sue

and crass on so many levels

I like your out-of-the-square thinking, but I expect the howls coming from WA, QLD etc will drown out even those from Eddie and Jeff K.

If I understand you correctly, wouldn't that mean that all non-Melbourne based teams would be playing their home game against North not at their own home ground ( that is, either in Tas or Melb as part of the 11 in Melb). Wouldn't that be unfair on them?

agree. And if something like this can be kept secret until the teams are announced, all the better in keeping our opponents in the dark. Perhaps that was the plan. Even if the probability of it not leaking was low, worth a punt and disgruntling a few Demonlanders.

Not as full as the Bomberblitz meltdown will be when we win. It hurt barracking for C'wood on Wednesday, but some burdens just have to be borne.

Shepherding on the mark is just plain UGLY. And if it not banned will only get uglier as teams extend its use, especially when marks are taken 60-70 metres from goal. Pretty soon we'll be playing gridiron.

and our performance the week before that much have ben miraculous then.

True. In fact if everything was 50:50 you might still get a run on. After a team scores a goal there is a 1 in 8 chance they will score the next 3 if it's like tossing a coin. And since it isn't, the chances are doubtless higher.

Now that we have the example of a goal review being reviewed and overturned after Hawthorn players shouted their disbelief loudly enough (as reasonable as that was), will be now be treated to endless bogus passionate calls to review the review? The AFL must stamp that out if it occurs. But how?

Seems to me that when there is no clear easy marking target near the goals, kicking a grubber down there may be a better bet. Wouldn't look good of course but may make it harder for a rebound, make it more likely the ball can be locked in. Since I doubt any team will do that, I reckon those players who are not near the contest near the goals should be focussing on oppo players who are likely to rebound. I suspect too often those players relax when the ball gets bombed in.

Odd that that is about the only article I've seen that mentions that we have TMac and Viney to return.

The current 30 second rule is a typically mindless rule only the AFL can word. There is nothing to stop a player taking as long as he likes off the clock in a tight finish. All he has to do is walk back 100 metres and as long as he starts moving forward at a snail's pace within the 30 seconds, he won;t be asked to play on. So doubtless the umpires will invent a rule on the spot to stop it if it happens. But I can just see it already - Sideshow Ben will be allowed to do it because it is his 'natural' arc......

What has politically correctness got to do with this?- you bring it up in almost any situation but this takes the cake. You do realise that yesterday's political correctness is today's accepted norm (Smith).

A lot of players would benefit from a set shot technique which was simply go back far enough so that they can have a shot on the run.

It's a pity there isn't an 'ignore thread' option so that those who can't stop themselves peeking at things that they don't want to read can stop telling us they don't want to read it. (Actually I think it would a nice feature regardless.)

Re the dangerous act against Fritsch, it is perplexing that the rule of the week was to pay frees for dangerous tackles (some not very dangerous), but a dangerous 'tackle' after a mark is taken is considered fine by the umpires, the AFL and commentators. Should have been 50m and at least a fine.

If not a direction from the coach, it certainly reflects his personality.

but unlike the brain cell count, the clanger count will be increasing througout the day.

BT clanger count: 8

Its a pleasant change to see you say something so balanced about Watts. Much better than deriding anyone who has a positive word to say about Watts as him being their 'pin-up boy'. Watts' critics are in a no-lose situation. If he flops at Port it will prove their point, if he succeeds it will because he needed a boot up the bum and a change of environment. If he plays a useful but non dominant role in Port's flag, this thread will go on forever.

Your ability to mind read is impressive. I suppose if he was throwing phones about, breaking his wrist thumping the table or rolling his eyes that would indicate he had a plan. Personally I have my doubts about him as a coach at this stage, but I'm not basing that on his facial expressions. I say 'at this stage' because we don't know what he is really planning, e.g. with Lever. May turn out to be a masterstroke.

Every time I've read a post saying that the backline needs to be set up to allow Lever to play his natural role and groaning 'what are the coaches thinking?!!' Ive wondered if the club's plan is to either groom him for such a role, or at least make him capable of it when circumstances require, either in a match or in case of injury to other backmen. Makes sense as long as we don't lose too many games on the way.... Also perhaps the FD's plan is to play super-attacking and not worry about defence when the opposition gets a roll on, figuring that once we've perfected it we'll be unstoppable. After all, it is bloody obvious to anyone that it is a problem and to assume that the coaches of all people are blind to it is just ridiculous. (Still I wish they'd have a plan B to reduce the strain on my heart).

If so, what is the point? To obey some AFL rule? So they play at Casey today pretending to the AFL that we would fly them up to Brisbane tomorrow by rocket if needed at the last minute?

I cannot see the justification for the mods closing the thread about the Essendrug scandal. The justification seems to be that there were a couple of posts about the cricket cheating which should have been in a seperate thread and that there is nothing more to be said about Essendon. Strange when there are current court proceedings on the topic. Please reopen.

that can't be right or I must be misunderstanding something? If as the mark was taken I was standing 1 yard diagonally from the East-West line from where the mark was awarded and towards my oppo's goal, I'd be less than a yard away from the mark and nearly between the player who took the mark and my teammate on the mark. Surely I have to move away?