sue

Some seem not to have seen this: https://www.afl.com.au/news/814108/blues-skipper-banned-for-ah-chee-bump

Don't agree. The ball can bounce oddly, but I'm not hoping it will always bounce badly for us so that we can be really tested.

If you need an example of an outstanding performance by a player that subsequently doesn't go on to deliver what was then expected, look no further than Weid in a final a few years ago.

Nah. They’d jump on a no name player to show how virtuous they were.

That's not quite the new rule. It has the proviso that all that is fine only if the player being attacked has made a controversial comment during the preceding week.

Only in AFL with AFL commentators could a player not get a free for either the initial tackle or the pile on just because he had said something 'insulting' during the week. What a circus.

If we are still loading to get ready for the finals, I have only one comment. We should have stopped loading already. With our draw, we have been effectively playing finals already.

If so, it's time for them to re-think. 😁

I can't comment on an individual player but I have some sympathy for Jaded's comments taken generally. It is a bit like food allergies. Lots of people jumped onto the glutin intolerance bandwagon (for example) but had no real problem. The only good thing to come of it was that as result there is more warning labelling of food and menus. That must be a great boon to the genuinely glutin intolerant. I'm not sure that sort of benefit applies with mental health. Perhaps it does.

Of course you can argue these things both ways. E.g. this is motivation for us to win so we don't look stupid. Fugazi.

One of my pet hates is that about 30 years ago journalists who didn't know when to say effect or affect took to saying impacted in every case, thereby consigning the meaning of impact to the dustbin of dictionaries.

More worried about Harmes' attempts to dance.

I see your disinterest and raise it to being uninterested. But then why did I open this thread?

Here's an equalisation strategy for the AFL. Simply force the better teams (based on last year's performance with maybe a mid-year review) to play at Geelong (applies to C'wood etc too). That way Geelong are more likely to be beaten at home and the top teams are more likely to lose playing there. A win-win for equalisation. 😃

My cynicism suggests the rules were written to allow Geelong's ground to be legal. Or at least not updated since 1880 to conform to what would be reasonable for a modern professional sport.

For the first time I looked at the satellite view of the Geelong ground. At first I thought it was a velodrome. It looked so unlike any footy ground. That should not be allowed in a professional sport.

OK EO. Only one. JVR plays even worse than Weid and loses confidence. Furthermore since he then wouldn't play again this year, it means we've fiddled with what little forward synergy there is by not playing the established players, however iffy they are. ' So it would be a big gamble to play him. If it came off it would be wonderful, but only the club internally would know the real risk. If he plays I hope he kicks 4 goals.

I don't think it is the time to play JVR, but there is a big difference between now and when Watts was thrown to the lions (sorry wrong team). Outside of keen Casey watchers, no one in the broader AFL community knows JVR from a bar of the proverbial soap. So the #1 saviour pressure is not there. C'wood wouldn't feel especially keen to rattle him more than they would for any debutant. But this being a big match with a huge crowd it does not seem a good moment for anyone to debut in a key position.

Looks like the mergencies did get back. JVR goals

But what about the emergencies? They could have left earlier.

Goodwin was talking up Jackson's performance last night. Given his lacklustre performance sounds like he was talking up the price.

Complacent is not the same as every man for himself.

True, but it's getting more and more comical. Kozzie at CHF has to win the prize.

Bloody little brothers! I posted several times that Gus' interview was ambiguous and there was no need to assume he was looking for mid-field time. I kept asking for evidence of that and no one provided any. Then his little brother piped up. Which was depressing. Now we know his little brother is a [censored] stirrer. Get him to the MFC!

Agree. Though regarding example #2, if they handball it far enough in front of themselves, surely it is not holding the ball? But I can see if you allowed tiny handballs it would seem almost like bouncing which is penalised. Since we don't want yet another distance for the umpires to have to estimate, I guess all such handballs are best penalised. But if you penalised that almost any handball with an opponent about to tackle could be considered playing for a free, particularly delayed ones. Another grey area.