sue

What happened to Maynard? Nothing trivial I trust

Sorry, it's clear from the posts that many of us do not agree that it is a strange call. I won't repeat the justifications that have been made for such a call nor refute the nonsense about lack of respect to TMac. But it's true that many here will blame Goody if things go wrong - probably the same people who complain about Goody not doing anything new/bold/playing favourites.

I'm puzzeled why several postesrs think it is an insult to TMac to not be listed as 'rested'. As I posted in the VFL thread - I doubt if TMac is weeping over his museli thinking that some supporters might think he is being dropped for lack of form. He knows what's what and so does the club.

Probably true. Why are some getting worked up about the club just saying 'omitted'. I doubt if TMac is weeping over his museli thinking that some supporters might think he is being dropped for lack of form. He knows what's what and so does the club.

All true. But if a helmet was a 2 metres long 'spring', wouldn't that dissipate the momentum and energy of a blow to other parts of the body? If so (?), I wonder if it would be possible (with some yet to be discovered high tech material) to reduce the size of the 'spring' to a manageable size?

They need to find some cantankerous bastards like me to umpire. If I heard the crowd roar for a free kick my immediate reaction would be do to the exact opposite.

Recently there have been a few posts complaining that at the ball up after a goal, the video starts with a small inset of the centre area which only widens out to fill the screen as the ball is bounced. The complaint is that makes it impossible to see how the players are setting up for the bounce. But it reached a new height last night - the full screen view often didn't switch to the bounce until well after the play was actually underway. Instead we see the face of the player who kicked the goal for a second or third time. Forget detailed analysis - they can't even broadcast the game. It is clear that they have no interest in football, just drama (and $).

Get your Captain to measure it on google maps with their handy distance measuring tool and report back. Looks more like 150m (which would mean an honest 50m arc would touch the mandated centre square.) I note the ABC stated that they had lengthened the ground since 2007. Not sure how they did that.

Maybe not a myth...... I just measured the SCG using google maps and it gives 150m, not 155m. An AI engine, Perplexity, says its 149m by 136m. (Another AI engine says 155m by 136m, and that the area 'varies', so who to believe.) Perplexity says the MCG is 160m by 151m. (A bit hard to measure on google maps, but it seems around 162m long). If the first of those SCG numbers (gmaps measured and Perplexity) is correct and the centre square is 50m, the the space between the square and a genuine 50m arc would be 0m. If the second is correct it would be 2.5m. I'd tend to believe the measurement using google maps, but I'd love to hear other's views/measurements. I can't find a definitive afl source, but that's no surprise. (I think Binman is right regardless of the exact numbers).

While the result was terrible, total despair is premature I think. After all, Casey dominated for much of the game and looked much classier. But if you go from 4.9 to 4.17 in Q3 while you opponents kick 5.2 it's hard to maintain enthusiasm and getting blown out of the water is almost inevitable. So quite a bit of despair is warranted, especially about goal kicking, but not total despair.

No idea of the rules, but if there was treatment that would have started earlier, but wasn't started until the following Thursay, you could argue that justifies the extra delay. Even if there is no such treatment, the fact that he kept playing could also argue for extra recovery time being needed.

With kicks of 40m I wonder how accurate the kick really is a lot of the time. How often does the receiver have time to move to where the ball is going to fall making the kick appear more accurate than it was? The goalposts don't offer that service sadly. (I leave aside a kick to space where it is intended the receiver has to run to get the ball).

Maybe they mean that even if we won those 2 finals and the flag back then, they already knew our gameplan would never give us another flag. (Where is that sarcasm emoji I keep asking for?).

Ask them if they like the TRIP out to Casey when we train there.

Brilliant! Of course the AFL will find some way of punishing us for it.

I promised not to rinse and repeat about people missing my point, so I will comment on a different point. Please tell me how you can truly develop your goal kicking indoors (unless your indoors is Marvel Stadium). It's all very well to try to polish a technique but until it goes 30-50 metres through a 7m wide gap, you won't really know. I guess with a lot of high tech equipment in a limited indoor space it may be posssible to extrapolate and see if a kick would have gone through goals 50 m away. But think of the damage to the ceiling.

I think you miss my point. I'm not talking about dealing with windy conditions in games. Sure lots of good players kick better than ours in all conditions. Simply saying our players are carp doesn't address the point. The possibility I (and I think the OP) are pointing to is that if you train in 'impossible' conditions, it may be harder to improve your technique. Why? Because you can't be sure that a change you made to your technique is actually working. To get clean data from the noisy data caused by a gusty wind, you may have to take 100 shots at goal, whereas if you were doing it in calm conditions, perhaps only 20 shots at goal would show you whether the change you made was working. So improvement of technique may be slower if you train in windy conditions. That is all I'm saying. That possibly minor factor is probably completely overwhelmed by our lack off talent, poor coaching or application. I think I've tried to make this minor point too many times, so won't again.

I am not making excuses. I just agreed with the OP that it could be a factor (by making improvement in technique difficult to measure) and then tried to deal with irrelevant comments like 'bad kicking is bad football'. It may well be that we just have a group of crud kickers. It also may be that it is harder to improve them if you can't train in perfect conditions.

Talk about missing the point. Yes, bad kicking is bad football. But you try to teach good technique in a wind tunnel. If you make an adjustment to style, you might or might not get a clear result. Do it in perfect conditions and you are much more likely to do so.

Or course, but there may be 2 issues. One is mental (which Fritsch seems to be suffering unless you argue he has a technique problem in which case you have to explain why that has suddenly developed). The other is players not improving their techique. That could be down to poor coaching, lack of application etc but there could well be a component of mentally making excuses for missing due to the wind at Casey and thus not fixing poor technique.

Maybe. But Dee-tails-key may have a point. If you are practising kicking in a windy location like Casey it makes it harder to know where your kicking is really at. If you miss you (and your coaches too) might put it down to the wind whereas there is something wrong with your technique and that gets overlooked as a result.

Not true, eg. Keane from Adeliade in 2021. And lots of fines have been made, up to $10K, including this year. Most trips are accidental and not very careless, so the MRO is understandably reluctant to suspend for them. But Kozzie had a clear deliberate trip. Not saying it was done with evil intention (ie to hurt Kozzie), but please explain how it wasn't at the very least a fine and basically ignored. What does it say about the AFL?

Don't be naive - the laws of Australia Rules Football (incorporated) override those and allow AFL HQ and the MRO to do whatever is currently on their empire building agenda.

I feel like that too. But I'm sure the AFL is busy monitoring clicks etc and thinks all PR is good PR, especially easy when it has the so-called footy journos in thrall.

Because crud umpiring generates controversy and gets the fans emotional which all leads to interest in the sport. And then they can mysteriously assist some teams. It is clear from the fixturing, the special games etc etc, that the AFL does not care about building a fair competition but is mainly interested in building an empire. On the Kozzie trip - OK, maybe 4 umpires didn't see it and they assumed he tripped over his own feet or a paticularly thick blade of grass. But why no review or a dangerous act? Beyond outrageous.