sue

What a load of old cobblers and red herrings and straw men. Indeed, none of the things listed were Lewis' faults, except one - the sling.. Anyway, the penalty Smith already paid was not having a relatively easy shot at goal. Didn't need a concussion to add to that.

I don't think anyone is downplaying the kicking which gave the WCE a chance. But it's hard not to believe that with better umpiring in Q4, we may have won nevertheless (assuming we kicked straight from the 50m penalty, the unrealistic mark, the sling tackle etc etc)

true. But at least none yesterday left the played knocked out.

Given our lack of a big player to sit near the goals and at least create fear in the minds of defenders, I kinda hope we blink first. But then, I have no idea how that would affect the rest of the team balance, especially if WCE doesn't make a change.

What about leaping above the man on the mark like trying to take a hanger. Line up several blokes to try in turn in case you don't time it right.

Probably not the place for this debate, but I don't think 8 year olds will be very influenced by airlines or insurance companies. Disney is another kettle of fish.

While it is understandable that he focusses on the positives about our enormous injury list, in my mind he is wearing the Black Knight's armour as he speaks.

Binman - that is well argued. But it assumes that it is desirable to have more scoring. I for one think this is a bad objective. I don't like soccer because the scoring is too low. I don't like basketball because it is too high. AFL scoring is fine as it was (unless you are channel 7 and want more adds, but bugger them. They seem to be covering the screen with more ads anyway).

re the new kicking out rule: I've been surprised about how infrequently players kicking out have gone straight up the middle with a well thought out structure and player movement, both to maintain possession and to set up defensively if there is a turnover. Presumably coaches must be able to counter it easier than I'd have thought.

100% agree. It is staggering that such a major change was implemented without a proper trial. Amateur hour. Do what the AFL does (repeatedly) in any other sphere and your career would suffer.

I see your "huh" and raise it. Given a choice between a poster actually meaning that we need to be fair to an 'innocent' oppo player (as you assumed and seemed outraged by) and the more likely interpretation that the poster meant the "discussion about the Holman goal", rather than the man himself, I'd go for the latter.

Steady on. I think he meant the Holman discussion, not the man himself.

I guess it is difficult to climb the post without shaking it - well at least enough for Gil's laser ranger system to detect the movement.

These 50m and 100m penalties are getting ridiculous. The new rule is absurd. You get an enormous advantage from a 50m penalty so I don't see what is wrong with the oppos having time to set up in defence. And no one knows where the 100m ends, so if the player runs faster than the ump, where is the mark? Why not just play on through where the mark might be since no one dare impedes you since they don't know where the mark is going to be. The game worked fine without this change. Just another ploy for more goals and more ads. I can't see what is wrong with completely stopping play until the position of the mark is set by the umpire. The 50m penalty is so big and often for totally inconsequential breaches of the ill-defined protected zone.

If Bruce says "we know that" one more time......

We old farts know how to use our smart phones. But we have more taste than to use stickers.

Interesting that TM said that there is more room at Casey than Gosch's paddock. Could that be why we don't do well in the wide open spaces?

All very reasonable except I bet the umps would allow some 'star' players a slow set shot from there. A bit like Buddy's 'natural arc'.

I can understand that pressure can cause problems with set shots. But if someone like Petracca has been shown how to do a low ball drop (I presume he has!) I cannot see how pressure would cause him to revert to a high ball drop. It might mean he is too stiff with his action or something and he still misses, but I can't see how pressure would cause him to revert to a high ball drop.

If so, and TMac wasn't leading to the pocket he should have been ignored

He did the right thing in not try to score because the probability of kicking a point would be quite high giving them the ball. But if he did the same kick but into the pocket there is a good chance it would end up out of bounds or a ball up and burn through more time. He kicked it to about the worst spot possible.

Pity the siren didn't go a few seconds later. Looked like Hunt had kicked the ball past the last defender and may have run onto it into goal.

What really pisses me off is this magical protected zone whose limit seems to vary with the whim of the umpire. Blatant similar ones not paid, blatant worse ones under the old rules (which still apply) ditto. Since the umpires are guessing already, why not have them guess whether the player running past is likely to interfere with the player with the ball. If not, no 50m. Almost every one of these 'in the protected zone' penalties would require the infringing player to tear muscles to be able to change direction to interfere with the player with the ball.

Ben Brown is a must have if we are in the GF, scores level with 50 seconds to go. When he marks outside 50m he can do his usual 100 metre walk up routine, starting at 29 seconds, walk in for another 20 and kick a point. Game over.

have a go at editing the Wiki page.