daisycutter

no excuse for losing, but how is that the umpires can change the rules for holding the ball, not just this game but this round all after clarkson complained tacklers aren't being rewarded again the afl/umpires change the interpretation quietly mid season with no warning i'm sick of the amateurish way of running the rules of the game p.s. yet dusty martin when tackled with no prior can just drop the ball in front of himself and not be pinged

any chance we could get mark neeld back for the rest of the season?

should merge with freo - melbourne wanchors seems pretty apt

dumb.....dumb.....dumb.....under 10 errors and decision making did i say DUMB

this team would have the iq of a filth supporter's false teeth

we are the turnover kings.......pathetic decision making time for a(nother) re-build

and my main argument is (progressively) roll back lots of the rule changes/interpretations made at the coaches behest which aid defensive tactics and athletic skills over individual intuitive skills. This could take 3-5 seasons. announce initial changes as part of a master plan (blueprint) so all vested interests are aware of directions and reasons and can "get on board" don't introduce new rules that have never been part of the game. only consider such changes if the first approach is not enough finally all existing coaches are banned from participating in any way (i.e. committee, consultant, advice etc). coaches are what got us to this situation and have conflicting interests. ex coaches are fine (within reason)

all these are good and i agree, they are just examples of rolling the clock back to earlier times. some are just interpretation of rules and some are tweaking of existing rules but we need to do more than just this

it would force coaches and players to pace them themselves just like in a 1500m race over 4 laps. if you treat the first lap like a 400m race you just aint going to be there at the end not hard to understand

i also don't see how you can enforce zones without turning every ball up/in into some sort of farcical circus. it would introduce long delays and give over-officious umpires too much power. the fans would get incensed and it would to more rule changes until the game became more unrecognisable in a different way we need to wind back a lot of the rule changes made over the last few decades BEFORE we start just bringing in more revolutionary rule changes........and i keep thinking the interchange should be the first one for the biggest bang for buck. there are many other ones too, but not revolutionary changes likezones and 16 a side. these should be last resort type of changes

will never work. too complicated and too hard to adjudicate. and anyway i can't see any benefit to it other than more chaos and confusion preferred your earlier thought

player welfare argument is total hogwash, od. coaches will run players into the ground no matter what the rules are. let's make it a bit harder for them. eh? they might be forced to start developing football skills and natural football instincts instead? coaches use the interchange to get more burst effort from players by more 2-way running. net result is more strenuous. staying on ground forces coaches to rethink continuous defensive 2-way running. forwards might be able to stay more in position and surprise, surprise actually play as real forwards. onballers would rest on flanks or pockets and as they are resting are less likely to end up at the opposite end of the ground. we also know it works, because that's the way it use to be. despite what coaches might say the interchange was brought in to increase defense and possession at all costs. not only that they just kep ramping up the interchange numbers until it became ridiculous.

no need to abolish interchange AND reduce players to 16 first see what abolishing interchange does after a couple of seasons nothing revolutionary here, just returning a part of the game to where it was before

shades of alan jones and burlap bags........hmmm

bench of 2 or 3 players, no free interchange (yep, zip, nada) only allow 1. permanent substitution 2. temporary substitution for concussion testing (with time limits) 3. temporary substitution for blood rule (with time limits) 4. temporary substitution for doctor approved medical attention (with time limits)

takes a while to learn the mfc forward bomb the ball

c'mon eddie. the truth mate, the truth..........we know you want to unburden......we need to know, we don't buy the accidental door stuff

nah, just low iq

no idea, good question. maybe more mystery injuries?

filth propaganda mill running full bore where was the support for our boys when caught different rules for different clubs

just that i would say that alcohol causes as much if not more damage than smoking. gambling i'm less knowledgeable in but i would consider it also quite damaging i was surprised you could separate these two from the other two i'm not claiming to be a wowser or anything, just that your comment struck a chord

hardly a real scratch match 14 a side on a full size ground, them with 4 interchange, us with none not sure what you learn from this

that's exactly what i mean by inconsistency

but you are happy with alcohol........i can't see any consistency here

quite the optimist i see, jim