sue

I see they now pay frees for contact below the bum.

Rule of the week/game/quarter/whatever.

I love the implication that our players go downhill during the ski season. (pun not intended, just emerged). Either the poster thinks our players bugger off to the ski fields, or they vastly over-estimate the importance of our supporters on the players' performance.

Actually I expect no one here knows if Sam uses social media or not.(?) Since clubs probably advise players to avoid or restrict it to preserve their sanity, I wouldn't be surprised that as a group of youngish people, many may not use it compared to their non-AFL playing cohort.

I'm not trying to bash him. But I do think many of us were hoping he'd be something special. Call that a messiah or whatever you like.

Not to mention the panic amongst some when rumours of other club's interest in him were first aired. Recent games seem to have dampened that. We might not need a messiah, but we do need someone with some presence on the field. At the moment Sam is not doing enough.

Perhaps the point is that if Watts wasn't the messiah we'd hoped for, then Sam with similar figures is unlikely to be too.

An excellent article about the MRP and the attitude of the AFL https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/21/joel-selwood-and-toby-greenes-actions-antithetical-to-afl-principles

Likewise for all the silly non-reportable stuff that goes on. Award a free kick against immediately. Do that a few times and players will soon stop doing anything but playing footy.

AFL is becoming a synonynm for corruption and an inspiration for junior thugs. Leaving aside that, they need a category beyond 'rough play' with a name like 'nasty non-play' and punish such acts severely (ie. beyond spare change for highly paid sportsmen).

Well said H. But what about the influence on youngsters of the [censored] commentators on TV who get excited about thuggery and make jokes about it and use various wink-wink euphemisms about thug players. They are a high profile part of the problem and make it clear they think we should all enjoy it.

It's already apparent that players are deciding that their opponent may get to the ball just before them and they stop going for the ball and prepare to tackle. Quite often it seems to me that they made that decision wrongly, but I guess it is safer to takcle than collide.

It would be another great area for umpires to have to adjudicate. Porbably could work in some interpretations too.

The AFL continually makes rule changes that call for harder decisions to be made by the umps. For example, it is now OK to put your hands into an oppos back to take a mark as long as you don't push. So the ump has to decide how hard you pushed, especially hard if the oppo is backing-up towards you. This new rule/interpretation was seemingly introduced to allow the player in the rear to keep his balance (and kick more advertisements, sorry goals). But why? If a player can't keep his balance without pushing someone in the back, however lightly, let him fall over and make the umps job easier.

Sure there were loads of reasons we played so badly and didn't kick enough goals - not all Sam's fault. But unfortunately I don't think Sam ever strikes fear into the opposition. He needs to go to the VFL until he can. In the meantime let's hope BB, MJ, or MB can. If BB is fit enough, he has the runs on the board to be given the first chance.

I later clarified by an edit what I meant by 'more'. I didn't mean more than now I meant 2 who put fear into the hearts of opponents. So far we have only had one. So I agree 3 is too many. But 2 (in form) is what is wanted IMO. Even if the second key forward produced less forward line pressure than a smaller player did or even than Sam has done, I think it would improve the team. I presume you are not saying we should replace Sam with a small bloke.

I don't think that is the full picture. Maybe other teams go inside 50 less often or with poorer mid-field/delivery or whatever. I can't get around the fact that if the oppo team has a couple of capable big forward it certainly induces panic in me (but fortunately less often in our defenders so far). Unless it can be convincingly argued that our game plan/forward structure would be ruined by having more big key forwards (even if they have different attributes to what we've used so far), surely it gives us the chance of bigger scores and more panic amongst oppo defenders. And if we can adjust to take advantage of those different attributes, all the better. Edit: By "more big key forwards" I mean 2 in form, not more than the number we have used to date.

Does Adelaide have the umps on a retainer

Half the lights seem to be missing

The answer is unclear. It's possible to argue either that C'wood will play out of their skins or crumble in a heap. I'd be more interested in what the historical stats are for this situation.

damn. Why couldn't he wait till the bye.

Maybe he has been listening to BT with BT's often ridiculous advice on where each player should aim.

I've not yet watched the replay, but my initial impression was that at the last second he did a good job of making it appear as if he was looking to mark the ball on his chest. Cleary bogus because it was never going to get past the bloke who marked it but apparently enough to fool the umps.

A fine is getting off?

Umm with "we have" it might be passed.