sue

Good to avoid politics in a footy forum, but anyone who interprets an enthusiastic "Roos for PM' remark as an attack or sleight on their favourite politician is just a tad over-sensitive (tad used ironically).

on the basis of the form of the last few weeks (and later on, of having 6 unanswered goals kicked against us). I thought I was noted for my natural over-optimistic nature....

That is a strange view. You can have that 'free' arm grabbed immediately (or even before) you get the ball. How does that mean you have had more prior opportunity than someone who is immediately grabbed around the waist? I agree dropping the ball is the best tactic given the current interpretations. The current interpretations are supposed to prevent ugly packs forming. It is not working. As I posted elsewhere, for a start they could penalize the blokes who jump on pack and tackle the tackler who hasn't got the ball by definition (though I agree with Jumping Jack C when he says it is often the tackler who is the one holding the ball in).

Well said. The fact that Watts felt obliged to throw the ball out rather than just let it drop while trying to free his other arm shows that even the players no longer know the rules. Well actually I expect someone like Watts knows the rules, but he also knows how the umps will misinterpret them. (He would have done better to just fall on the ball rather than risk being pinged for a throw.) I simply cannot understand why the umps don't penalise players who jump on packs and tackle the player(s) who don't have the ball. I recall a clear case where a Melbourne player was tacked on the ground and Jamar jumped in and tackled the Port tackler who clearly didn't have the ball. No free against Jamar. But think how enforcing that would clear up the ugly stacks-on-the-mill scenes we witness at every second ball-up.

Just finally was able to watch the match. Was expecting at least an 8 goal loss. So was very pleasantly surprised despite that disappointment at the end. I've only bothered to read the first lot of postings in this thread and was surprised at the negativity. It was a brilliant effort despite the bungles - compare it to most of the rest of the season and it looks great. I am not always able to watch the match live and can't attend matches but I always know if we win or lose before I do get to see a replay. Do I have a sixth sense? Sadly no. It is just that every time we win the MFC sends out a gloating email presumably to boost the enthusiasm of members. I do have to check my emails so I always know the result. If they do it again (yes we may win another game) I will explode in the club's direction.

I'd simply ask them to wear earplugs so they can't hear the crowd. May cause a few difficulties however.

Good grief, another thread hi-jacked by a sack Watts discussion. And worse still, started by someone who finds an old video to hang him on which was discussed ad nauseum when it originally appeared.

Well that is true if you are just looking at the likelihood of Essendon's guilt, but in other respects to say that you and OD must have given up reading the sports pages.

I just read Dank's comments in the Age. He is not someone I'd want on my side neither for his intellect nor his loyalty.

True but AD would have covered his rear better if he had called all the clubs. I'm reminded if the old Jewish joke about the man who murders his parents and asks for mercy from the judge because he is an orphan. Essendon have taken that to a new level.

45HG, on 12 Jun 2014 - 09:27 AM, said: Can't put them in because there is no one to drop.

That is true in the normal workplace, but even with free agency and the loss of the loyalty that many of us supporters bemoan, blokes in footy clubs may still be loath to take such steps.

They just don't know the difference in meaning between 'continue' and 'start'.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/legal-minefield-awaits-in-essendon-peptides-saga-says-lawyer-20140607-zs0is.html Much of his argument is that because there are so many people who may have broken the rules, it will be a lawyer-fest to 'convict' any one of them. Safety in numbers. Wonderful.

I think one of them is worse than the other, but can't recall which. I reckon it is very unprofessional - they are behaving like one-eyed supporters rather than a coaches.

Fortunately the article is 'premium content' so I'm not going to bother fiddling to read it, but just from the intro, did this Le Grand person graduate from kindergarten? Most of us would see it as a blow to the serial killer, not his defence, if when being investigated for one murder he was prosecuted for another.

Have a read of the articles listed above and you'll see it is reasonable that it takes a long time, though maybe both governments could throw more resources at ASADA. Imagine your reaction if it was all done quickly and the result was 'nothing to see here, move along'.

I think that might indicate where the leaks bombed from. Also that investigation within ASADA provides yet another reason why ASADA has taken a long time. Easy to impatiently criticise them but it is clear that had a mammoth task with piddling resources.

OldDee, if we didn't excuse your negativity we would have put you on ignore a long time ago. (sorry couldn't resist the poke - you are probably correct)

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-06/hogan-in-frame-for-debut

http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2014/06/05/afl-equalisation-paying-veterans/

I'm not saying he will, just that if he does, that will make some of us smile (though it may mean nothing) . If he doesn't, it means nothing either way. Personally, though I'd put my money on civvies, I'd be less surprised if he does wear red&blue than that he is appearing at all.

true, but it will still give some of us a positive feeling.

That's a lot of fuss about his attire. Seems simple to me. If he rolls up in MFC stuff (which anyone can do regardless of their status at MFC) it will give us supporters a positive feeling. If he doesn't, it will not mean anything either way.

Agree with all that monocular except you seem to rule out the possibility of unintentional, non-reckless trips which are just a free kick, not reportable. These happen occasionally and are sometimes penalised.