sue

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.

I wish they'd drown out BT &Co by the umpires all the time. I said before they probably don't do this for fear of broadcasting players swearing, but I didn't hear any swearing when I watched the Kayo mini (first half).

Prof Google revelas this where SFebes refers to it in a post. Can't see his source:

I guess they stop the umps Mike’s because they don’t want to broadcast the players swearing

thanks EO.

Great to hear him take that line. Decreases expectations and potential bathwater consumption. Only trouble with that cherry thought is that Brereton is a fool.

thanks binman. When I look at first crack on kayo the only episodes I see are May 23 and earlier. Where is the one about the dogs game? And the dates all seem to be Sundays, not Saturdays? Perplexed....

He's certainly down after that but the camera pans away quickly so you can't tell how long he was down. Some have posted it was in the last 90 seconds. Since JCB spotted him later on, maybe he was taken off much later. Or only replaced at the last minute (but why would we do that?)

Yes, but if it really was 90 seconds to go (?) and we had the game in the bag, why would you put the sub on the ground at all (even if he may be formally 'on'). Can't see any gain in doing so - can only see possibility of injury.

Why not? They seem content to play half a quarter under one set of rules and half under another.