sue

A question. Would it achieve the same ends as the new rule without giving so much advantage to the player with the ball and avoiding the paying of ridiculous 50m penalties if: The man on the mark was required to start on the mark and stay there, but once the player with the ball starts to move, either off the line or on the line, allow the player on the mark to move sideways. Can't say I have spent any time thinking this through and how different it would be from earlier years, but perhaps it's a compromise worth looking at?

Do we really? While the ball zinging down the ground leading to a goal is exciting for the team scoring (and its supporters), in some ways it is a bit repetitive and even tedious. Whereas some grinding in the forward 50 leading to snapped goal is more likely to look like goal of the year to me.

The thing I 'enjoy' most about BT is his mystical knowledge of which was the ball will turn in shots towards goal, especially when there is no wind. Half the time it does the opposite of what he said, but he takes no notice.

Worked well for what objective? Certianly not the one stated when it was first introduced.

Doubtless it's been said already, but my answer to the question of the thread title is NO. It is way past time BT was pensioned off.

One of the things I hate about this rule (which was intended to increase scoring - hah!) is that it introduces yet another distance for umpires to estimate and for players to fudge or second guess the umpires. They often get 15m in a straight line wrong, what hope of getting 5m on an arc right?

Misleading title from the AFL - I was hoping to see more angles.

Thx, but only 6 minutes?

Hopefully everything they are doing has the stamp of approval from our fitness team. Still, I'd expect it would be hard to argue that makes it an official club workplace activity.

Funny how Lever says he was wishing for the last quarter to end. Many supporters were proably happy for it to keep going.

This is another of the unwritten rules of AFL. If he didn't mark it, it would be a free. If he marks it, it is mark of the year.

I've started at round 1 and watched the entire Freo match. Pretty scrappy and only the occasional glimpse of what the team became. As WWSW says, the difference between the Freo match and late in the year is amazing. (I usually only watch the games we won over the summer and spread them out to last until Feb/March. This summer I'll have trouble fitting them all in.)

brilliant

If he over-egged it, he must have got it wrong seeing as how his head bounced on the 'turf'. You try bouncing your head like that without an external force being applied. Just because Trac makes a joke of it, doesn't mean that the action wasn't dangerous. How it did not lead at least to a free kick is beyond me.

It's like weather forecasting before the days of lots of observational data and decent computer modelling. The best bet was to assume tomorrow's weather would be the same as today.

Agree. The only nasties were the hit on Clarry (which while deliberate and reportable, was in play) and the sling of Max. Neither of which would you call the result of some nasty rivalry. There was very little of the -off-ball and in-packnasty behaviour we often see in matches.

Yes, it was reasonable to list all our previous woes, but there was no justication for her saying it was almost as bad as injeccting team with performance enhancing who-knows-what. Leaving aside how absurd the comparison was, why mention Essendon at all? She was just looking for a spot to put the boot in since the team left no room for that on Sept 25.

Normally at this time I add up the number of weeks till the next season to work out how to spread out watching the recordings I made of wins during the year. Usually I have to ration myself to watching one every few weeks, but this summer I don't know if I can fit them all in at one per week.

I never read that thread after the game starts, not being a masochist. But will now.

perhaps DNIMD wants to hear crowd noises and umpires, but not BT. Hmmmm, heaven.

More like

Caro really annoyed me on the Offsiders on ABC the other day when she couldn't resist saying the tanking issue was 'almost as bad as the Essendon drug scandal'. OK, maybe they were both 'cheating' (though in one case in order to get immediate advantage over opponents, in the other to rebuild the list for the future). But how can she equate the administration tanking with injecting a group of young blokes with god knows what. How can she!

I don't know how long ago he said this, but if you don't have any big-name players, it's hard to drop them.

I expect it’s more to do with being kind to the losing team added to the usual beloved top players discount.

you could sync to one of these: https://www.youtube.com/user/harrypotter6116/videos