sue

I am amazed that the AFL is trying to counsel Davey. Not only does that imply they think he is lying, but what a lot of paternalistic crud. But I doubt it is racist paternalism - they'd do this to anyone to cover their bums.

That was my initial thought. More likely than the alternatives of a conspiracy or worse. We'll see, perhaps.

Agree. I'm concerned that all this may affect our selection decisions. Many would think that Davey deserves to be dropped this week, but imagine the artificial fuss now if he is dropped. So not only messing with the players heads again, but even with the selectors' heads.

What are you implying? I can't see how not having named names is relevant. He said: "I’m pleased that the AFL has come out strongly in support of Mark and that Jason has apologised to Mark and the club.” He didn't say that Jason had apologised to him.

And several other possibilities. But don't worry about that, let's just get out the pitchforks NOW.

Why start this with a scornful 'Yeah'? You list a perfectly reasonable process that might be followed if certain things are true, but how does that contradict monocular's plea to " give our "senior indigenous player" at least the benefit of any doubt before condemning him". The 'yeah' sounds like you do believe in condemning people based on rumour. I presume you don't believe that, so please cool it.

I can't believe the number of people who think the worst at a drop of a hat. The above is an example - why assume the ex got true info? Is there any evidence it was true? No. Even Mifsud says he was lied to by his source. Good grief!

Hang on a minute. It is quite possible that the 'rat' told him something which was misinterpreted. For example, maybe Neeld spoke to all the indigenous guys about Jurrah's situation, possibly at their request, and Mifsud misunderstood and 'leaked' what he did. At this stage, who knows, so please let's all calm down.

Thomas is also the problem. What sort of journalist doesn't check out what he has been told second-hand by looking for some confirmation before publishing? Regardless of who 'lied', or whether Mifsud 'leaked', it is Thomas who should be sued. He published it. It is no defence in a libel case to say 'but I was told it was true by someone who was told by someone who lied'.

He had to kick it twice because an umpire on the far wing blew his whistle for the blood rule on a lions player just as he was kicking the first one. Imagine if an important game's outcome was affected by such foolish timing....

Does anyone know why the game is scheduled to start at the odd time of 1:45? edit: ah, presumably so Fox can show the next match live etc.

What is your source? A poster elsewhere said that Jim was upset that Scully had lied to him. I don't know what the source for that was either, but both can't be true. So I can only go on probabilities. If your version is true why did Jim say that the system was forcing young guys to lie? If he had agreed to keep it confidential he probably wouldn't have said anything on the subject. But if he had been lied to, and knew or even suspected it, then he'd be more likely to make that comment on the system I think.

Correct. Anyway, in terms of entertainment I'd much prefer a Buddy Franklin style player than some hulk who crashes packs. Hopefully MC will do enough of that for us. When Watts is a bit heavier he'll be doing as much crashing as necessary for his style of play. He is just 21 and a few hours. Put the razors away for a year or two - especially the retrospective drafting razors.

The frees were 'interesting' 24 GWS to 16 Syd. Sydney often had obvious frees missed whilst GWS got very iffy ones. Now I'm not saying there was an AFL plot afoot to make GWS look as good as possible (though since footy is now a 'business' it would be a possible though dangerous tactic for the AFL to do that sort of thing). But I'd be interested to hear what the proponents of the argument that "there is no bias, the best team gets more frees" have to make of this match?

A great man. Very sad.

I watched Natanui tonight in the NAB final. As usual the commentators were enthusiastic about him but all I saw was him do was take a couple of marks and do a couple of good things. About what Watts might do in some matches. Was this an atypical effort by NN? From the little I've seen it was pretty typical of him. So does Watts have to grow a funny hairstyle and jump about to be raved about? It amazes me that so many posters think we clearly made a mistake in taking Watts over him. I'd say the jury is well and truly out.

Very funny WYL. But isn't it a bit poor to make such a comment when someone may have a serious back injury, no matter how badly they played?

Maybe true sometimes, but the number of times the players have all run the 'wrong' way during the NAB cup would indicate that they are as confused as the spectators. With the way the game is played nowadays, it is essential they get this right or it gives an unfair advantage to the side which gets the free.

Unless you have played at AFL level I don't know that any of us would know how much the Liam factor would affect the game. If the players usually spend time in the days leading up to a match thinking about team structures, their likely opponents etc but instead spent that time in the sort of frenzy exhibited by us supporters, who knows what the effect would be. And then they get a couple of miracle goals kicked on them early on - who knows.

I don't think anyone is blaming the umps for our poor performance. Criticising the umps performance is another matter. But I believe there is bias. I think dubious umpiring decisions often favour the better team - and it's not just because the better team is first to the ball etc etc. It is probably natural to err in that way as they "call it as they see it" - they see it through this psychological distortion. I suppose at the back of their mind is a feeling that it is more likely that the poorer team's player committed an error than the better team's player. Unfortunately, this sort of bias will appear to be a bias against MFC because we haven't been the better team for quite a while.

While it is no excuse for the thrashing we had, the umpires were bewildering at times and allowing (as much as one honestly can) we seemed to get the worst of it. They have been pretty bad throughout the NAB cup, even in matches between teams I didn't give a toss about. I can only assume the ump coaches were throwing in some rookies.

What a bunch of jerks the HUN people are. When he was first detained, having no information, they publish a story which implies Jurrah couldn't handle the new regime at the Demons without giving any evidence at all. And of course they censored the comment made by my mate pointing this out politely. Now this. Given the feud, anything is possible. Eg. false witness blaming a high profile person on the other side of the feud would be quite likley. It's all speculation at this point (and sadly may always be).

While most of the media has been sensitive about the cultural background to all this, an article in the HUN has really annoyed me and my mate. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/is-the-dream-over-for-liam-jurrah/story-fn8libkp-1226294181174 The article nastily implies Jurrah wasn't working hard under the new regime without citing any evidence at all. My mate posted a polite response to the HUN saying the author should make such 'allegations' without presenting evidence, particularly at this time. But of course the HUn hasn't put it up, just a post from someone mouthing the same line as the article. Typical Murdoch press.

I agree with nutbean and diesel and add this: How do we know if we chose Martin as #1 that he wouldn't have then become Sheedy's principal target and gone the same way as Scully? The fact that he subsequently chose to stay where he is doesn't prove he'd have stayed if he was #1. I suspect a good deal of the GWS focus on Scully was because he was #1 and because Sheedy wanted to screw the Demons for having the sense not to employ him. It might not have mattered who we chose as #1. (If so, thank goodness the coin toss didn't come up with Trengove over Scully.) (I admit I'm not very familiar of the circumstances around Martin and the timing of offer/signings or Scully v him.)

Slightly off topic, but I found the Bulldogs jumper which they wore against GWS was much harder to distinguish from GWS than their regular jumper would have been.