sue

The 'draw' and the Geelong factor both are corruptions of our game. The AFL doesn't provide a fair competition, just one to maximise $ (except in the bewildering case mentioned by Kickit to P). You might think the betting companies would want a fair competition, but you'd be fooling yourself, since they can make money any old way.

You’d expect some enthusiasm after beating the premiers. But no.

a ball up where exaclty? Where the ball hit the ground?

What's the rule at the ice rink when the ball hits the roof? Seem to recall it is a free against?

You're working you way to the top of the list of negative for negative's sake posters. How about you sprinkle something positive - just for comic relief.

I hope our players know that and won't be disheartened by lack of supporters.

Lots of posters are bewildered by Tommo being dropped after playing well. But if we all noticed he played well, surely the selection panel did too. There must be reasons other than the club is insane. (I've no idea what they could be.)

To be more like C'wood means we'll have to find a Maynard to knock the daylights out of a top oppo player and then have the AFL do bugger-all about it. I hope the first never happens, but if it did, the the second would not.

what a joke. Totally risible. So now any player can do it and then express contrition and his club will 'make him more aware in future'. Probably not. But I bet the first player penalised will not come from a 'big' club.

Ah, nothing like contracting out to dodge responsibility.

Sorry, but to my mind that is pretty infantile and I'm surprised any professional media department produced it. Did they really? (Of course I take delight in GWS beating the bastards.)

You'd be right except for the fact that who knows which players are in those 'very few'. It's one thing to expect players to be available, it's another to make it complusory.

Personally I don't feel the need for endless 4-6 weeks and have no problem with short/long term. And as for ALL players being forced to see the media.- I hate that. Imagine how that could affect a bloke going through some personal probems etc - getting asked all sorts of slimy questions so some self-styed journalist can big note themselves.

Neither chompimg nor chanting. Champing is the word, as you say from horses. (Though I see chomping is gaining currency.)

If true (and I wouldn't put it past the AFL to be so arrogant as to think they could get away with such a sham), I wonder what recompense the AFL will be making to those teams. It's not as if it involves shafting us and StKilda etc. Did the AFL ever give a reason for introducing an 'opening round'?

As I understand it that was a decision of ICON, not the clubs. Doubtless wanting to save on staff and cleanup etc.

Stop undermining what Angus himself said and giving support to the AFL when he sues the pants off them.

I don't care about their 'army'. But imagine what a statement it would send to the AFL and their media hangers-on if there was a total boycott. But as I say, since there is no way or organising that (eg. you and many like-minded, will be there), it just a vain fantasy on my part.

It would be the best thing to do if the boycott was absolutely 100%. But since that is impossible, I guess you are right.

hmmm, but no statement from the AFL itself. Odd.

Sorry I've asked it before but not seen an answer to date: Where is there a definitive statement that the AFL did so? All I've seen is Gus saying it was his decision.

What about bumps that are for shepherding rather than attaching the bloke with or going for the ball? There would be a grey area between just standing in the way of an opponent trying to get to your teammate with the ball and bumping the opponent to prevent him reaching your teammate. Who would have initiated the bump - the player shepherding or the opponent trying to get past him? I guess when you have 100 grey areas, a 101st is no big deal....

Content? Sounds too much like the "Black Knight's" behaviour to me.

While one can argue that we have better things to focus our energies on(*), please explain how 'banging on' about Maynard gives them ammunition? Take any historical evil action that people may be reminded of. I don't see that reminders gives ammunition to the supporters of the evil action? (*) not that what we do on forums like this has any effect on anything except ourselves.

I wasn't referring to him (I have never forgiven his pro-Essendon position in the 'enhancement' program). But his co-presenter said it 3 times, so I guess she got it from him.