway between goal and point post so can we have a NEW RULE that the target is handed to someone in line with the midpoint of the goals the the kicker? Or maybe just do away with it.

If that were true we'd have lost by ten goals or more. We absorbed extraordinary levels of pressure and but for that few minutes lapse at the start of the last would have won it.

Not chance with that crowd noise.

There was a clear instance last night where the umpires didn't know who was going to make the call on a tackle on a Demon (forget which one. It was the only tackle penalised for a sling. On the wing, in front of the MCC members, the umpire closest to it, with a direct line of sight, looked back towards his colleague in the direction of the Punt Road end, apparently expecting a call. When it didn't come the first umpire called it. Bizarre.

Exactly. Hate the time slot normally but happy to go with this one.

Or washed up? That would keep the kitchen reference rolling without the tedium of everything being cooked.

I posted elsewhere he indicated to supporters after last week's game he was four weeks (four fingers held up) away. So now, that would be three fingers or weeks, take your pick.

Believe it or not some of what makes clubs now big or otherwise has to do with Melbourne's geography. Richmond was not a wildly successful club early in the competition when Collingwood was racking up premierships at will but it was a big suburb full of small working class cottages filled with large Catholic families - the genesis of the Tiger Army. North by contrast is a small suburb with plenty of industrial/warehouse areas taking up space so an even smaller population, and in football club terms is sandwiched between Carlton and Essendon, both successful early in the VFL. So it's always had a smaller base and more attractive clubs surrounding it. Add to that it was late to the VFL and had literally no success - played in one losing grand final in its first 50 years in the League and you have the recipe for North today. On a personal note I would that its [censored] colours also contribute to its lack of appeal. I mean really, washed out sky blue, and white(!). Contrast that to, I don't know say a deep, blood red and a dark, almost black navy blue, those are colours you can get around. The lack of a name suburban base was always offered as a major reason for Melbourne not having a bigger following when it was ruling the roost.

Deathriding might need to take a break for the next month. Lions have Saints and Crows at the Gabbatoir - two likely wins - Pies at the 'G - (loss) - and the Shockers this week out west so we really need them to lose that to give us some insurance. Port have Giants and Tigers at AO - not certainties but likely wins - the Cats at Taxpayer Park this week - probable loss - and, wait for it, the Shockers again out west. We need to win all four as it now stands to be sure of overtaking the Lions (although three wins and a decent percentage boost would do the trick as well). Three wins might well enable us to overtake Port whose percentage is 15 points below ours, but again, the Shockers can be our Zurich if they can out point Port in the second last round. Probably we finish second and face the Lions at the G since they look to have an easier run that Port and like us, much better percentage. That sets up Pies vs Port at the G so the AFL will want the bail laws relaxed to fill the joint.

Yes, timing is awful. Plus for wider acceptance clubs need a gimmick, some community element that sets them apart such as Bulldogs: western suburbs; Richmond : indigenous centre; Carlton: base of AFLW…I wonder what’s left for us?

August 9, eh? There's another event on that day: the combined 50-year members and Ronald Dale Barassi Bequest Society annual get together. If there's big news I hope the pacemakers are fully charged.

That's why it's a rumour. Nice one, though.

I'm not sure which is my worst North memory: either that time in the "90s when we kicked the first five goals of the day, endured appalling umpiring only for bloody Schimma to get on the end of a points kick in on the members wing and launch the winning goal from 50 metres with the siren sounding as the ball soared towards the goal...OR that time in Tassie not so long ago when, last game of the year, Nathan Jones coughed up a turnover with 20 seconds to go for them to register the winning goal with again, no time on the clock. Whatever, they had a 17-win streak against us that ended only a few years ago. Since, we've won five of six. There's a long way to go to even the score and punishment is in order. I only hope we don't relax and allow them some dignity. (PS Ernie, you omitted their slightly scam recruitment of Carey-Longmire that was the foundation of their second successful era.)

Great post, but as for AA, English can have it imo. He has developed superbly from barely competent geek to an excellent ruck over several seasons. Max has six AAs already. The only thing that can enhance his career is another FLAG!

Yeah, saw that on the replay. That sweep of Dusty's arm seemed to suggest he was telling the kid his preferred working space. Nice. BTW Dusty really turned back the clock yesterday. He was terrific and I hated him for it, of course. Bolton also good so I hated him too. In my glass half-full moments and before it was clear we would run away with it I thought the best thing about the game was that the Tigers brought finals-like pressure. Regardless of the result it was going to be a good workout. As it happened it was our best win of the year, better than Brisbane since the pressure both ways was more sustained. I have been an advocate for Petty forward but that was more than I ever hoped for. With JVR he could be our best forward pairing for a long, long while. Fritter btw, indicated to supporters in the MCC area that he was still four weeks away and Sparrow one week.

I thought the opposite but it may be that my sarcasm monitor is down. How it is possible that we had only two frees to half time in a game played with finals-like intensity and crushing physical pressure, yet in the final term the umpires decides to start paying failure to dispose - think Kossie's goal square tackle? The umpiring was schizophrenic: Tiges 8 to our 2 early in the third quarter and at the end it was Tiges 9 to our eleven!

You're trying to tempt me but I'm not that easy. I expect nothing better from that rabble