Rogue

I think this is a good move, because the new[ish] rule designed to protect the head has created a moral hazard. Whereas in the past players would protect their head (ie. turning to the side in order to ride the contact), they now go in head first at times because they know they can draw a free kick.

That's my recollection too. Given that Garland's been through the same thing, and we're in a totally different situation - Dr Gaff has already said we won't be rushing him - I'm sure we'll do everything we can to get him right. It feels rather selfish to say this, given he's no doubt having a tough time of it, but on a personal note it'll be a shame not to see him out there for the rest of the season. I was really keen to see how he could develop, particularly if he played more time in the midfield.

The suggestion is simply to include the players now drafted as rookies as primary-listed players, not extend the number overall. (The reasoning is that they work just as hard as players listed on the primary list).

Yeah, he should go to Harvey first.

I'm not suggesting we assume it's a career-ending injury; I simply think it's silly to assert, in absolute terms, that he'll come back as good as gold etc.

What's pathetic is this post, IMO. To suggest that people 'spat the dummy' is suggesting that supporters have an obligation to go; they don't. For many people getting to the footy is a 'sometimes' thing and, all things considered, the crowd figure was okay. Those who make misinformed jokes about Melbourne supporters are the joke. You might want to ask them which Club kept smashing membership records despite holding up the ladder, or which team's supporters has responded most generously to a 'call to arms'.

I'm happy with what I've seen lately. When Watts first came in he - understandably - looked all at sea at times. I think he's shown a fair bit in the last 2.25 games. Watts has gone from nearly not making a mistake to nearly doing something very good. I like the fact he has started backing himself a little more.

I get where you're coming from, but some players, unfortunately, do have career-ending injuries. Unless you have a crystal ball you won't know how it turns out for Grimes. That said, most AFL players recover from injuries, even when pretty serious. To those that want to mention Egan I simply raise them a Garland. I thought Egan initially tried to come back fairly quickly. I also think that our Club having rehabalitated Garland makes managing Grimes' injury easier.

I really think that the petty off-the-ball stuff should get a massive weighting compared to 'in play' incidents like the Trengove tackle on Dangerfield. I thought the Tambling and Waite incidents were pretty poor.

It's really disappointing to hear he's picked up a serious injury. I hope he can recover in the manner Garland has. The glass is half full, the glass is half full, the glass is half full...

Since a few people have mentioned the Crows medical report, I'm not sure it's a big deal. I'm fairly sure we provided a medical report when someone hit Jones the other week.

Different rule, yeah.

Yeah, I was just amused at someone agreeing with you because there was too much "black and white vision" in the posts of others

Thanks for the clarification. I actually thought Grimes travelled to and from games in a zimmer frame. Fortunately you were here to let me know that Grimes wasn't actually using a zimmer frame when the players were singing the song.

Sylvia's sniper didn't get weeks despite the significant impact a broken jaw has...

Just so we're clear: Sure, there wasn't a black and white statement regarding finals...because the bar was instead set at 10 wins! The assertion that 'any less and Bailey will not stand a chance' seems like an absolute (black and white) claim to me.

I for one like our tribute to our fuschia heritage.

He's either on crutches or using a zimmer frame.

How can you agree on the basis that there is 'too much "black and white" vision" [...] with regards this issue' when the poster you're agreeing with has set down an absolute minimum number of wins in order for DB to even have a chance at being recontracted?

Apart from them both having days in which they are inaccurate how is there an analogy? Franklin's place isn't questioned because in addition to often drawing the best defender - or defenders - he still manages big bags on a somewhat regular basis. I don't see the analogy.

We already have one:

I wouldn't call Dunn tough but I would label him a pest.

No problem, Gotzy. Did you happen to read the post that bumped this thread? It was a quote from Petterd himself.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113341/default.aspx

I don't think slagging off or jumper punching some guy after the ball has gone out of bounds is tough. I think putting body on the line in contests and keeping your head up when you think a player might be coming in to spoil your attempted mark is tough.