sue

Not saying you are one at all DStone but there are some posters who delight in boasting how superior they are by claiming to be super objective and rational unlike everyone else. They often go too far. There will always be over emotional supporters who go too far the other way

Not saying you are one at all DStone but there are some posters who delight in boasting how superior they are by claiming to be super objective and rational unlike everyone else. They often go too far. There will always be over emotional supporters who go too far the other way

Or some have mutated it into Must Defend The AFL Whenever syndrome. Most of the comments are about the corruption of AFL operations regardless of our club. And if you don’t think the AFL has history in this I’m staggered.

1:35 according to https://www.afl.com.au/fixture?Competition=7&CompSeason=47&MatchTimezone=MY_TIME&Regions=2&ShowBettingOdds=1&GameWeeks=14&Teams=88&Venues=100#byround

And I'm still waiting for the explanation of exactly what could be deduced from either a good or a poor performance. Now we know it was good, the job should be easier so I'm expecting the Wag to tell us the contractual situation.

Maybe I misunderstand you but calling out “Melbourne, in the back” explains the free kick just as well a “in the back, Melbourne “ does.

I don't think it is only an issue when a team seeks to play on the way footy is played these days, though I'd agree it can be more significant when a team seeks to play on.

Sorry to start a new topic, but I can't see where else to post this: Can anyone enlighten me on why the umpires always call the nature of the free before calling out the name of the team getting the free. It seems to me that it would better to call out the name of the team getting the free and saying what for afterwards. That would make less confusion and easier for playing on (and in a way fair to both teams) and for players to take field position in response to the free earlier. This is especially true when the players can justifiably have no idea which way the free is going - eg holding the man is often a toss up as both players are holding, or in the back versus holding the ball. If there any advantage in calling it in the way they do now?

The AFL likes crowds partly because it boosts the atmosphere of the TV broadcast. But they will get more and more adept at faking the crowd. (I am often impressed with how much noise 10 GWS spporters can make.) If they really want to rely on TV and provide an engrossing TV experience, then they have to start offering viewing options so we are not at the mercy of directors who think we want to know how well the players shaved that day. Or offer options like be able to hear the umpire's mikes rather than the likes of BT.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/collingwood-withdraws-de-goey-contract-offer-after-bali-video-emerges-20220620-p5av5m.html

Please explain how it will show his intentions? I'm guessing you are looking at how well he plays and maybe how enthusiastically he plays (or some similar observable behaviour). So the cases are: Well and enthusiastic Well and not enthusiastic Poor and enthusiastic Poor and not enthusiastic. What can you deduce from any of those outcomes, either of his intentions or the club's? Genuinly interested - not rubbishing your statement. (I'm assuming the club doesn't show its intentions by leaving him on the bench for 50% of the time and the other 50% at Casey!)

Time to translate that into some wins.

It's not impossible that Daw has personal issues which may explain why he neither plays nor is listed as injured. Hopefully not.

Thanks. Re the figure of 8, I suspect that sudden movement after total stillness might be more distracting than just changing the direction of movement.

It's often struck me that all cheer squads just wave randomly which I suspect is easier for the player kicking to ignore. If all the flags etc were still and suddenly moved in a coordinated way just before the player lowered their eyes to kick the ball I suspect it would have more effect.

That's surely over-optimistic. And 9 days is hardly a bye. At least the rest of his body will get a rest.

Daw has missed several matches for reasons that have not been stated which puts a question mark over expecting him to be in the team. I too have watched every Casey game and felt Daw was not anywhere near as useful as you state. Maybe he could stand at FF and at least make life difficult for defenders in the air.

The title of this thread deserves the "Title of the Year" award.

Think I saw somewhere chan 7 restricts to inside Oz. VPN may be needed

Sounds like he is commenting on one of the early (and many) versions of what was said. If so, that’s not wise.

I haven't followed club politics so can anyone join the dots for me?

Thanks. But if you read that full article it seems he provides no real data and he basically says booze is no good for you so it's probably worse if you are recovering from something. Fair enough.

What evidence is there that drinking a week after a minor concussion is an issue? Common sense may argue that, but is there any hard evidence? (Genuine question - not trying to make any comment on the rest of this issue.)

So a new account of what is supposed to have happened appears every 12 hours and we see 5 pages of posters commenting on it as if it is an accurate account and wringing their hands. Then a new account appears and we are off again.

The reason I suggested Max for PM in an earlier tongue-in-cheek post was because, unlike recent politicians, if he didn't want to answer a question he simply said he would not, nor did he avoid answering a question by going into a prepared speech on another topic. Very refreshing.