sue

We've agreed that the AFL possibly did us a big favor, unintentionally perhaps. But as for my inability to "sweat the big stuff", funnily enough I think the "big stuff" is things like ignoring drug cheating and re-habilitating Hird. So you are right, your suggestion falls on very barren ground - every week the AFL gives me new reasons to think the worst of them.

Why? Presenting it is far high profile than deciding who wins in some darkened room. This just proves the AFL is just a big old boy's club.

I think we may be talking at cross purposes or I'm totally confused (which does happen). I'm not talking about possible emergencies, I'm talking about the full squad. Saying (truthfully) X will not play before we and the other team have to announce the squads means the oppo selectors knows they don't have to worry about X in making their own selections. If they had a shut-down player available and we told them in advance that our player he would normally try to shut down was not going to play, then the oppo would know not to select him but put in another attacking player instead. So why tell them.

I don't doubt our players know. I assume they don't all go on twitter and tell the world they're in. It's what the oppo coach etc know before they select their own team that I'm talking about. Or rather what they don't know.

Very macho. While we are at it, why not leave our best players on the bench to show how invincible we are. I'd prefer to play canny. Does he tell the truth, the complete truth and nothing but? I doubt it. I don't recall him telling the public that Viney had a foot problem all year but he's so tough that oppo teams should feel free to step on him. Sure 3-4 hours doesn't sound much, but it is a good part of a working day when sometimes there is not much more than 24-36 hours before the game, some of which is presumably spent asleep. But it's the uncertainty about selection which is my main point, not the 3 hours. Why effectively tell Adelaide "if you were thinking of bringing in player X because he drives Watts crazy (for example), don't bother". Keep 'em guessing. Goodwin has done this a couple of times this season. I just have to trust that in each situation he knows that the benefit outweighs this. Just seems odd to me.

Why does Goodwin announce who is not playing this week hours before we have to list the team? Surely it is better to keep the oppo team guessing as much as possible as they select their team even if there is no clear change they'd make if Watts or Tyson were to come in? The longer there is uncertainty in their planning the better surely?

No he is not. He is a complete buffoon. He also drives me just as crazy when I'm watching a match about which I am neutral.

Possibly. Doesn't change my whinge about how the amateur way the AFL operates.

The trouble with all that VP is that some of the help may have not been necessary if they hadn't sunk the boot into us over tanking when they seem to have misplaced their footwear where other tanking clubs were concerned. Inconsistent umpiring is painful but forgivable given the difficulty of the job. The other inconsistencies that the AFL engages in are not forgivable (though sadly explainable in terms of the pursuit of $). Though perhaps the MRP is totally inexplicable.

Totally agree with both points. The solution (sound of poster mounting his hobby-horse) is to not have to wait for the umpire to call play on. Let the player on the mark make the decision. If he is wrong award a 50m penalty. Under the current rule there are two other defects. First the player on the mark often cannot hear the call - especially in a close final. Second the umpire is often so busy shouting at the player on the mark to 'hold' or step back a millimetre that he cannot simultaneously shout play on, thereby giving further advantage to the player with the ball. I have never heard any reason to not reverse the onus of proof with this. Anyone able to provide one? (I'm still annoyed by the incidident near the start (I think) of the Carlton match where the umpire called the Carlton player to step back a metre. The player totally ignored him. The ump was staring straight at him, waited a couple of seconds and then called play on. No 50m penalty when they seemed only too happy to pay dubious ones.)

Quite right. And then what about just chipping it sideways in general play for a couple of minutes. How would they decide when that is time wasting compared with trying to find a better option (distance, angle, find an opening to a lead, or player who is a better kick). There is enough for umpires to second guess already without adding more. How close to the siren does it have to be? Presumably you'd have to have someone telling the umpires. You'd also have to apply such a whacky rule to every quarter regardless of the score. Where would it end?

Good grief Dunstall - some of these commentators must be so short of things to say they just make fools of themselves.

Just watching the replay and I noticed that the mate of that delicate flower tried to restrain him at one point. Obviously knows he's an idiot. I too am disappointed the club did not add a comment to the apology saying spectators should endeavour not to make contact with a player whose momentum carries them into the fence. No direct accusation but we know what that means and pretty safe from prolonging the coverage.

Good luck witht that. The AFL doesn't even try to enforce the rules of the game or it's poicies about players belting each other unless it suits.

I hope you can get that information to the club & media somehow.

Time to contact Vero and ask them to investigate him.

He admits he did but it was 'incidental'.

I particularly enjoyed the time early in the match when the umpire called a Carlton player on the mark to move back 1m. The player didn't move - he just ignored the umpire who kept looking straight at him. A couple of seconds passed, plenty of time for the umpire to have either repeated the call or paid a 50m penalty. But he did nothing.

Apologies if others have already mention this, but one thing that our players were doing a lot of in the game was tapping a ball towards a team mate rather than taking posession and getting tackled. Good to see.

While you are correct that we should resist self-pity/conspiracy theories, you assume the selection is totally based on facts. Like the MRP, everything in the AFL has more than a tinge of sucking up to big team supporter bases and big name players - something to do with $$$ perhaps. So it is quite likely in my paranoid view that of 2 equally deserving players, the player more likely to be selected will come from a big club.

Why? Because for the average footballer's IQ, it is genius. I ask the same question about the 30 sec rule. Waste an unlimited time by running as far back as you can in 30 seconds and then walk in as slowly as you can for 2 minutes. More evidence that the AFL rules are written by amateurs.

I don't know whose idea it was but that sideways kick to Lewis at the end was pure genious. A shot at goal and a miss gives them the chance to run down the other end and kick a goal. Instead Lewis could take another 30 seconds off the clock.

A bit off topic, but I note that JJ wasn't concussed because his head hit a padded goal post and not something hard. I think that shows that the right sort of helmet will prevent concussion. As I posted elsewhere the physics says this is possible, the problem to date has been finding a helmet material which doesn't have to be as thick as a goalpost pad! But there are reports that such a material does exist - sorry, I've lost the reference right now. I think someone posted something about such a helmet in the thread about concussion.

Also true of hot air balloons.

I haven't seen too many prophesies of doom. But i have seen too many over-confident prophesies. We are up against it once again. Doubly great when we win. And when we get everyone back we can beat anyone on the day. Just need to get through this patch.