sue

Not surprising. We can rely on the AFL to have interpretation of the week throughout the season.

Re the new kick-in rule: Is there a rule against a player from the team kicking-in blocking the man on the mark from effecting the run of the player kicking in? (I assume he is subject to the same restrictions that apply elsewhere on the oval, but the effect at kick-ins may be very large.)

That is a spoof, isn't it?........ please tell me it is a spoof.

You're a cynic. But I hope you are right.

True, but if the aim is to hold up play, then as long as the ruckman is careful not to give away a 50m penalty he can ensure there is time for the rest of the team to run into defence. All the ruckman has to do is handball it to his feet while his teammates swarm to the ball and it is likely there will be a second ball up. But even if he is penalised the odds may still favour just grabbing the ball. Let's say 50% of the time he cause a secondary ball up and 50% of the time he gives away a free. The aim in both cases is to allow his team to flood back. It sounds counter-intuitive, but I wonder if an analysis of centre ball-up stats indicates there is less chance of the opposition scoring a goal from a slow free-kick at the ball up than other outcomes of a ball-up when you take into account they only get the free 50% of the time. Since the situation will be different from past situations because of the 6 6 6 rule, coaches may have to assemble the odds by experiment.

But even without the new rule, if you stacked the backline you left one or two opponents free somewhere, so I suspect the main difference will be that the wingman won't be able to get as deep as before as a spare defender. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, especially in tight situations. With 30 sec to go and your team 1 point ahead, under the new ruckman "no-prior" rule maybe the ruckman will try to grab the ball rather than hit it. Or maybe give away a deliberate free to give players time to flood back.

The only reason I can see is for the umpires to know who to shout at to stay one metre apart. But I've never seem much point in that rule either.

thanks. Seemed odd to advertise the 'pass only' option on an MFC site.

When I looked at that site (for relative overseas) it wasn't clear to me if the $170 membership included the watchafl pass or whether you had to pay an extra $125 to get that? Why is the pass listed separately if not so?

Not if you are an executive in the April Fools League

I agree. But my point was that if a poster says a thread should be closed, then they shouldn't come back to it later and again say it should be closed. If they really think that the topic is exhausted they should close it for themselves by not returning to it.

True. But I don't think it is unreasonable for those who think a thread should be closed to say so. As long as they don't keep coming back and saying it.

For the next couple of years it is inevitable that here will be a Hogan thread either here or on the main board (which is where it will pop up as the season gets underway). No point in closing this till then.

Well it will add a little interest to watching Freo matches on TV.

If Hogan made it clear to all and sundry that he wanted to go home, then why not say we are happy for him to go home. No one would believe us if we said we'd hang on to him grimly.

I'm not saying it will stop club's recruiting from WA, just make them very cautious, especially if the player is very young. As for it being driven by MFC, surely that was only because we knew he would either go home now or next year.

Dunno about paying too much, but I expect club's would always be losing them for too little. Almost unavoidable.

Whether he goes or stays, I expect this will put a dampner on Vic clubs recruiting young blokes from WA.

I can't imagine what they could broadcast in any case. It's not as if the cameras will eavesdrop on the actual negotiations. So I'd expect a lot of clips of players highlights and repititions of stuff thst could be read in print in 2 minutes..

Thanks. My computer seems stuck on this thread. Time to surface and breath. But I see that poll is on what we want, not what we think will happen.

A few posters claim they are in a downtrodden minority on whether Hogan stays or goes. I'm not so sure D'land is one way or the other - How about a simple poll to enliven what looks like being a slow day?

Luckily I've forgotten what you say will happen. But what saddens me is that anyone would take such pleasure in crowing when they turn out to be correct. If you have inside info then there is no credit in being right. If you haven't, then it is just an opinion in what was pretty much a 2 possibilities situation - will he or won't he. I'm more interested in reading the pro and con arguments.

Excuse my ignorance, but is this the first time Fox have broadcast this? Not that I can imagine what 'this' is - a bunch of reporters talking in hushed tones outside closed doors?

I already apologised - see earlier post. I was inappropriately reacting to you when I should have been reacting to the stream of such opinion/guess=fact posts. But I expect my serotonin levels are low.

Perhaps I was just anticipating this post earlier.