sue

comedy gold

mission accomplished

I was amazed that the commentators repeatedly said it was Oliver's fault for fumbling.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. I agree with your statement, I was just pointing out the inconsistencies in our rules and their interpretation.

Why is it that you can bump a bloke in the head when running backwards for a mark (which you entirely miss) and not be penalized just because you had your eyes on the ball? Sure Varcoe was brave, but there are lots of other situations where a player is looking at the ball and gives away a free for high contact. And lots of frees for front on contact when both players are going for the ball. But if you are brave it somehow forgives the infringement.

It certainly keeps on giving. That bloke who does the sports reports on ABC Radio National's breakfaast show mentioned some article that claimed WADA had over-egged the pudding with respect to Olympic drug cheats. I've no idea of the validity of the article, but he couldn't resist using this article to make some remark that implying the 34 players from Essendon were hard done by. He never misses an opportunity of defending local drug cheats and putting the boot into Russian ones.

Although starting against the Hawks is scary, I don't think this is comparable to the Watts debut. There will be nowhere near the hype and unrealistic expectation this time. So if he has a stinker it can just be viewed as getting experience of AFL standard before next year.

I didn't follow that example, but there are quite a few on Demonland who think what we say and think actually affects how player play. Fantasy football.

All right you guys, own up. Who has taken control of OldDee's keyboard?

or reverse the definition. Seem to me that if you consider the stat to mean 'percentage of not complete stuff-ups' you get a meaningful measure. An example is that Burgoyne example earlier in this thread. Sure it didn't go the forward's advantage, but equally it didn't go straight to an oppo on his own or OOB 15 yards from where he kicked it.

possibly because it means we have one extra player not jumping in the air?

I think the point may have been that if we won every match and were on top of the ladder, then the only teams we beat would be below us on the ladder. How depressing would that be.

The Eagles can barely content with us.

Roos talks about that in the press conference.

I'm guessing that my asking if anyone here had ever played on such a ground might be viewed as provocative.

That is an interesting point. I've also often wondered how much the flashing and changing ads along the boundary affect players. Anyone here ever played on such a ground?

A lot of people said if we didn't dominate in the midfield, the defence would be clobbered by the Sun's forwards. So I guess the defence did OK.

Agree. I've noticed that in other games (unless of course it is a famous player who ha a 'natural arc"). And why are they continually shouting "don't hold". They could shout out all the rules as well. If anyone can explain to me how they decide who is at fault when 2 ruckmen are less than 1m apart, I expect they could explain the General Theory of Relativity as well.

I trust all those who grizzle about not knowing how to win close ones are happy. And those who grizzled about not winning when we should have are also saying winning is the only thing that matters. Painful but better than losing.

There seems to be a lot of Richmond supporters at the ground. Any one there who can tell? If GWS win the flag, will anyone care (other than AFL HQ)?

yes BD, but we are not coaches. Coaches should behave better than supporters. Or would you have them screaming BALL every time an opponent is tackled?

And as if the fact that some unlucky players missed out on the banned drugs somehow excuses the club, its management, medical and coaching staff. I'm reminded of the old adage - it is better to keep your mouth shut and have some people will think you are an idiot, then open it and have them know for sure that you are.

I don't think that it is true that EFC or any club doesn't care whether they get pick 1 or 2 despite the fact that #2 can often turn out to be a better player. If a club is desperately in need of a full forward and the two standouts in the draft are a mid and a full forward, they'd care.

I wonder how an umpire judges a skill error as distinct from a very skilfully executed 'skill' error. I hope all this doesn't end in "last touch has free awarded against them".

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/not-tagging-daniel-rich-was-either-poor-coaching-unlucky-coaching-or-selfsabotage-says-mark-robinson/news-story/3d607be2e2984737a1e8a7dec9793334 and use the usual ruse to get around the paywall (more like a payswisscheese)