sue

And even if it is 'super', all an early pick does is decrease the probability that the player will be a dud.

Don't see any point for us in draft picks unless we trade them for someone who can aid the team in the next 4 years. As I posted elsewhere, assuming Sam Weed will develop into a star based on one good outing in a final is 'courageous'.

At the risk of outdoing some of the pessimistic wet blankets around here: While Sam has shown some good signs in a match or two recently, it seems too early to be assuming he will go on to be a star and could simply replace Hogan (who while not a star yet, has a lot more runs on the board).

Only one slight criticism of Weed's game. When he took that mark in the goal square with under 6 mins to go he shouldn't have played on. He had a chance to waste 30 seconds which just may have been needed if the cats got a run on from their 2 quick goals afterwards. Unlikely but not impossible.

Blame the coach. It's hard to tell the players to just carry on, stop appealing for frees and whinging when they know you are doing just that in the coaches box.

It was clear that he decided during the half time break to rough us up. Early in Q3 he was tackled by a Melb player (cant recall who) in a regulation no-damage tackle and Selwood went for him afterwards out of all proportion. Good to see he carried on with that...

Can only agree with what everyone has said. Thanks BV.

very droll.

Another option is NIIJSG = no idea it just sounds good. This applies to a large proportion of posts.

But surely that happens almost every week?

What was the pressure?

Agree with all that except the last para. You have to allow for a player being so clumsy that he does hit a player rather than the ball. Gotta leave some work for the MRP. Actually I'm amazed how infrequently players bash opponents when pretending to punch the ball when tackled.

Lyon giving the 4 votes was the other only logical possibility than WCE coach having done so. No way it could have been a split vote as I think IDee pointed out. I am pleasantly surprised it was this way around. Credit to both.

I see it as protecting the travelling public more than protecting Gaff. There you are coming off the plane with she-who-should-not-be-with-you and suddenly you are on the TV news......

Assuming he is not a complete idiot, I expect someone told him that they had 'heard' that and he was so keen to grasp at any straw that he didn't think to check it was true before going to press. (Assuming it is in fact untrue.) (Actually maybe that is the deinition of a complete idiot....)

Did I just overhear on the news Paul Roos putting the boot into Gil for being out of touch and something about integrity of the game?

So Lyon compromised his vote then? Or will you say Lyons just didn't rate him? Fairies at bottom of my garden too.

Gaff may have been the very best on the ground. But if the coach had any decency he would have ignored his performance and left him out of the votes. edit to add: And if you disagree then you should attack Lyon for offering a biased vote by not giving Gaff at least 1 vote. Would you?

Because if IDee's logic is correct (as it seems to be to me, unless you think Lyons gave Gaff the 4 votes!) it throws light on the attitude of the WCE coach to this whole business. Surely if we are going to discuss the overall issue, this is a relevant aspect. Of course no one is forced to discuss it.

Idee's logic seems good to me.

There's a lot to be said for clamping down on the ridiculous jumper punching and pushing and shoving at the first bounce especially. Award a few free kicks and it will stop pretty soon. One could argue that all that poking the bear relieves frustration and hence reduces the likelihood of a Gaff incident, but one would be fooling oneself.

This discussion brings to mind the ridiculous one-punch king-hit mandatory laws that have been introduced recently by our law-and-order politicians. I hate such laws. Every case should be examined on its merits taking into account all factors and the punishment should that all that into account. If any of those pointing out the ameliorating factors for Gaff support the king-hit laws and other mandatory sentencing laws, I urge them to please think again.

What a silly question.

Surely hitting a pest might mitigate the penalty for hitting the pest compared to hitting someone who doesn't provoke, but a reputation for niggling isn't a reason for an extra penalty for an off-the-ball hit.

umm, I don't think Bugg hit his brother.