sue

Why amazing? These things aren't that clear cut. Working out when to accept that a rest is the best idea is not clear, except perhaps in hindsight.

True- it's not the 1m further away from the player's target that matters much of the time, but the 1m less the player has to work in. But I'd prefer the umpires to enforce the rules even-handedly and not let anyone get away with breaking them.

damn, you may be right and we will only be able to enjoy the wider views for a short while. (I hate to debunk a good conspiracy, but I recall we still saw a lot of empty stands.)

agree, but they seem to have plumbed new depths now.

The website is a disgrace for such a big organization

Yes, there has been more use of shots from behind the goals. As someone who has whinged for years about the lack of wide shots and the over-use of close-ups, presumably because of the directors' fascination with how well players have shaved, I am glad about this. Maybe long continue and expand.

Of course the ground is too big to fit on a TV screen (even with HD). But we don't need to see the whole or even half ground at a time all the time. But why oh why do we get a close up of the player who has marked the ball or given a free rather than a shot of what options are ahead of him? Often the first we know of leads is a split second before the mark/spoil happens. No idea how the player managed to get there. Then there is the common close-up shot of a player running with the ball surrounded by empty green grass with no indication of any player beyond about 3 metres from him. This has been a 'feature' of broadcasting for years and makes no sense. WHY? Doubtless one of the marketing gurus on here can explain why the networks do it? Is it just to provide eye candy for those so inclined?

I think you should always play as if the scores are close until the game is 99% in the bag.

I think some underestimate the uncertaInty caused by the social distancing, where to stand, no support staff around etc. I've noticed several clubs doing it differently. Combine that with the peculiar emotions that might arise from squeaking a 1pt win from a 42 pt lead. Those who want to confirm their views about the deficiencies will quickly see it as further proof. I think too many are reading too much into this. Let's concentrate on our obvious real problems.

Well that is an interesting question.

Agree. With all the unusual conditions, odd results and weird games, it's too early to draw many conclusions. But clearly we have some issues. I've not watched all the games, but is there any team so far which doesn't appear to have issues? I don't think we played badly the same way as we did last year- piling the ball into the F50 and not scoring. In the part of yesterday's game when we were poor, we weren't getting it into the F50 at all. Some will take comfort from that and some will despair even more.

ah, but if Q1 was longer we may have built up such an enormous lead that ..... (where will this end)

or imagine the lead we would have had if Q1 was longer.

Well Lyon is in an awkward position. But I don't think I've ever heard such biased commentating from all of them. Fair enough to barrack for a comeback (even against a poor team like us), but not once did they discuss what Melb could/should do or even hang on. Just how many Carlton supporters are there that they need to suck up to?

I wouldn't be surprised if every such case that has occurred came to light, the AFL would be down to the 16 a side some are proposing pretty damn quick.

I wish they'd increase the volume on the fake crowd and drown out the commentators. I've watched a lot of old matches recently and the quality of commentating was so much better.

Watching old games over recent weeks I agree that footy was better then. Of course my judgement may be biased by the fact I only watch games we won. It would be interesting to know which Demonlanders have restricted themselves to games we won. I fear a few may have restricted themselves to games we lost.

I too have been watching old games (I've enjoyed a great season so far - we have won game after game and only lost one game this year, to WCE). I agree with Vineytime - what stands out is that you need at least one big forward. Now maybe footy has changed and you can get away with a large number of highly talented smaller blokes, but it seems to me with a big forward you can do well with fewer or less talented smaller players.

But that would give those teams experience of playing there which would help them when they play there in future. Oh, wait.....

Sadly watching on TV makes it hard to see what's going wrong or right much of the time (thanks 7 and Fox for all those useless close-ups of players who have taken a mark/free kick), so I don't know what went better after Q1 (but I do know who shaved the best that morning). Drawing any conclusions from that match is fraught for lots of reasons. Pity the AFL didn't hold off announcing the ceassation of footy until after that match to at least remove arguing about that deflating factor.

Let's be positive and assume that he meant there is a new Melbourne way but we slipped into old habits and din't play the Melb way.

sounds good to me. I'd add my usual hobby-horse: If a player is tackled and a team member of the tackled player then jumps on the initial 2, pay a free against that third player. They often tackle the oppo who does not have the ball, which is clearly a free kick under current rules (though never paid). But I'd suggets a free regardless of who they 'tackle' as long as it is clear they are not trying to help extract the ball.

Dank drags doc down: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-16/doctor-who-supplied-peptides-to-stephen-dank-has-licence-revoked/12153644

Makes mre sense, though I'd like to know what the definition is of a 'disputed ball'. A handpass which misses a teammate and goes out under pressure on either reciever or sender- is that disputed?

1. Last touch out of bounds will really help getting the score line up to ridiculous basketball levels. No backman will ever dare spoil towards the boundary. The number of wrong decisions made when a pack goes for a mark near the boundary and the ball goes out will make the current error rate look miniscule. 2. no big deal, though it may lead to more congestion. 3. more or less done by teams now except when a team is trying to use up the clock, so probably OK. 4. no idea. If aim is to reduce congestion there may be better ways.