sue

My strong recollection is that you were all for strict no dissent at all at the start of the year based on wanting to protect junior umpires etc. and criticised me and others for instead wanting the happy balance we seem to now have. Maybe my memory is wrong. Glad we are in agreement now. So we must criticise the AFL for not supporting the umpires in their new interpretation since we haven't heard a peep out of the AFL on the subject.

I don't want umpires, male or female, threatened. But I'd be interested in you responding to my question to you about the change in dissent ruling during the year. Who do we criticise when the AFL have not announced a change in the rule? Or are you happy with the apparent change?

Of course it is not OK to abuse umpires. But why do I have to say it 1000 times - I DO NOT THINK UMPIRING IS EASY. I suspect very few who criticise umpiring think it is easy. Most of us want the AFL to looks more thoughtfully at rule changes and "interpretations" and avoid the "rule of the week" rather than just pile on individual umpires. I note that players vigorously disputing umpire's decisions seems now OK almost all of the time, unlike Round 1. I presume you would criticise those current decisions? Unless we know the AFL has issued a directive to now ignore that which they said was so essential for recruiting/retaining more junior umpires, we can ony criticise the umpires for making bad decisions when they ignore it.

I expect I'd be able to handle a lot of abuse because I haven't put you on ignore.

"You can't just shove another player out of the way especially when the ball isn't within 5 metres" A forward seems to be able to do it to backman often because the backman can't afford to 'fly' out of the contest like a forward does to milk a free. Sadly the more famous the forward, the more likely they are to get away with it. Your argument re scragging seems to be "Hang the rules,everyone does it, even us, so don't complain" . Imagine appying that line of argument to all sort of infringements. How about enforcing the rules so players are discouraged from doing it instead. Or change the rules. One or the other.

I don't blame them. The current stupid and inconsistent 'interpretation' is a lottery and you have to buy a ticket to win.

For those who have the entire fixture in their heads, whom should I barrack for between Essendon and Cats? (Assuming I hate them both and fear Geelong a bit more in the finals)

Anyone know where and when this is? Any reports much appreciated.

Often very little to none of the momentum that the ball gets comes from a fist (or even a hint of a fist). It is clear the AFL wants a fast moving game that this allows. I suspect the only thing stopping them from changing the rules to allow throws is how to stop long overhead throws like in gridiron coming into the game which would be a terrible look.

Leaving aside the puzzling issue of starting to do this when Casey has a bye, working on his forward craft makes sense to me. Even if he has never been much chop up forward, if we plan to use 2 rucks in the finals and would like to rest them in coming weeks, it makes sense to improve his forward craft as much as possible. If limited VFL minutes can be considered a rest, it makes sense, even if he learns just a little.

Nor do I though it is odd that they chose to do it when the VFL has a bye.

While of course winning this year is more important than a pick, I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Don't your numbers include the many years when each team played each other team twice, one in Geelong and one at home? In which case it weakens your argument.

I agree. Just as soon as their home ground has a closer resemblence to a normal footy ground.

Wouldn't it be amusing if all the commentators had to sit an exam on the rules before being allowed to commentate.

Sharpening those antlers for the finals.

I've been as critical as anyone of him trying to do this, but the only time he did it last night (that i recal) was when he was up against 2 opponents who were in a better position to take an easy mark. He couldn't crumb that, so causing chaos wasn't a bad idea.

Obviously Gawn is not doing well at the moment. But equally obvious is that the umpires don't like him. Must be because he has developed this cunning mechanism for lifting his jumper up his body by a battery powered machine to milk a free kick in boundary throw-ins. Or at least the umpires must think so, because they don't pay him a free when his jumper mysteriously rises up. (Having said that I reckon most jumper tugs have little effect on the player, but the rule seems to be if a tug is seen, a free must be paid.)

Sorry if I missed it, but have any 'expert' posters who have been putting the boot into our fitness staff ever replied to my suggestion that perhaps the docs looking at the initial scans stuffed up rather than our staff? Personally I'm in the camp of those saying it was a difficult case further complicated by a week in bed and these things happen without anyone being specifically at fault.

Since wind can hardly be blamed for our recent goal kicking woes, I don't see that a closed roof makes a difference to the possibility of our being doomed.

All true. Let's hope we get back on track. But let's not over-estimate the strength of our adversaries and be intimidated, which was the point I was vaguely trying to make.

How the hell did we beat them then?

I'd add to that playing in the VFL provides a chance of getting a big confidence boost after being up against experienced AFL backs.

Some posters are blaming the fitness staff, but is it not possible that the medicos who did the initial scans got it wrong? (Disclaimer: I know nothing about such things.)

Scott's whinging is a joy to behold.