sue

Thanks. When there is a rumour which turns out to be wrong it is good to know how it came about and to know it wasn't someone just stirring or being malicious.

I didn't notice anyone definitely believe it, really just hanging out for confirmation or hopefully dismissal. OD's not given to wild rumours and his posts were reasonable. Maybe though his source should be asked to provide coronory care for some of us older members.

Watching the game yesterday I had the impression players were reluctant to even approach where the mark actually was. They'd run towards the mark but stop often 5 or more metres short of where they were entitled to be. I don't know if is due to the new rule - can't think why it would be but..?

There is also a delay in the play-on call resulting from the fact umpires breathe - that affects when the words 'play-on' exit their mouths. As I don't get tired of saying (though some may well be tired of hearing), the solution is to let the player on the mark decide if the player with the ball has played on. If he gets it wrong the umpire can issue the penalty.

Lack of advertising slots.

Still totally bewildered how the AFL can make such a change without having trialled it somewhere other than a smoke filled room.

Yes, most people don't like change, and I expect you will agree that is not in itself an argument to support a specific proposed change. We see in this forum plenty of posts pointing out why this won't work (in various senses) and some saying the opposite. But how about actually trialling it in the VFL or wherever to see who is right first? If the AFL had nowhere to try things and had to rely on a theoretical analysis of possible pros and cons, then they'd have no choice but to either can the idea or just go for it. But they do have that choice and yet frequently just go ahead with finger crossed. I'm obviously conservative because before going on a 10km hike, I try on the new shoes I plan to use in the shop first.

But as I posted earlier, are they allowed to go back 5m? The rule reads like you are either on the actual mark or you are classified as one of the other players not allowed in the zone. Take a step back and you are one of the latter and in trouble. It's an insult to those who prepare breakfasts for dogs.

So 20.1.1(a) would seem to mean the player on the mark can't walk backwards after they take position on the mark, nor can they take up position 2m behind the mark initially. God knows how they get to the mark in the first place. If they take up position 5m back, will the umpire direct them to move forward to the mark, or pay a 50m penalty for being in the wrong spot, or do nothing. Surely it will not become compulsory to man the mark, so being back beyond 5m has to be legal. But say you are right next to the player who takes the mark or gets the free, so you are already standing on the mark. Can you walk backwards 5m? Of course these rules changes are just a cunning plot to create interest in the forthcoming season so we will be keen to see what hole the AFL have dug themselves into this time.

Has this new rule been tried in any league? And for long enough to see if coaches think up ways to derail whatever it is the rule is intended to achieve.

Quite often you see players doing that even before 2021. When players are not sure where the mark is they often concede several yards for fear of giving away a 50m. Under these new rules, will a player be penalized if they stand on the mark and walk backwards to be 5m beyond the mark? (Or if they aren't already on the mark, note where the ump says the mark is, and then retreat the required distance)

One thing you can be sure of is that the play-on call will usually be made too late, sufficiently after the player has played-on to give him an unfair advanatge. Yet again I say let the player on the mark make the judgement as to whether the player with the ball has played-on. If he gets it wrong, then impose a penalty.

Richardson explicitly stated that they chose him over other possible players because he would be ready to go early. So presumably they have some idea of his fitness.

In answer to your question: Nothing. Feb 4 plus weeks is Feb 18, not today (sorry to quibble over 1/2 a week). But I think that pushes your range to "round 2 unlikely, but 3 a possibility". Round 3 is not much different to round 4. And you have him regaining match fitness etc faster than most would assume. So 4 -6 was always on the cards.

That's what I understood. No way to stop the doomsayers from doomsaying.

Think of the joy experienced by a pessimist when they are occasionally proven wrong.

I crossed it years ago

Funnily enough I'm the opposite. Generally considered a pessimist, but I'm an optimist when it comes to the MFC.

Some never miss a chance to be first in with the gloomiest interpretation of anything. I expect it is some sort of primitive magic where by stating the pessimistic view, it is hoped that will prevent it actually occurring. Or maybe they are just genuine pessimists.

While Weideman has not yet lived up to our hopes, the thought that BB would take pressure of Weideman allowing him to blossum was attractive. Oh well....

Au contraire. They would seek to hide their own malfeasance and appear virtuous when they get the chance.

I didn't realise BB had been playing for us for that many years already.

Even if Eddie had never done anything wrong personally he should have resigned the moment that report was delivered. Any ceo/president who was in charge of an organisation for many years would do so upon receiving such a report no matter if they themselves were clean as a whistle.

A politician has to be better at spin than Eddie has managed recently

Whatever the merits of Eddie, he just does not get it. He is still saying the club is not racist despite having a report commissioned by the club (ie. not by Carlton or some other enemy) which specifially says the club is systematically racist.