sue

I'm not sure if I'm more pleased because he has signed or because those endless depressing speculative threads should now end. Just kidding....

He's just suffering from MFCSS. Very understanable.

The fact that the commentators said it was OK illustrates why the whole umpiring/interpretations in AFL is such a mess. If 'experienced' ex-players and commentators can't see a blatant rule infringement what hope is there? Just as well bring back the flick pass - it was less of a throw than some of the passes we see these days where all, or almost all, of the momentum the balls gets comes from the hand(s) holding the ball.

While it is great that the Dogs won, I don't think that it is desirable that any team in the top half of teams has an increased chance, otherwise we are not rewarding team that have performed better all year. If the finals were only a top 4 I'd be more in favour. Who would favour all teams in the top 12 say, having a similar chance of winning the flags in finals? That said, I'm not sure if the bye was a big factor in levelling things out in the finals. The Dogs were just relentless.

I agree that those 2 could well have known what they were doing. But the rules don't extend to life bans. They have done their time. I may be a bit uncomfortable, but I'm no going to boo them when the AFL admin and the EFC organization really need booing.

Saty: I agree that we have to treat Melk as one of us, having done his time. Unfortunately there sems no easy way of moving this debate back to the EFC Swiss thread.

I think you are relentlessly missing the point. It is one thing to make an argument that WADA shouldn't ban everything in sight, but them is the rules and I would argue there is no workable alternative. But that is irrelevant to the discussion. Just because the drug may not work, does not change the original intent which was to cheat. The degree of guilt to ascribe to the various parties at EFC (possibly naive young players, experience players, coaches, officials) can be argued. You can't argue that just because their cheating failed, they didn't cheat. But that is precisely what you are doing.

Why on earth do you keep repeating the sentence bolded above? It is irrelevant to the discussion whether the drugs they took worked or failed to have the desired effect. It doesn't make the behaviour of the players or the club any better or worse that the club's cheating plans may not have worked (as judged by you or anyone). So why do you keep saying it? It must indicate something about your thinking on this issue, but I can't see what it is.

Not a word of criticism from the TV commentators of what a poor effort the Hawk's leaders did in the second half. Cyril (who I like, but hate the way they fawn over him) had only about 3 possessions (that I recall) and 2 of them were turnovers, but the commentators made it sound like it had nothing to do with him.

I think you will find Saty that it is the other way around. Swisse is piggy-backing on the fact Hawthorn have one the last 3 premierships.

You don't have to be aware of specific evidence in this case to know that post by Saty is plain nonsense. He is usually more sensible than that so I expectsomeone has hi-jacked his account. So WADA just bans everything in sight so they can justify their existence and keep busy? I would have thought anyone can see that WADA and CAS have more work than they can possibly handle.

It is totally irrelevant whether or not the 'experiment' worked. They weren't experimenting to see if they could find drugs that would slow the players down or make them better lovers or compose better symphonies than Beethoven. They were trying to cheat in the game we love. Full Stop.

for a moment there I thought you said you had seen them doing a bank job.

agreed. But I comfort myself by saying they did the crime and have done the time so should have another chance like any wrongdoer. My thoughts are not so forgiving for those that instigated the 'experiment'.

Surely you'd expect it to be bog standard for every coach to watch as many games as possible.

So if Mumford picks up a small player and deliberately throws him into a goal post, it will not be dangerous if he lets go before the player hits the post.

Now lads, it is just possible that an injury can result from a tackle which is not in itself dangerous. However, when there is an injury to the jaw, you'd have to look long and hard to find a reason why it was not dangerous. Fortunately for our glorious sport, the AFL and its pet tribunal are prepared to look long and hard whenever necessary for the good of the business. I mean sport..

Waiting for the appeal to make a decision is pretty thin since as far as I can see the appeal is based on a technicality, not an issue of fact.

precisely

So Tippett's hairline jaw fracture is confirmed. The MRP is abut the only sporting thing that you can't bet on.

Won't happen unless there is some humungous scandal in the Rugby codes. And even then. But I guess you can't underestimate in this age of instant gratification how winning might attract a crowd.

Umpiring is getting a bit like it was during GWS's first year or two.

This shepherding on the mark is just plain ugly. And the umpires endlessly telling players to 'stay behind' but they blatantly get ignored.

oh good grief. Just like they did a few weeks back I suppose.

I'll make this my last comment since we'll never agree and only time will tell. But to help you with your confusion, the AFL can EXPAND its empire and still have fewer teams in Victoria. Moreover, you can even expand an empire in terms of $ and executive salaries with fewer teams regardless of location.