sue

Since quarters often run to 30 minutes total as they did in days of yore, perhaps he couldn't understand how that was possible if the actual playing time was less than 25 minutes. Do we now have 5 minutes more of conjestion driven ball-ups etc?

Ah, the old excuses versus reasons issue rasies it ugly head again. I am reminded of the 'irregular verbs' of Yes Minister. But in this case irregular abstract nouns, "I give reasons, you make excuses".

Well as much as it hurts to say it, he did explain how he fell into that fairly minor hole.

That bloke in picture #16 looks pretty good. What a welcome sight.

no, just making a very weak joke.

Definition of MFCSS: But maybe these pics the wrong way around.

Surely you know it is a put-down for a well-off person who is a socialist. Whereas if a poorer person is a socialist he is just full of envy. They've got you either way.

amateur hour. Presuming Treloar is now signed up with the Dogs with a contract stating his salary from the Dogs and nothing else, then the problem is entirely C'woods in the absence of other evidence. Treloar then sues C'wood for the balance of his entire contract and a wise judge rules in his favour but adds " I see you have been also paid by the Dogs and there must have been some agreement about the transfer, so I'll just deduct the sum the Dogs are paying from what C'wood owes Treloar".?

Maybe I haven't followed this closely enough, but are there not occasions when it is worth breaking the rule (only penalty loss of rotations) and vice versa? If so, then individual players would have to decide whether to break rule or not. And would they not want some advice from the coaches?

So players will have to decide if it is worth acting and thus reducing the team's rotations or not. Will coaches be holding up a big sign saying "don't act, we are short on rotations"?

I really don't want to get into politics, so I hope this is my last word on the subject. Be let slide by whom? I presume you mean other posters since the mods can't chase every short not strictly footy comment. There have been numerous references to Dictator Dan that slid by. Did those offend you too? They probably offended some. Remarks that offend one's beliefs tend to be more noticable/offensive than one's that support them. I know it's tempting to comment (eg. me here), but it's best if we let one-liners that offend our personal beliefs slide by and have a quick nod at the wisdom of posts that support them.

If you wish to keep politics off the forum then I suggest you simply note that a post you consider political is inappropriate. Presenting your own view as you did is simply doing more of what you complain of. Personally I have no problem with throw-away lines like in ItsTime's post that you complained about whether 'left' or 'right' - they'd be too hard for the mods to deal with anyway. Detailed arguments are another matter.

Sack him! I'm sure I heard Yze use the word 'learnings' in that interview.

Let me try OD. While I agree with DO's last sentence, when I look at how the seaosn panned out I am not that dismayed. Sure, those last matches in the Cairns swamp were embarrasing and disappointing, but we were not that far off the mark if your expectations were just making the finals. Those who planned for a top 4 finish were probably always setting themselves up for disappointment IMO.

Can we suspend our outrage about MFC's trading etc until after the dust has settled and all constraints clearer. Those posters who are firing off rockets are doing their own reputations no good IMO.

No, just possible grounds. There might be personal reasons for such a decision which have nothing to do with the quality of our club.

We still won't know even then. If things turn out like he said in his recent quotes it could mean that he did indeed mean that - or it could mean that other things he was working on didn't work out.

But why do you take what he says as gospel? Good reasons why what he says publically may not be 100% true at this stage.

That's my usual MFCSS thought. As I've posted years ago, can Brown fritter away time at the end of a close match using his long run up? I cannot see anything in the rules about that (or anything related to 30 second rule!), but it seems as long as the player starts walking in before 30 seconds, he can then take as long as he likes. Does the clock starts again as he walks in? I think so but not sure.

I like the name Sideshow, but I wonder what North supporters called him? And Brown's response?

maybe, but being 'virutally incognito' lessens the odds of detection. Anyway, good luck to him (except when he plays us of course).

That's not my recollection of the nature of negative comments about Brown. Most criticism has been that he is a 'one-trick pony'. The videos indicate that is true only in the sense that his one trick is kicking lots of goals. Of course there are questions about his 2020 and injuries etc. But what better option is on offer?

Well we can take the second one then.

I suspect the only real sideshow is the North Melb club.

I got the impression at the time that he at first lowered his elbow to brace and then raised it again hitting Vlaustin. Looking at it again, it's less clear. But if he was genuinely bracing only, why does his arm clearly extend after he hits Vlaustin? Wouldn't it stay close to his own body?