sue

The advantage rule needs re-consideration. There were several instances in the Brisbane match where what happened after the whistle went was treated almost randomly causing unfair advantages or disadvantages. And the same sorts of things happen in almost every match I have seen this year. There is no easy solution but there surely must be something better. What about the umps not blowing the whistle till it is clear that the team awarded the free kick had no advantage? BTW, I just watched the reply of the Brisbane match Q1 which has caused so much wrist-slitting here. There wasn't that much between the teams. The scoreboard difference was largely due to some terrible umpiring.

You don't half as much as Eddie Everywhere owes an apology. Seems to me there is a case for suing for slander (there are still people, even demons supporters, posting comments which assume he did [censored] on the bar). Or at least demand an apology.

I found the white shorts the Demons wore a help in distinguishing the teams. But another complication for the viewer (and possibly players) was the white strappings some Essendon players wore negated this. Even if there are different clash jumpers it would be good if the strapping matched the shorts at least roughly. But I'm not holding my breath on this minor one when the AFL gets the major ones so wrong so often.

Does anyone know if the AFL will be putting full replays on their website like they did for the first NAB round?

I like the circle of yellow stars. Great idea. Ii wonder if it is also part of our push into China. Looks a bit like the Chinese flag.... Intentional, Cam?

go to: http://fixtures.thismonkey.com/cgi-bin/football-fixture.pl?view=latest&type=ha&code=afl ] choose 'ics' which will download a file Melbourne_fixture_for_2011.ics and in google calendar drop down 'add' and choose 'import' the file that gets downloaded.

During the TV commentary on the St Kilda Doggies match they mentioned that several C'wood players were at the match, the rest were watching on TV. How useful is it for a C'wood player to watch their upcoming opponents on TV? Not much in my opinion. How can they see where their next opponent is moving, how they managed to get 5m free of their opponent etc etc - all they see most of the time is close-ups of a player with a ball in hand, or a pack contest. Just occasionally there is a wide shot. So why were they not at the match? I've often wondered if teams get the video of all the camera angles when they review a match in the following week. Does anyone know? Which brings me to my usual whinge. I'm sick of close-ups where the ball is hand-balled just out of the field of view and the viewer has no idea who is the recipient or what pressure they are under at the time it is hand-balled. If they just doubled the area framed it would be so much better. But I guess they think it is less exciting if the viewer has some idea what will happen next. My 'favourite' is a guy running along with a ball surrounded by green. They could film that in advance for all it tells you about the broadcast match.

So is it decided by the 'popular' vote (distorted by several factors) or by a panel of 'experts'?

Apparently the Hawthorn player who punched Bennell in the stomach quite hard well off the ball and clearly captured by the TV video hasn't been charged with anything or even 'considered'. Why not?

Nothing about Sylvia?

Gosh, if he OP's views on each player are correct, how in hell did we stay competitive for 3 quarters? Come on, a bit more positiveness won't ruin your week of moaning.

Does anyone know how the game could be watched outside Victoria (where ABC1 shows rugby)?

When the current rules and interpretation are stupid, yes it is just what we need. Suggestions and discussion and trials are the way to go. This idea has merit. One-on-one. Very simple. Easier for the ump to make right decision. Indeed maybe no decision is needed. If the ball comes out it is play on. If not it is holding the ball regardless if it is held in by the tackler. This rewards a good tackle. It could be argued that is too hard on the ball getter, but on average it might work out OK by making it more likely that the man with the ball will get away when gang tackles are banned. Also no large pack will form. Perhaps the main interpretation problem would be when the tackle starts to slip and another tackler starts to make a second tackle. At what point is it called as 2 people tackling? Certainly it is no good when there are 4 players on the ground and more players throwing themselves onto the pack. A way to stop that would be great. The diving on the ball free kick was introduced to make the play flow. For whatever reason, it doesn't seem to work. Play doesn't seem to flow more than it did before and we get all these dubious decisions, players pushing the ball in etc. which is driving everyone from senior players, coaches to fans mad.

While on the subject of what umpires do wrong (is there a subject called 'what they do right'?) another 2 things that annoy me are: 1. blowing the whistle for an obvious free kick and immediately shouting 'play on' when it is obvious that there is clear advantage to play on and the team with the ball are doing so. Why blow the whistle at all? Creates a (probably minor) disadvantage to the offending side for no purpose other than to show the world that the umpire knows what's what. No need. 2. Being slow to call play on. This gives too much advantage to the player shooting for goal and in other situations. It would be better if players were able to make their own decision about whether play on has occurred. If they get it wrong, then award the 50m penalty. Umps could still call play-on as now, but wouldn't automatically award a 50m penalty just because the player moved before the call. They would have to call-play on in other circumstances, like when a player just stands on the spot etc. since there is no way a player can reliably judge if time wasting is going on. But players can judge if a player has gone off-line. Edit: On reflection I suspect it wouldn't work. Umpires would never admit they were too slow to make the call and would always award the 50m penalty.

