sue

But you had just argued we didn't have that crowd factor, so 'who knows' must be it. It is perfectly natural for supporters to be mad about bad umpire decisions when their teams lose, particularly in close games and not make a fuss about them when they win. Why would they bother? I don't read as much into that as you do. Many supporters other than you notice when our team gets dodgey decisions in our favour. You seem to think you are Robinson Crusoe in that. You aren't.

Given what you say in the rest of that post (and I agree), why do you think we get a good run at the MCG?

Yes, there are things to improve the game that have nothing to do with umpiring. And some that would make umpiring easier. All subjects for discussion, but that doesn't rule our eliminating potential umpiring biases whether of tin-hat conspiracy or other kinds (some of which are patently true given the stats), all discussed at length here. Unfortunately the AFL seems to be more driven by empire building and dollars than the game itself. Sad. I'm not a believer in conspiracies vs stuff-ups. Still, the AFL has runs on the board (see MRP decisions). There is little evidence that the umpiring department is corrupt in the same way. For the moment I'll just say umpires are too influenced by crowds. However I do not see that as inevitable and unfixable in the way you state umpiring is essentially unfixable.

Funnily enough there is not much that you say that I don't agree with other than your throw-in-the-towel attitude to improving umpiring. But what is wrong with a 20% improvement? I expect you wouldn't think that was insignificant if applied to your wages/pension.

Your habit of attributing to people things they have not said and then inferring what they believe had put me off responding, but I've cracked: My view is that the comment in bold is untrue based on what I read here and in talking to footy supporters of other clubs. I have yet to encounter anyone at all who thinks our game is easy to umpire. But unlike you, some of us haven't thrown in the towel. Some think the umpiring can be improved by more sensible rules and interpretations and eliminating any hint of bias, whether real or perceived or employing full-time umpires. At least we think it is a subject for discussion rather than being rudely dismissed as evidence that we are weak and making excuses and need to man-up etc.

I would if I had been, but I wasn't. Where did I say I thought the umpires were out to get us? Try reading what I wrote before you show how tough you are. Man-up? Crud

Your first sentence staggers me. While it is a fine theoretical point there is a reason in all sorts of areas of life that a perceived or potential conflict of interest forces some people to withdraw. Justice must be done and must be seen to be done. Unfortunately for your argument that "mistakes made have no bias involved whatsoever " the statistics of frees given for and against in WA which someone published here a while ago rather under cut it. You don't have to believe that umps are in a secret pro-WCE cabal or are being paid by Gil to promote WA. You can put it down to the influence of the crowd. For example when the WCE player ran far more than 15 metres on that kick out, if the crowd wasn't so one-eyed, there would have been a roar from the crowd and the ump would have woken up from his little nap.

What a load of old cobblers and red herrings and straw men. Indeed, none of the things listed were Lewis' faults, except one - the sling.. Anyway, the penalty Smith already paid was not having a relatively easy shot at goal. Didn't need a concussion to add to that.

I don't think anyone is downplaying the kicking which gave the WCE a chance. But it's hard not to believe that with better umpiring in Q4, we may have won nevertheless (assuming we kicked straight from the 50m penalty, the unrealistic mark, the sling tackle etc etc)

true. But at least none yesterday left the played knocked out.

Given our lack of a big player to sit near the goals and at least create fear in the minds of defenders, I kinda hope we blink first. But then, I have no idea how that would affect the rest of the team balance, especially if WCE doesn't make a change.

What about leaping above the man on the mark like trying to take a hanger. Line up several blokes to try in turn in case you don't time it right.

Probably not the place for this debate, but I don't think 8 year olds will be very influenced by airlines or insurance companies. Disney is another kettle of fish.

While it is understandable that he focusses on the positives about our enormous injury list, in my mind he is wearing the Black Knight's armour as he speaks.

Binman - that is well argued. But it assumes that it is desirable to have more scoring. I for one think this is a bad objective. I don't like soccer because the scoring is too low. I don't like basketball because it is too high. AFL scoring is fine as it was (unless you are channel 7 and want more adds, but bugger them. They seem to be covering the screen with more ads anyway).

re the new kicking out rule: I've been surprised about how infrequently players kicking out have gone straight up the middle with a well thought out structure and player movement, both to maintain possession and to set up defensively if there is a turnover. Presumably coaches must be able to counter it easier than I'd have thought.

100% agree. It is staggering that such a major change was implemented without a proper trial. Amateur hour. Do what the AFL does (repeatedly) in any other sphere and your career would suffer.

I see your "huh" and raise it. Given a choice between a poster actually meaning that we need to be fair to an 'innocent' oppo player (as you assumed and seemed outraged by) and the more likely interpretation that the poster meant the "discussion about the Holman goal", rather than the man himself, I'd go for the latter.

Steady on. I think he meant the Holman discussion, not the man himself.

I guess it is difficult to climb the post without shaking it - well at least enough for Gil's laser ranger system to detect the movement.

These 50m and 100m penalties are getting ridiculous. The new rule is absurd. You get an enormous advantage from a 50m penalty so I don't see what is wrong with the oppos having time to set up in defence. And no one knows where the 100m ends, so if the player runs faster than the ump, where is the mark? Why not just play on through where the mark might be since no one dare impedes you since they don't know where the mark is going to be. The game worked fine without this change. Just another ploy for more goals and more ads. I can't see what is wrong with completely stopping play until the position of the mark is set by the umpire. The 50m penalty is so big and often for totally inconsequential breaches of the ill-defined protected zone.

If Bruce says "we know that" one more time......

We old farts know how to use our smart phones. But we have more taste than to use stickers.

Interesting that TM said that there is more room at Casey than Gosch's paddock. Could that be why we don't do well in the wide open spaces?

All very reasonable except I bet the umps would allow some 'star' players a slow set shot from there. A bit like Buddy's 'natural arc'.