sue

When you get to my age recent can be quite a while..... and you'll have trouble rememebering exactly when

Not a rule of the week, but I can't see where else to post this: What is the justification for the relatively recent rule that when a mark is taken in the square, the layer gets to kick it from straight in front? The cynic in me says 'more scoring = more ads on TV' but there must be something else?

Did I hear a loud cheer from the crowd when Scully was knocked over?

OD you don't have to be a wide-eyed optimist to think that the chances of Mitch playing for us again are very much higher than the chance of LJ doing so. You are right however, we should focus on the team without Mitch and if by any chance he does come back, treat it as a welcome surprise bonus.

50 years to be with his son (or daughter, they do happen)? True, but don't forget there is a mother concerned in the birth . May be a surprise to some. She may like her mate to be there.

Thrust of article is that we must sign up Roos immediately. When that doesn't happen he can claim we failed as usual.

http://thenewdaily.com.au/sport/2014/05/18/paul-roos-modern-day-tommy-hafey/

Yeah, but think of the grumbles from some on demonland about the club not keeping paying members informed. Obviously they'd have to give us a secret code so we could work out who X was.

Forget focus of the week. We seemed to suffer focus of the half yesterday.

Great win. On the umpiring: I wasn't able to see the match live and despite all my efforts at avoiding the news, channel 7 managed to tell me the result in the last 30 seconds of broadcasting the Freo-Geelong match. So I watched the umpiring of our game with more objectivity and less emotion than I would have if I didn't already know we eventually won. I was still ropeable about how our tackles in the first half especially were not rewarded and how inconsistent they were, especially towards the end to Richmond's advantage. It sometimes feels like they being paid by the AFL to massage close results and keep the biggest slice of the crowd happy. As several posters have said, the AFL needs to improve the standard of umpiring to match the professionalism of the players and take a close look at how they manage it all, especially dropping the rule of the week approach.

WJ - The issue of delays due to lack of prosecutor funding is one that can be argued -- the extent to which ASADA was remiss in not having enough staff to investigate so many cases at once. I don't blame ASADA for being under-funded, that goes upstairs. I don't accept Galbaly's argument because given the number of cases I don't think ASDA has been 'completely remiss', but that is the only bit of his argument with any strength. I completely agree that the lack of cooperation etc is grounds to grind Essendon.

WJ you sum things up well. One minor disagreement, where you said: "Given the resources available, the lack of co-operation of many of the parties and the complexity of the matter, does time matter that much if time is what's needed to get the truth?" Surely the lack of resources provided by the 'Prosecution' is grounds for abuse of process from resulting delay? In any case if Essendon got off on a legal technicality their name and the AFL's would be mud. Not that that might worry Essendon.

Sheedy's hands all over that.

Also, when was the last time we had a coach bold enough to criticise the umpiring? Can't recall, but then age tells.....

Thinking for oneself and barracking for anyone but Melbourne - impossible! My son had the sense to lose interest in footy post the GF v Essendon but despite his best mate being a Bombers supporter (in a Demons family!) he kept up as a paying MFC member and is just now regaining his interest. Loyalty has its rewards. Which I believe are coming up soonish.

I trust your depression about the MFC didn't turn your daughter into an Essendon fan. If so, see the damage you do. :>)

Better its not HRH and that he stays playing at GWS and continually reminds them how much they overpaid him just to spite us.

The AFL would be negligent if they hadn't spent the last 18 months working on a range of contingency plans. And I expect they've talked to Essendon about them too.

I can see both points of view on the 'sad' day for footy vs clobber the cheats issue. I'd just add if a club had to be made an example of I'm just glad it was one of the big boys and not us, the Dogs, Kangaroos, St Kilda etc. I'd be reluctant to express any glee if they were in the firing line. But it being Essendon, I don't feel too guilty expressing a bit of glee at the same time as feeling sympathy for the players (to some extent) and for the game.

That is another reason why the play on decision should be made by the players and judged legal or not after the fact by the umpires.

Looked that way, but when I stop living in fear of the MRP's consistency then I'll probably be dead.

It was with 9:40 to go in the 3rd quarter. Another thing which should be reportable but is happening less than I might have expected was the 'attempts' to punch the ball away by the player tacked by Garland. He was clearly hitting Garland in the head quite hard. If he has to strike his head as part of the pretence of making an attempt, he should pull his punches. Howe's sling tackle is a bit of a worry, but the MRP is about as consistent there as a roulette wheel.

So no 50m penalty, but in any case the mrp should look at it.

I posted elsewhere that it isn't surprising. We have the advantage of knowing there must have been head high contact because we see Terlich on the ground motionless after the impact. If he didn't actually see the shoulder hit the head, the umpire follows the play and doesn't notice Terlich hasn't moved. And we certainly wouldn't want them to pay frees on the back of motionless players or we'd see the field littered with prone players trying to milk a free. The head high impact that bothers me was the head-lock that Dunn was put in by Cameleri (I think?). Crude, not in the play, intentional, prolonged and dangerous. I hope they rub him out for it but they won't even cite it

Howe has obviously been told to punch the ball away more. He needs lessons in how to do that and told if he can punch with 2 hands why not mark it. The guy who had Dunn's head in a headlock should be rubbed out. That was more appalling than something that happens in the heat and speed of the game and could be very dangerous. I was surprised Roos' made the comment about Terlich not getting a free for having been knocked out. While it was obvious to spectators, we have the 'advantage' of noticing Terlich is on the ground not moving to confirm the fact his head has been knocked. If the umpire doesn't see the actual knock he's not paying attention to the bloke on the ground.