sue

Several posters have already answered that so I see no point in making a list, some of which I might not agree with and some I might. Whether they are right or suffering old-fashioned MFCSS only time will tell. But I am 'concerned' they might not be entirely wrong. As Goowin says, there is always room for improvement and development.

If anyone isn't happy with 10-0 and the % then they have redefined MFCSS. But if people are not concerned about our performances and deficiencies, then they are smoking something that I expect Goodwin isn't. Note I said 'concerned' not in despair. Let's see how Freo goes against the Pies today.

Someone should tell Jackson that when he gets a mark or free and he doesn’t yet have the ball he should run back from the mark. He doesn’t far too often. Sometimes he even goes forward of the mark. Result is he loses options for a quick kick or playing on beyond the statue on the mark

Two reasons for the difference between Hawkins' "accident" and Chandler's. 1. Their names. 2. AFL wants to establish a history of doing all it can to prevent concussions to ward off expensive lawsuits in the coming decades.

This is true and is arguably a problem with the legal system as well as with the MRO. However the legal system will allow more discretion in sentencing than the crude formula the MRO uses. (Leaving aside the occasional mandatory sentences that have been introduced for political purposes in some countries).

As I posted in the Casey thread, I really enjoyed the wider angle and raised view of the telecast of that match. So it was doubly frustrating on Sunday night to see endless close ups of the player about to take a kick or the ball going out of the frame to an unknown fate. Obviously the TV directors think it is more exciting to not be able to have any idea of what might happen next. I do not want to know how closely the player's have shaved that morning. I want to see the game. Am I alone?

Yeah, I reeckon the coach doesn't say 'have rest boys', but maybe he says "let's try a bit of plan #3B for 10 minutes". Would you notice on TV? I wouldn't.

Are you a believer in some higher power dealing out quotas, or that word will filter through to our players to watch out? And then take advantage of the situation.

Doubtless because people had high hopes for him and he is yet to deliver at that level.

Not being able to get to more than 1 game a year if I'm lucky, I can only watch on TV. I am pretty neutral on Weid but one thing stands out on TV and was visible again in today's game. When an opponent has the ball coming out of defence and Weid can see that he won't cut his run off, he makes no effort to do so. Weid is probably right, he'd wouldn't effect the player 99 times out of 100. But surely he should always go at him.

I really like this broadcast. Camera at a good height. Most of the time a reasonably wide angle vew but not so wide that players look like ants. And thankfully NO closeups of the player who has taken a mark or got a free. Though I am at a loss as to whether the players have shaved this morning - something the Fox/7 broadcasts always keep me informed on.

So much support there for sledging. A fine example to juniors.

The game is riddled with difficult decisions for the long suffering umpires. More so than any other game i know of. Why introduce an extra 'rule' where the umpire has to decide if the action of a player was dissent, confusion or mere frustration with either the decision or with themselves or even calling for a free not given (which is dissent, but seems not to be penalised). Abuse is another matter. Now these extra umpiring difficulties and the repression of normal human emotions might have been justified if the stated goal of helping recruit junior umpires had been carefully analysed and compared to other solutions. But that does not appear to be the case.

Where did I say that the rest of the site doesn't agree with you Macca? I merely said we know you position on this (because you state it regularly, and as you said it sticks out). Completely different. (In fact I agreed with your recent post on the topic, but as I said, would have liked to see extra words to say that sometimes, however rarely, umpire calls (and luck) can determine who wins.)

Yes, your posts on umpires stand out, hence my comment that we know your position. And re the 50m abuse discussion, of course it's gone quiet. I think I said something along the lines that the players would pretty quickly learn to shoot their best friends if their coach required it. Doesn't mean the thing is the best policy. If you learn to curb your arrogance and you will be have more success in influencing the 10 to 15% of us you said you hoped to influence. I suppose the other 85 to 90% os us are beynd hope.

Though I don't claim to speak on behalf of anyone, I did indeed mean 'we' without I think being presumptous. Anyone who has followed this issue will know what your position is - you repeat it regularly (as is your right). I'm glad you enjoyed my comment about people's enjoyment though I'm not sure why it deserved so many ha ha's.

If only you would insert the word 'usually' or 'almost always' before 'decided' I'd agree with you. Close games are also sometimes decided by a lucky bounce as well even if the sides are equal in skills and coaching. As for supporters whinging about umpire's decisions, I've noticed little difference between supporters of good sides and bottom sides. People enjoy the whinge. We understand you don't.

I don't know how viewers can be so sure that someone has taken a dive unless there is a clear delay in responding. And I don't see why a player is expected to resist a blow outside of play which in play, they have to try to resist.

I like the sentiment, but it is simply untrue. If the Cats finish in the top 4 etc rather than 5 to 8 on the basis of either extra wins or percentage it clearly improves their chances of winning a flag. There are no guarantees in the finals.

That's been a gripe of mine for a while. However over the weekend a few were actually paid, including one to us I think.

Yeah, yeah. In most of those games I also was not really worried we'd lose, but to dismiss those close results as meaningless or saying we were resting or whatever, strikes me as being unwise. If you let teams get close ot you in the last couple of minutes you are risking a loss because of an unlucky bounce or an umpires bad call. The coaches and team know that and know we need to bank 4 points. So the inability to get so far ahead that there is no risk poses questions which I fear are being too lightly dismissed by some. Let's hope the coaches know what's going on.

And add that do we don't know if there are any more infections/isos, making this thread even more speculative than ever. I'll come back in a few days.

I don't recall anyone mentioning that Weid was nearby. Surely he should have told TMac it was going through? Did he?

Perhaps the best way to bring it to the umps attention and maybe get a free is for Clarry to just run straight at the player rather than try to avoid him and tyr to get to the ball.

There was no sign of a second grab as far as I could see so the only issue was where did he mark it. Mark or goal.