sue

Gasp, what if large slabs of Demonland are too.

True. It was also quite possible that Watson of all EFC players may have become the out of form player that surprises everyone by suddenly inspiring his team. No way of knowing but I doubt we'd be happy if N Jones was down of for and then was out. We'd prefer he play and find some form. Likewise there is no point in agonizing over some replacement suddenly becoming the rising star of the century. We just have to play to win no matter who they throw at us.

He will for sure. The totally upright AFL tribunal will figure EFC has suffered enough this week regardless.

Perhaps he is merely suggesting that if there is any chance of a bias being perceived, a judge should step aside regardless of the seriousness of the case. For example, the judge who was going to be involved in the Eastman re-trial has just been correctly ruled out on the grounds he merely had some association with the prosecutor in Eastman's case 30 years ago. (BTW Eastman was probably the fall guy and it was the Griffith mafia killed the Federal police commissioner).

What is your favourite TV/Radio commentary team? the mute button

But the CAS verdict could be well into 2017 at best. If the Bombers keep losing for months (and of course we all hope they do at least for the next match) then it will become impossible to wait for CAS. Also, it may well be that paying out his current contract is not affected by misdeeds that occurred during an earlier contract. We don't know what is in the contract, but EFC may perhaps have difficulty arguing against paying him out even if CAS rules against the players. If so, then sacking him now may be no more costly than waiting for CAS. Not to forget that some further WADA/ASADA action against him rather than just the players may be 'legally' required in any case to avoid a payout. Which is even more delay. It would be sweet for most Demonlanders if the Demons could put the nail in his coffin this week. But most of us are living in fear for obvious reasons.

Yes it is yes and no - not clear as I said. Obviously points are more (indeed most) important. But I don't see that making up percentage difference can easily be made up later in the season as you say. You need to get those extra 'for' vs 'against' points whenever you can. Leaving it to a last minute rush can put unnecessary pressure on the team close to the end of a season, eg. can't rest a top player, or must hammer a mid-level club with a tiring effort when all that might otherwise be needed is a comfortable win. Nor do I think it is clear that not hammering a weak club early in the season allows a club to pace itself. For example, once a top club starts hammering a weak club, the last quarter often turns into a relatively relaxing training drill.

Not sure if that is true given their need to get into the top 2 and WCE's sightly higher percentage at the moment.

If you want some therapy have a look at Bomberblitz. I like the thread with the gloriously illiterate title: Hird. Pressure is mountain.

Cloke has a license to throw people out of the way - he just did it in general play to a player who clearly did not have to ball. Should have been clear to the umpires.

If you live in NSW the odds are worse because every GWS and Sydney game is on fta. So while that guarantees at least 2 fta appearances for other teams when they play those two, it means there are few slots left for other matches. I guess the same may be true in WA etc.

Everyone happy with the latest MRP decisions then?

Doesn't sound like you are speculating, so would love you to explain how you have such inside information.

You are nit-picking about separating broadcast vs print as that somehow demolishes my point. Especially as the distinction between the two is vanishing. Anyway I was addressing the term 'independent' and pointing out that there is little independence in Murdoch's media. Murdoch's non-print media was no different on the Iraq war than his uniform print media. But the uniformity in his print media is more glaring since there are so many so-called independent ones. Anyway back to the footy - The Suns will recover once they get their injury list down I think.

I usually try to not look on the pessimistic side of things, but when I last looked at the ladder, WCE were several spots above us. If we win this it will be time to buy our finals tickets for 2016.

It can, but not Murdoch's empire. Prime example is the Iraq war which divided opinion throughout the west. But every one of Murdoch's 'independent' papers supported it. What a coincidence.

The trouble with that is that it leads to 'professional' free kicks given away to stop the play when the other team has a possible advantage.

You have to hand it to them. It's like a burglar being convicted and then having someone suggest he should get off because his mother brought him up well but neglected to read him the penal code as a child even though she told him not to steal.

True, but I expect you'd agree that the rules should be framed as far as possible to minimise this. When there is obvious advantage it is almost as if the umpires blow the whistle just to show their masters (and maybe the crowd) that they didn't miss the free kick. Rod Grinter's post makes a lot of sense.

I was just watching Q3 of the St Kilda match. When Hogan hit the post from a few metres out just after a free was awarded to us close to goal it was deemed he played on even though it was instantaneously after the whistle went. My question is, when is it 'advantage' and when is it not? When a team kicks a ball forward just as the whistle goes, if it is marked by an opponent it is always deemed as no advantage to the team and is brought back. So why was Hogan's miss not brought back - same situation of an instant action which is not to the team's advantage.(*) On the other hand, often when a team kicks a ball forward just as the whistle goes, it is brought back even if it gets marked by the same team up field. No one has had time to 'stop', so that seems unfair to the team. Can anyone explain please? (*unless scores were even with 1 second to go in which case it would be to our advantage, but that cant be judged by an umpire anyway.)

But as our old mate Titus says: Titus O'Reily ‏@TitusOReily 14 mins14 minutes ago Unfortunately, we don't know what type of drug Sam Mitchell was pretending to inject. #AFLHawksDons

Hi Titan - tried that but it always seems to go back to the start of Q1. The URL for example of a free kick in Q3 looks like: http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replayround=CD_R201501411&matchId=CD_M20150141106&eventType=free&seek=4194&videoQuality=high But if I change 4194 to 0 (or 0000) it just goes back to the start of Q1. Any suggestions? thanks

Yes the others do get booed, but only occasionally and usually just after they have done another low act. I used the word 'continually' when referring to Goodes being booed. And while it has been big in the media, has Goodes really personally made an issue of it in the media himself? I don't think he has. He gets booed because he has a high profile outside of football. Some of that reflects a portion of the population that just can't accept an outspoken aborigine and are easily swept into booing him. Some would possibly boo anyone who regardless of race has a high profile outside of footy and dares to play footy. Others are just sheep. Sure, you are entitled to feel that way. But does that cause you to boo him every time he appears? I expect not. (I feel the same about Harvey from NM. But I don't boo him every time I see him).

At the risk of hijacking this dying forum into the Goodes booing issue: An earlier poster listed a number of booable things that Goodes does or has done. The point is that there are many players who do that sort of stuff as much as he does. The thing is he gets continually booed and they don't. Why?

Tippet seems a waste of space every time I see him. Am I watching the wrong games?