Lost Highway

I would like to know what 'any doubt' means. If the goal umpire is has no 'doubt', does that mean 'doubt' is manufactured during a discussion amongst the umpires? The idea of a consensual doubt after the person in charge of that area shows no doubt just seems to me patently ridiculous, like so much that goes on in our game, including most of the rules and all their amendments and interpretations. Surely if two of the umpires are in doubt and the appropriate one is not, the outcome should be obvious. Anyone ever seen a goal umpire and field umpire get together to discuss a line decision and then over-rule a boundary umpire?

Bruce was magnificent. Some of the critical comments about him on this site have been pathetically off the mark, even comparing him unfavourably with Martin! Laughable. He did last night what his defenders have said all along that he can do. Didn't spoil his defensive efforts with poor disposal, either. Bruce and Grimes are important pieces in a very good defence.

Dunn's first woeful game, but it's enough to see him banished if you ask me. He missed too many; lacks the class of those around him. I hate to see good play end up with a simple uncontested Dunn mark only 30 metres out. You know it's a point before he's even kicked it. So I've gone anti-Dunn. Bail would have been better value and I hope he's ready next week. I'd keep PJ in the side; he wasn't too bad. Jamar was alright at the bounces but didn't do enough around the ground. I can't imagine Morton being rushed into the side. There's just no reason to take a risk with such a quality player. Bartram has been mentioned a few times; yes, he's resurrected himself, but I think it was his mistake that allowed the dogs to get that last goal - he kept rolling it along in front of him when he should have kicked it clear, off the ground. Still, plenty of players on both sides made mistakes. His just happened to be the match-turner at the last minute. I'd keep him though. BTW, Hughes showed a bit. I'd give him another go; I'd like to see him in dry conditions. He has balance and poise.

Absolutely! It looked clean on the replay and should have been a mark. If not it was out on the full.

Melbourne actually had a few more frees than the dogs, but it was the crucial 'touched' ones that got the dogs over the line. The first one took so long to 'adjudicate' that it was clear the field umpire was not really certain, yet his decision over-ruled the goal ump's. The second one was just plain disgraceful - the boundary umpire was called in to decide! This is absurd stuff; his job should be merely to determine if the ball has gone over the boundary line, something they do with less than 100% accuracy. I can't believe they are watching the details of what's going on with such intensity that they can be assumed to know if a field kick has been touched before going through the goal posts. There's another one I'd point out - it looked to me as if Trengove had taken a fair mark on the line in our forward pocket in Q4 - it was ruled out of bounds, but the replay showed what seemed a fair one-handed mark. I thought it should have been either out on the full or a mark, but perhaps someone else saw it from a better angle and can say whether it was in fact a juggle. As for the rules in general they are a joke. You watch a game of football and learn that about 30 free kicks were awarded, sometimes in a most unbalanced manner. Thinking about the game you ask yourself, were there, according the letter of the laws of football, only 30 infringements? You just laugh. Essentially, the umpires pick them out of thin air whenever they feel like it, or at least whenever they think it's time for the 'rules' to be reimposed in that particular match after a few minutes of none being applied. If the rules were applied rigorously, there would be so many frees given that the game would take all night. Undoubtedly, the rules are a problem, but most amendments over the years have just increased the complexity of them, and the emphasis on 'interpretation', which changes like the wind, really just makes a mockery of it all. For a start, I'd get rid of the holding the ball rule. As it is, on the one hand you get half the crowd screaming 'ball!' every time there's the merest semblance of a tackle. On the other hand, you get an ugly pack forming on top of some poor sod and you see the bloody umpire bending his knees to do the little routine he loves best, that sweeping motion with his hands that says the chump at the bottom didn't release the ball while twenty others were on top of him. Absurd. Why not let a good tackle of the man with the ball be its own reward? Even if the man under the pack tries to scoop the ball out, despite his arms being crushed, the pack usually only continues to grow. I think the umps just prefer to let a free kick restart the game than to balls it up. Especially as it seems so hard to that correctly. As for holding the man, how often is that paid? About 5% of the time, is my guess. That's one rule that should be applied much more rigidly than the man-under-the-pack rule. The priorities are all wrong.

