sue

I don't like the title of this thread.

How many suffer from their version of MFCSS? Or are we unique?

Well someone has to balance the "all is lost" and "it's in the bag" posts.

The fact that no one has posted a summary is pleasing - it means very few subscribe to that Murdoch crud.

Definition of no common sense: AFL umpires

You are assuming it takes no effort to plan a strategy. Planning two is harder than one. While the decision on the day may be as simple as long stops vs short, the work needed to develop and manufacture different types of stops is the relevant analogy.

Yeah that ruined my footy career too. (Pre contacts)

Because there is no one else perhaps. Or maybe we will spring a surprise.

That was the striking thing about that video. Clearly under direction by the coach. How can the umps allow that. I hope the club released the video.

What extra does he get if he loses an appeal? If his career is likely to be sunk with 4 games missed in this truncated season, maybe it's worth a punt to try to get back earlier. Especially since there seems to be some support in the media that the 4 weeks is too harsh and out of line with previous decisions. (I leave aside the question of whoud he be selected in any case.)

Hah. No such thing in the AFL, they just change to rules.

AFLitis is a cruel disease Binman, but things will look better in the morning.

I'd have put this in a general umpiring thread, but couldn't find one. Another rule -not-of-the-week is players in the so-called protected zone. Being ignored at the moment (eg. Frisch's mark at 4:50 in Q1) Personally I think that is a good thing - so many have been paid where the offender would have had no effect on the play. But watch the umps pull one out at a critical moment to the despair of half the supporters (actually probably far less than half).

I don't see a problem with complaining in public if you have brought it up with the AFL and nothing changes. It's not just Gawn, but anything Gawn-related. As I and others have mentione elsewhere another standard tactic used to curb Gawn's dominance is to start tackling our mid-field players before the ball arrives. Happens all the time and rarely is a free paid.

I agree it should be stamped out even for far less aggressive actions than AVB's. But the hypocrisy of the commentators is sickening. I'm not so much referring to what they did in the past (you could forgive that if they have seen the light), but the fact anytime niggles start increasing they get so excited. Like a bunch of schoolboys shouting 'fight fight'.

Tackling our receivers at bounces before the ball comes to them seems to be a standard tactic against us to counter Gawn's dominance but a free is only rarely paid. The club should take this up with the AFL.

Kicking skills of both teams pretty woeful

So flaming obvious. Indicate to the 'small' players that the next tap is going wide and belt it. Instead he taps it to a player about to be tackled (or often, already tackled before the ball arrives) who then passes it to someone else also under pressure. Mix it up FCS.

Perhaps the club was misled by how well we played in some matches that Hogan missed.

Let's just hope he is right and the deficiencies are fixed asap.

Dear Gil, I've watched (too) many games on TV recently and I have no idea when holding the ball frees will be paid or not paid. Please explain. Yours sincerely, Confused Foory Fan

I doubt if players in any teams these days care a fig about the past (with maybe the exception of the odd son in a father-son pair, though even the father these days may have played for more than one team). But trying to motivate players with club history is doubly difficult for the MFC because of our lack of success since 1964 - a date indistinguishable to young blokes from 1864. MFC needs to find other ways to motivate players.

It's a logical error to assume that because they publicly say that they don't plan to rest anyone, to conclude as you do that they are unaware of the differences you listed. It is possible they are aware and yet came to a different conclusion than you. (And of course who knows what they say/plan in private).

Of course. But equally it would be a flawed assumption that Burgess is not aware of all that.

I don't see how that 'rule' applies when it is argued he was trying to kick it to Langdon's advantage.