pitmaster

Next bloke who is confronted with Maynard or any other Collingwood player doing this should aim the Sherrin for the family jewels. That'll put a stop to it.

Barrett's not really in the media. Not the independent media anyway. He's just a goose on afl.com.au. A boy's club [censored] and fanboy. Not a real journalist. A propagandist. A (wannabe) provocateur, unlike Kane Cornes who is an actual provocateur. Limp, like old lettuce, that's Barrett. PS: Those who have not seen Offsiders (abc iview) should check it out. Roy Masters nails this issue with one sentence ("could have done more...(but) turned his shoulder" into Brayshaw. Scroll to 15 minutes in.

Yep. There's been no comment about Brayshaw's welfare that I have seen, although I like others here have been less engaged since that atrocity. At least one neutral mate - a Bulldogs supporter - is of the view that the action by Maynard was deliberate and targeted. That does not seem to be even a remote consideration for the football commentariat who are agonising about "football actions" The problem with calling it a football action - they are referring to the attempted smother - is that it ceases to be a football action when Maynard turns his shoulder and drives it into Brayshaw. By that time the smother had failed. Another point: I was at the game, on the wing, and like others around me I did not see it live. Why? Because I was watching the ball. The point being this was an off-the-ball hit. Three weeks and damn the AFL if they let block headed sniper wriggle off.

I didn't see Angus at Open Training this morning although Melkie and Petty were both wheeled out. Literally, I mean, on a golf cart. Probably Angus is taking it very easy, but I am wondering if any demonlanders better connected than me have an idea of how he is. An update would be appreciated.

Toby Bedford (snags another) looks like the kinda goal sneak we could use.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. His intention was to smother until the ball had passed at which point he turned his body and drove his shoulder at Number 10. End of story.

Noticed the same thing. It puzzled me at the time.

Ridley dithered and Northey sensed Melbourne was not committed to him. Meanwhile Richmond approached Northey as their coach had health issues and was seen as likely to quit..

He's taken a few steps forward this year having to reshape the forward line several times over and rejig the mids. He has grown in the job. This is good news.

McCartn free to play. If you play for Sydney... A disgrace.

Just not true. His first disposal was a score assist (handpass to Melksham in left forward pocket) that resulted in a minor score, literally our first point of the day. Second highlight also wrong as it implies he hit no target prior to the last quarter when, in fact, he passed cleverly under pressure to Melksham just before half time for a goal assist. Since you rarely pot our players why would you do so relying on BS?

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.