First, Staker all over Garland? Just enlighten me; what impact did Staker have on the game? The commentators said it all: very little. If he'd been any good they might have scored more goals. Second, Dunn was good, maybe not as good as the week before, but very useful. Third, Martin might have tried hard, but he was not much use; a fit Bail would have been much better value, I think. Martin has some deluded fans, but he is not ready for a key role. He plays OK in back pocket, and that's it - so far, anyway. If Bail gets fit, and can't regain his spot after playing so well for three weeks, then something's amiss. If he isn't fit for next week, then they have one dilemma less. I find it hard to imagine how they could change a team that's beaten the near-top side on the ladder by 50 points and it could have been 72 as they ran all over them in Q4. Chances are, Petterd will be injured - he was obviously hampered by a shoulder injury after half time. Any changes might revolve around what happens to him, I would say, and we have to wait and see.

Bruce's disposal was not as bad last night as some have claimed. There were a few hospital handpasses, but there were a lot of well delivered kicks and he improved as the match went on. Above all, there was a hell of a lot of run, and a supremely good job of closing down an opponent. He won't be dropped and shouldn't be, as long as he can do this. He has an amazing ability to stick like glue to a player, and despite mucking up sometimes with his handballing, he actually has very clean hands when it comes to taking the ball off the ground or the pack, or an opponent. Time some people began to look at his positives as he is an important part of the defence. Bate played his first good game for the year; it's incorrect to say he played this well in the previous week. I hope he can keep this up. Fact is, both of these players can run and run and have good balance.

This 'holding the ball' thing when a player's been crunched and is lying on top of it is utterly laughable. I have a young Chinese friend who has taken a liking to the game and has a fairly good understanding of it now, but he says he can't make sense of most of the free kicks. I told him that neither can I. The Grimes type of decision is the worst, he says, as he can't see how a player with a pack forming on top of him can be said to have a reasonable chance to do anything about it. The way these pathetic umpires, always peering to see if they can find something to do with their whistles, pick the damn decisions out of their noses just makes me want to do a Basil Fawlty on them, with a garden gnome. This is the problem in a nutshell: the umpires are asked to judge things that are very, very often unjudgeable, but far, far too often they just won't let sleeping dogs lie, so to speak, and insist on pinging some poor bastard with a player or even a pack right on top of him. Instead of seeing if the fellow's safe there at the bottom of the pack, or blowing a balls-up to free him and the ball and get on with it, they just 'sit' on it and peer into the dark, sweaty mess to see if they can identify an effort to push out the ball with the teeth or some such, or lack of same. In other words, allow the pack to form and become a seething morass while you're looking for a player to ping for having no free arms. It's roulette. Still, they gave us the hilarity highlight of the game by correctly pinging Fev for 50m when he made out he'd taken the mark by shaking the ball in their faces, still lying on the ground, while the player who had taken it was already going back to receive the ball for his kick.

1. Frawley - you just can't fault the game he played on the alleged best player in the comp, or close to it. 2. Moloney 3. Jones - that goal! In the past he'd have run in a circle looking for a hand-ball target 4. Trengove 5. Bate - looked like a real player at last 6. Sylvia Apologies to Grimes - as I've said before, he's the best player in the comp with only 16 games to his name; plus Jamar, Davey, Warnock, and most of the rest. No passengers. Even the weakest really gave their all. The defence is incredible - Fevola got 4 but you'd have to say he was handsomely beaten. Take out the frees and he got 2. Some will can Bruce, but he got going and his second half was very good. His closing-down skills are outstanding, and even with a few mis-deliveries he is a vital part of the defence.

Best moment of the whole game, apart from Scully's goal on the run, was the 50 metre against Fev for pretending he'd taken the grab, lying on the ground while the Melbourne player who'd marked it was waiting for the ball! Priceless.