Agree mostly. Another thing they do is say things like 'knock it out', "Don't lock arms", "arms up". Why? They should not give advice to players. The excuse seems to be "well this is the breach of rules that I'm going to be hot on today". They also sometimes praise an action. This is even more stupid - totally uncalled for and doesn't even have the weak excuse of indicating what free kick the ump is keen on today. Leave praise to fellow players and the crowd. However, I do think they should explain decisions made or the players will get even more baffled than they are already. The explanation I like best is "I didn't see it" - at least that is honest.

While Morton did well today, I thought that especially early in the game he hesitated a few times putting others under pressure. One time it wasn't the next guy who was under the hammer but an opposition player was able to get closer to the next obvious target who was then under pressure that would have been lessened if there was no initial hesitation.

It is the AFL that is missing the plot. They have forgotten why diving on the ball and holding it in was 'banned'. They wanted to avoid ball-ups. Fair enough. But much of the time the holdup is caused by 5 guys jumping on both the tackler and the tackled player. They do this not to get the ball, but to confuse the umpire. This also creates ever increasing packs till finally a dubious free kick is the only way to get the game going. Dunno if this would work, but: Why not also penalize players who tackle the tackler, or dive on top of the general pile of players? After all the tackler rarely also possesses the ball so it should be holding the man (and if 2 people really do have the ball, then it should be a ball-up). If the 'stacks on the mill' approach was penalized then I bet the ball would be able to come out more, or it would be more obvious if the player with the ball has made a genuine attempt to get the ball out. Admittedly there would be disputed decisions about who jumped on whom, but at least the player getting the ball wouldn't be the only mug on the ground. Also the current definition of 'genuine attempt' seems to require Academy Award acting skills in impossible situations. I'm amazed players don't use the opportunity to 'accidentally' punch an opponent rather than the ball since there is often no way the ball is going to move.

Unfortunately every time he goes near the ball he is under pressure regardless of what is happening in the play. The more he plays the less this will be an issue. (Of course if in the long run he turns out to be a bit of a dud, the pressure would mount again. But he is unlikely to be a dud even if he does not become a superstar).

If that is the incident I think it is, it was patly Miller's fault (and I'm no Miller-basher). Miller needed to move away from the oppo player to give Watt's an option. Instead he just stood a foot behind him and Watts ran into the pair of them. Watts showed some good signs today.

While what you say is correct, it is not a response to the previous post if you read it more carefully. He said it was under control it before it went over the line. (I won't argue if that is correct or not.) You are allowed to fumble it after you have controlled it and still be awarded the mark. That happens all the time all over the field, so it should also apply if the ball goes over the line during a post-mark fumble.

The pink umpire business (outrage) reminds me to raise something I've often wondered about. Given what goes on in tight packs and clearances, why don't players have their club colours painted on their wrists or lower arms to help with quick decisions?

re the Green 'goal'. The goal ump had in front of him a ball a boot and a hand less than 2 m away. Perfect position to make the decision. The field ump was behind all this and further away. I cannot believe that the field umpire could be so arrogant as to overrule the goal umpire given the positions they were in. You don't need 'all' umpires to be absolutely sure. Goal umpire was bullied.

Glad to hear it. As long as it doesn't become as boring to watch, so that frustrated fans aren't reduced tearing up seats and brawling in order to keep themselves entertained.,

agreed. I'm just expressing the fear that the example I chose (and was stupid enough to sit through) might become the way of the future. I trust coaches will work out how to make sure it doesn't happen.

Actually the reason I raised this topic was that I have been watching some replays of old matches - perhaps some from before I was born. Although I was missing the extra emotion and interest that comes from barracking for the Dees in games played now, I found the old ones very entertaining. And yes, there will always be contact in AFL so it won't just become soccer. Never said it would. But will it be as exciting to watch as it is now or in the past? The more you remove physical contests by the use of tactics, the greater the danger that it will be less entertaining to watch. Some evolution is good, some can lead you up the garden path. If the Dogs-Saint game last weekend is the way of the future, then I'd be worried. (Note I said 'if'.)