sue

It's depressing that this happens over and over. We can rely of the AFL/tribunal to be breathtakingly inconsistent and the commentators to get sexually excited over a bit of biffo. Have the commentators ever called it out as a bad example to kids?

Frankly I don't think the commentary is any worse when the commentators are not at the match. (That is not meant as a compliment). But even so, there are grades of deplorable with Chanel 7 taking the prize by a long way. But I have to give some praise to the directors for at long last giving us more wide angled views, something I've been banging on about for years. But more please! Still too many shots where a handball goes out of frame to god knows where and whom. And the shots allowing us to check how well the player taking a mark or free had shaved that morning when we'd rather see his options downfield. That is the perfect time for a wide shot since the situation at the actual ball is very simple (unlike when a disputed ball is bouncing around a pack).

$$$$$

New rule. If tackled drop the ball.

Think positively! Getting finals experience is always worthwhile. Playing in WA would be more like a normal final since crowd restrictions are likely to be looser and there'd be a bigger crowd .

Doubtless over on the Saints' board similar scenarios are being listed and similar moaning can be heard of "if only x had snagged that goal" or "how did we lose to..." We are our own worse ..." It's just particularly painful in our case because those should-have-wins are so recent.

Get tackled drop ball to feet no free

I blame Kennett

They do if you change direction. You can run 25m straight but 15.0001m with a hesitation or change of direction and you are pinged.

I didn't know that "the Opposing Team is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent." As little as that! Must be broken at almost every mark or free. And the rule doesn't seem to mention that is OK as long as you run at some unspecified angle away from the area with your hands in the air. Once again a poorly worded and poorly enforced rule trying to achieve a reasonable objective. How about leaving it to the umps to decide if the player running through is any real threat to the player or his options in taking the kick? Most of the time the 50m is paid they are no threat at all. And the penalty is enormous. Similarly for paying 50m for tackling when a player clearly plays on but the ump hasn't got around to shouting play on in time. By all means shout as it makes things clear to the player with the ball. Occasionally they do this, but it is rare. Use discretion rather than a wooly rule.

Was pleased to see that Max whacked the ball forward a couple of times at bounces.

Does the AFL have a ban on coaches using megaphones? Either that or a lot of coaches are getting laryngitis for little effect. Wouldn't make much sense when there is a crowd but this year, why not?

Drop the interchange and players won't be able to clog forward of the ball and chase the ball like under 9's. It's not just the on-ballers - the whole team is expected to run up and down. No interchange means tired players, so less congestion, open forward lines and more goals (but not too many like basket ball). Seems so obvious and simple to me, but what do I know.

Without getting into arguing to what extent the draw had on our performance, I disagree about u-turns. A tough-sounding boast in public could be easily ignored both privately and publicly 6 months later. So what if some supporter of another team says "but you said in March...". If the AFL said that, a simple repsonse is 'we were wrong, so please soften the draw'.

One can always hope they did some sort of deal in private in compensation. I have an advanced degree in clutching at straws.

Not denying that. Just the pettiness of her bringing it up.

She can't miss an opportunity to throw in an irrelevant remark about tanking.:

Some of us maybe, but others would be pointing out how depleted WCE were and how disgraceful it was to lose to a crippled team.

A commonly stated opinion. But does any team that finishes 8th "deserve" to play finals? Unless the structure of the finals changes, the answer must be that they do deserve to play almost by definition. And if so, why not us? All teams that come 8th must have stuffed up somewhere along the line.

I can't understand the rules of farnarkling, but then again, recently I have found the umpires and AFL don't seem to understand the rules of AFL either.

I doubt a farnarkling player would be good at AFL.

I'd add to this the 2 teams which had a bye when they didn't need one and didn't get one when they did need it. With these 'frenzies' it must be important to get a week off. We and EFC did not. Both have gone down the tube recently.

This attitude is a bit like congratulating the Black Knight for not making excuses as his limbs are lopped off. Of course there is always a danger of hiding behind excuses but it is equally foolish to ignore facts which may be valid reasons contributing to poor performance. I suspect if the team bus was hit by a meteorite there'd be some saying excuses excuses. And I don't care if supporters want to comfort themselves by making 'excuses'. We have negligible influence and need to maintain our sanity. Players and coaches are another matter of course.

It seems more likely to me that in wet & windy weather our players go into their shell, possibly because it's so easy to mishandle the ball and for a turnover to result. So they go for kick down the line. But why us and not other teams so much?

Can we bet on the colour of their boots as well? World's gone mad.