I saw that too. It's another thing to inspire vague, inflated confidence. If there's a bit of drizzle and it's pretty cool, they might just feel a little disoriented.

Remember that TV show, 'Hypotheticals'? With Geoffrey Robertson, the eminent human rights QC as compere? That's what this thread has become, at least that part of it connected with Martin's being an emergency. Except in the minds of some, it's more than a hypothetical, it's a done deal straight from the AFL coaches' manual, section 97, III, iv, (f) Use your emergency to catch the opponents by surprise on game day. The reasoning process, if you can call it that, behind the wishful thought/hope/dream/fantasy that Martin will swoop in to the side in order to discombobulate the Lions, is infantile. It's tantamount to asking the apparently rhetorical question, 'Do you really, really think that pigs don't fly, ever?' There's even a suggestion by one of the proponents of this theory that its opponents are already admitting they are wrong - more than 24 hours before the match: Yes, it will be pretty funny if Martin plays. And we'll admit we were wrong, provided we know that he wasn't brought in to cover a genuine injury or illness. It'll be pretty funny, too, if Gysberts or Cheney were brought in instead of Martin. I suppose that'll be an example of really catching the opposition by surprise, especially if they've been sweating over this thread.

I wasn't suggesting any of them should be dropped, but last Sunday Dunn was possibly the best of the three. 'Runs on the board'? How far are you going back in time? The only runs on the board that really count for these blokes are the last couple of matches. Bate has hardly any in 4 matches. He's not that good a player that he can remain in the team on reputation alone; his reputation has not yet really been formed, if you ask me. Bruce, on the other hand, does have a reputation, but he's not performing up to it. Nevertheless, he's essential against Brisbane.

That's what I'd like to know. He makes errors, sure. Nevertheless, he knows how to shut down an opponent and gets plenty of the ball. Opposing teams would not have a low opinion of his abilities as a defender. So far, he's warranted his place in the team. There seem to be a lot of people far more forgiving of Bate, who has done barely enough in 4 games. Not that I would have dropped him this week, but he's done less than Bruce.

No, he'll come in IN an emergency, unless Gysberts or Cheney are brought in ahead of him, of course. Or does that depend on the weather? I cannot recall any player being dropped at the last minute to make way for an emergency listed player simply because of the weather or state of the ground. In any case, there would have to be a massive, long-lasting downpour for the ground to become 'heavy', and my bet is that the selectors wouldn't be thinking it'll be anything but pretty dry and hard; if that is so, why haven't they named Martin in the 22? After all, if they had selected him and that deluge did occur, they could always tap him on the shoulder and say, 'Sorry Stef, but you can't play today because it's wet and the ground's heavy'.

Spot on. Sometimes a player is named in the emergency list to keep his confidence and optimism up and/or to reward some good efforts in the VFL. The emergency list itself is a necessity imposed on clubs by dint of the fact that a late withdrawal for injury/illness reasons is often forced on a team after selection night. I don't recall a 'late change' in the Dees' line-up in the last few years which involved selectors dropping a player who had performed badly in previous matches yet had kept his spot, but whose name people were calling out for the drop on game day; those players are just dropped, plain and simple, and sent to Casey or whatever. Most of the 'late changes' seemed to involve players whom you wouldn't normally want to be out of the team. 'No change' to a team that's playing improved footy and has won 2 on the trot means exactly that - no change.

But on what basis can one be sure that Martin is so good? He was a fair defender in a number of games last year. 'Huge upside' is such a vague concept; every player has an 'upside' of some sort. Being taller and quicker doesn't mean he's going to be a better bet than Bruce on Sat night. As I said earlier, 8 goals in a couple of VFL games also doesn't mean he's a monty for the side when it's playing well. Bruce is not setting the world on fire, but if there's a player there who is really under-performing I think it's Bate. I'd back Bruce to shut down an opponent ahead of Martin. If Martin continues playing well in VFL he'll get a guernsey soon enough; not all the current 22 are going to hold their form. And if Martin is to replace someone, which I don't think will happen, I'd sooner it was Bate.

