sue

What I find laughable is the fake efforts to 'make an attempt' to get rid of the ball. The umps insist you pretend to punch - I've seen players in possession punching the ball into their chests to make the umps happy. Yet a guy with ten people sitting on top of him who couldn't move his arms to save his life is penalized for not making an attempt.

His hit-outs are a worry. Usually to his feet where we get swamped. In contrast, Sellar did a tap forward to space at a centre bounce - everything looked better. Why doesn't Jamar ever tap like that? Must be coaches instructions? ed:sp

Actually early on he did some really good long passes. It's his short kicks that come undone.

So it seems if someone steps on your toe you are entitled to feign having your neck pulled off.

Yes, overcorrection. And it was inconclusive, but why was there only 1 camera angle? (at least on the broadcast). In past reviews, we usually see more than one angle.

I forgot to add another telecast grump. When someone scores a behind, why do they almost always show a close up of that player. I'd much rather see how the other team is setting up for the kick in, or the kick in itself. It is as if the tv director is sadistically looking for the player to break down at his failure to score a goal.

Too right. I used to moan about the endldss close-ups when the ball flies out of shot and you have no idea who is going to be near the ball next. But they have topped all that with the new angles which ensure you don't know where on the ground the action is. And now, shots which lack depth so you have no idea of how close players are to each other. And then shots of 'celebreties' in the crowd...... aaarrrggghhhh!

Great 12point win!!

gws may be scary, but $cully? He seems to specialise in passing the ball to the opposition. Not cutting wrists over losing him just yet.

Or try ABC iView -games are usually up soonish.

What a load of doomsayers post on this site. Sure we have been very poor, but given the draw and 186 (and the following matches last year) how many matches did anyone realistically think we'd win by now. Possibly 2 perhaps. Let's see what happens when the players have game time to adjust to the new game plan. Whatever the new plan is, it is clear that the players say they are having to adjust. Give them some time to do so FCS. And as for the many posts which effectively saying Neeld is an idiot, do those posters think they know more than an assistant coach at a successful club? Do they think he is not aware of the shortcomings in what is happening? What about assuming he does, but wants to get our 'soft' players to build a defensive mindset and skills and later let them play 'natural' attacking footy. And get them fit since it seems for some reason they aren't up to AFL fitness levels. Blame the past for that, not the present.

I wouldn't read too much into the lack of wild celebration of goals. Celebrations are most enthusiastic when the goal looks like it might mean a team can (or certainly) will win the game. Has Clark kicked any when we were in such a position this year, either on the scoreboard or in the mindset? If so, then a lack of jubilation would be odd.

and not to a player so close to him that he provides another obstacle for the receiver to dodge.

You are probably correct. But there is one shadow i jump at - I have a feeling that Sheedy will be keen to shaft MFC (partly based on Sheedy not getting Bailey's job and him then paying over-the-odds for $cully). Will Sheedy have any say in GWS plans after this season?

Jamar is quoted on the MFC website saying: "With the way the rules are now, you are probably better off going in head-first because your opposing player will actually probably hold off a bit not wanting to give away a free or get suspended," naughty naughty - will probably be fined by the AFL for stating the truth.

surely not!?? Discipline is one thing but that would be cutting off the snozz to spite the face.

What's with the ruck? In every game Jamar and whoever else seem to almost always tap it down near their own feet. The result is that even if we get the ball it is congested and we get tackled. It happens so often it must be deliberate tactic, but why? What happened to hitting it into some space into which a player runs?

Dunno about other sports much, but of course it is hard to catch everything. But the frustrating thing is the endless changes in interpretation. Holding the ball seemed to be completely different this weekend (so far).

Billy: There seems a mixup with the quoting somewhere. I was replying to Cards13 originally and quoting his message not yours. You seem to think I was replying to you and I didn't spot that you were now writing not cards13, hence the confusion in subsequent posts. Am I doing something wrong when I hit the 'quote' button or did you just misread who I quoted in my original post? Cards13: My replies to billy, including the one where I accepted nothing un-supportive was intended, may answer your question to me.

OK. I assumed that when you said 'he tried' to do the same again you meant he tried intentionally. I'll accept you didn't mean that.

I'm not saying that. I said the decision was arguable (and in my view is too dependent on the outcome rather than the act). But I did object to your assumption that he tried to do it again for which I saw no evidence. If I was a player I'd hope supporters wouldn't think the worst unless there was clear evidence.

I'd say it was all part of the action of the original tackle begun inside the oval. Whether it is classified as a sling tackle seems to depend on how hard a player's head hits the turf and this, except in very violent slings, is a matter of chance. Thus unfair to the tackler even without the additional bad luck of landing on fake grass. All arguable, but to go on to say that he tried the same again and got knocked out! What evidence do you have for that? Given how they ended up, seems more likely Grimes was trying to ensure the other bloke didn't hit the ground. No surprise if the players might lose morale with supporters that don't support. Reality is one thing, looking for the worst is another.

sorry about confusing you with another poster, my apologies. But I don't think speculating that CS may have presented the Board with a risk assessment and they decided to take the risk is 'making up stories'. it is just more speculation to match the anti-CS speculation of some here where 'making up stories'/'assuming they know what happened' seems to be all the rage. BTW, I have no axe to grind either for or against CS. I didn't like his management-speak last year, but I have no idea if he is the right person for the job since that sort of crud permeates the managing classes these days. I would hope the Board and those more connected to the club have a better idea of his competence.

I'm not making up stories - I'm just trying to indicate to you that we don't know all the facts and thus it is a brave person who calls for heads to roll. Re your question: dunno. Re Queen: You don't even know if my name is an indication of my sex or just my general policy to my opponents in life. That said, I have no problem with a forum speculating further than the facts the public has to hand. I just hope that people who don't always assume the worst are given a hearing. I'd love to have a contract for the supply of razor blades to many on this forum.

We don't know what happened internally at MFC, so how can you say he must resign? For example, let us concede that reasonable diligence would have shown that EW was dodgey and its founder a racist idiot. How do you know that Schwab didn't put all that to the Board but it was concluded by the Board that the potential cash was worth the risk. Why aren't you calling for the entire Board to be shot? Or only those who voted in favour of it. Because you don't know what really went on, but you are happy to call for Schwab's head.