daisycutter

well far be it for any senior management at the filth to micromanage the fd ?

just a wild guess.....

you don't like murdoch?

i don't think simon is introspective enough to know where he went wrong....just like chairman dan

time to try jim's idea i think

i've got android, someone else will know

have you tried shutting down the browser (i.e. really killing it) then restarting browser from scratch i seem to remember once my browser going full screen once. never found out why, but circumvented it by restarting

may as well not bother training the way they are playing

dunno......that was a quote from the hun, not from me

so od, this is not the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end , but the end in sight ? hard to argue with that

no such thing as a "ball release" this is just garbage verbiage and implies a player can just drop the ball there is correct or incorrect ball disposal i.e. a handball or a kick martin on a number of occasions was well tackled and just let the ball drop fwd (deliberately, i.e. not knocked out by tackler) off himself to the favour of his team mate without a blink from the umpire. they have this strange rule in their mind that if the ball stays in play it is a good thing despite incorrect disposal.

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.