Exactly!

Perhaps neither Dunn nor Bartram are going to be in the best 22 in time, but right now they are playing well and have something important to offer, strength and a bit of toe. Dunn looks better than Bate and has it all over Miller and Newton as a tallish forward (even if not KP), Bartram looks at least as good as Bruce. One sees names like Wona and Jurrah and Maric and Tapscott bandied around as replacing Dunn and Bartram as if there's some sort of obvious natural order to things - but they've all played little or no senior football. Wona had one breakout game and obviously has a troublesome hamstring; Jurrah might be a proppy proposition because of injury and really has to prove himself all over again; Maric hasn't been selected for some reason, not sure why; Tapscott hasn't had a game and is long term injured; Jetta is another one, in my opinion the most likely of all those not yet playing to get one soon; Strauss seems to be headed for defence and might vie with Bartram for a spot; Watts? He'll need a tough body nearby and is no certainty to replace Dunn completely even if he fires. The point of all this is that these blokes are doing well in an improved and even side; suggesting they'll be passed by when all those virtually untried youngsters are set to go is pure conjecture. There's no reason why Dunn and Bartram shouldn't hold their places if they continue to improve like most of the side has done. Bartram had a great first season and can play; Dunn has been shifted all over the paddock but has some strings to his bow: bulk, strength, pace, kicking.

What, for Cordner or Wenzler? If there's a late change, it'll rain.

Well why hasn't he been picked? Actually, I don't think he does run rings around him. He's shown he's a capable, fairly quick tall defender and has kicked a few in the VFL. Bruce has not been superb, but he has shown he can tighten up his game and close down an opponent, even if his disposal sometimes lets him down. He has much more chance of taking out an opponent than Martin on Sat night.

I heard he was training as a forward! And then a ruck, and then a forward again... Kicking 8 goals in 2 VFL matches is all well and good, but if you have a very even team that's won 2 in a row, why would you drop someone whose name you'd have to pull out of a hat just to put in a player who's shown he's not a bad pacy defender and merely has legit ruck height as the only other thing on his CV for this week. If he keeps kicking goals in the VFL he'll get his chance. I'd like to see that, but not this week.

Absolutely correct. You'd have to be blind not to have noticed those things at the match last week. Bate's goals were gimmes.

I don't know where these 'late change' ideas come from. Is anyone in the selected 22 suffering from a nagging niggle in the groin or someplace? An emergency list usually contains at least one tallish player and one running type to cover all possibilities, and I doubt Martin has been named just so Dunn or a small player can be dropped on a whim on Saturday night. And I mean whim, because there wasn't a real failure in the side last week and dropping someone from an even team that's won 2 in a row does not make any sense. Saying Dunn is lucky is pretty absurd unless you're prepared to say a couple of others are also 'lucky', namely Bate and Bruce. They didn't perform better than Dunn. Nor did a few others. I haven't been a great Dunn fan, but he did well last week; there were times when he looked more like a footballer than Bate or Bruce. I think he's capable of taking the game up to Brisbane much more than Martin, who's in as much need of finding a position as Dunn has been, and has only one advantage over Dunn: his height. But that's only an advantage in certain contexts. Dunn has a bit of strength and run in him these days.

I tend to agree. Someone said he can play tall. But I don't think so. I can't remember an overhead mark, contested or not. And he could take some lessons from Robbo on chest marks. His legs move very slowly. Compared to Petterd, he's one-dimensional. When he first played for Melbourne, he looked a lot faster, more vigorous, almost a break-the-lines player with the ball. Perhaps he's put too much emphasis on building his muscles, yet he doesn't seem to use his body strength to good effect. Posters mentioning Jetta are on the right track; Bate has to show further improvement or he'll be a passenger and then a forward for Casey. It's been said he started the season not fully fit or prepared, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but he has to play much better than even his performance against such a lowly mob.