daisycutter

at the end we should have ensured we had 2 extra defenders than they had back. 2 sweepers and the rest man on man (and i mean manon on man). hogan or tmac should have dropped back. what the hell was spargo doing dropping back

nah.....that's just the very stupid technical rules we need to avoid

and i can think of a lot of other bad tactics but i won't list them as it just depresses me and i want a good sleep tonight

the more i think of those last 2 minutes it seemed like we played as though we were points DOWN rather than points UP fmd

yeah, so many mistakes and lack of common sense in those last 2 minutes the more i watch it the more i see

good point about bernie's decision to not mark (no cats around) but punch ball fwd with 40secs on clock after last cats kickin. could have milked clock for 30sec - game over we all seemed to miss this in our post game discussions watch last 2 mins

as opposed to a blonde with no legs?

indecently ?

i can work out the first two letters but the I has me stumped

30 sec rule should be scrapped. if player with free kick is within range, umpire should set the mark and call time off. then time on is reset automatically when the player either plays on, kicks or handballs the ball. If during this period of time off the umpire feels that the player is time wasting (for momentum reasons not clock reasons) he can warn him then call play on it's not really that hard to solve a problem with a better solution that avoids a team exploiting a loop hole and pizzing off supporters

not to worry, i'd back clarrie in any game plan

hunt has done nothing this year to warrant any optimism.....i'll reset on hunt next season and see then if anything is stirring

libber is poison

well i'm not joining the girls misery club i'm still optimistic about the future (maybe not such much the rest of this year) we're definitely on the move.......rome wasn't built in a day, despite wyl's demands

took one look at junction oval. didn't like the possums.

probably at the suggestion of channel 7 but i can't find any logic to it from channel 7's view but then who says there is any logic in the afl's decisions anyway a better idea would be to reduce the size of the afl media unit. there is obviously too much unproductive development of unskilled journos going on there. and cut back the salaries and bonuses of afl execs too because they would have less staff to lord it over

with the new exclusion zone there is now no need for a mark anywhere in the goal square to be taken directly in front they are just too stupid to realise this.

whatever gaff's nominated club offers has to be matched in $s and no of years - simple it's not an auction

except we still don't have a chb lever is not (imo) a kp defender

he seems to think he can play like pendlebury and hold the ball as long as likes

!@#$%^&*%$#@

now you have me thinking. i hope i'm not having a seniors moment - lol maybe someone else can confirm

if the rule is ok then the penalty is too severe. a bounce up at the top of the square (with/without the point being scored) would be better. Not to mention the definition/interpretation of the rule needs better clarification

i thought the same at the time, red. good point. and why were players trying to get the ball out of the pack on our fwd line instead of taking the tackle for another ballup?

what did you think about harmes deliberate point and subsequent gifted goal to cats, red? my understanding was it was legitimate to rush a point if under pressure and surely in the very act of being tackled is pressure another introduced rule where no-one knows the exact interpretation and the penalty is too harsh i personally have never been in favour of the rule. if a team wants to concede a point so what