binman

It's not relevant how the AFL executive perform? Great they can relax. Chill. Snort some coke before they organize next year's fixture. Again. Oh and the exec are on way more than the average player so can afford all the coke they want. In any case if the issue is performance what about those players who perform better because some mull helps them wind down one in a while or a pill in the off season dancing at a festival.helps their mental health?

Because he is lippy And tells the umpires when they have made a blue. Often. And with conviction. And he gets stuck into opponents. Scraps and pushes and holds tbem down after tackles. All of which dees fans love. Tbe umpires not so much. I backed him for most brownlow votes for us last year. Was shocked that Brashaw won it. But shouldn't be. They love golden boy Brayshaw. Clarry not so much

Fair enough. He definitely won't hold a candle to neita as a dee. You would have to say that despite contributing to the dees history will show he was not fully invested in the way neita was - and still is.

Is that hassa manna?

Not sure the connection to Oliver but I was definitely one of those people. How do I feel now? 100% confident I will be proved correct. Why wouldn't I be? Neita is a true mfc great and one or my all time favorites. games record holder. Fantastic, inspirational skipper. Great team man. But if truth be told was not an A grader as his modest AA record attests. Early on had 1 great season whete it appeared he could be anything. Good but not great thereafter. Went through a period where he couldn't catch a cold. Jessie has had an incredible start to his career. Suoer consisyent. And if he keeps focused will get better. And be a level above neita

As i have noted before there there is no way Frost gets picked ahead of Oscar. No way. One i don't actually think they are competing for the same spot with Frost really in competition with may and smaller HB players. Secondly, and more importantly Frosty's kicking is simply too unreliable, as was on show yesterday. We have enough poor kicks in the side without picking one we have other options for. Also on show yesterday was that Frosty really struggles on on one in terms reading the flight of the ball and being out positioned. Both Frosty and Omac were pretty average yesterday but Omac was better than Frost. He is comfortably ahead of Frost (who by the way i have a lot of time for).

Was thinking much the same dazzler, particularly about Keilty. I liked what i saw and that mark also stood out for me. It cam after a bit on error so good he kept at it and reddemed the error. I love that. Seems thinner than i recall? Drunkn has he lost some weight?

My file is bigger than yours

Just got back from being out and watched all the races ii missed. Flemington looks like it is fair to all. No real leaders bias which is good for the racing, not so good for my selections. Marked Mr quickie but went with a leader Mr Ash (should have had a saver)/ Impressive win by Schabau. The oz stayers cannot hold a candle to the Europeans. Areal worry and i can't see it improving any time soon. Good win by She's so high. good price too, starting at 2.30.

Interesting day. I'm playing flemington for somewhere between a leaders bunn and suit on pace and made my selections accordingly. If I get that right I'm confident of a big day. My best is she's so high. Race 3 no 7 flemington. Will be too good for a small field and good value at 2.25 fixed atm

The winning post not delivered to my newsagent this morning. Very frustrating as it means I cant do my form on the train. Will have to get one somewhere and do on way home (and at home). A reminder races at flemington start early tomorrow because of heat.

No I think you've misunderstood him on that point. The opioid crisis is literally a crisis in the states. Poor small towns and communities are being devastated. The key reason it has got to that point is that they are legal (though not in the quantity many people have and not go deal). The fact they are legal has created a huge discussion and funny contradiction - even amongst the hard right. It can't be immoral if it is legal right? But oxy and all its derivatives are no different to heroin of course. So is heroin immoral? And because they cant tackle legal opioid use though a war on drugs approach how do they do it? The only logical approach is a harm min and health insurance approach. Which is how they are now approaching it, by in l as large. Even trump sees this. So if that is the approach to legal opites it is not such a jump to illegal ones. Though they are a ways off of course. The war still rages as you suggest. Thst said marijuana is legal in 20 or states and freely available in many. Very different to here.

Jake Niall Nails it: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/some-of-you-just-don-t-get-it-on-footballers-and-drugs-20190227-p510jm.html

We should have had a bet! Which you would have lost by the way. You wrote that 'They train when its 40 degrees' I wrote 'No they don't. Ever.' It did not get over 35 when they were training. There is a very, very big difference between 35 and 40 degrees. 5 degrees to be exact. As i wrote previously if you can show me some evidence of the dees training in 40 degree heat i will be most impressed - not to mention very surprised.  I will acknowledge i'm surprised they didn't move the training earlier (though i only said if the temp is mid 30s they often - not always - make training earlier). Perhaps they were preparing them for Shep.

Of course they have rules around behaviour. But so do most jobs. If I posted so kn etching super offensive on social media I would be disciplined. And if a player got busted for drugs the afl might further discipline them for bringing the game into disrupted. As they might (or should) for a drink drive charge. But a player using recreational drugs in their own time is not bringing the game into disrepute. And the afl might only know that is the case because they choose to test for recreational drugs. Which they don't have to do.

I can't find it in this thread so perhaps it is another but lucifer's hero (I think) posted she thought the new kick in rule might result in teams flooding their backline to defend against quick transition. I disagreed, arguing flooding is too defensive and make it too hard to the team flooding to score themselves. Interesting that in the herald sun predictions thread David king suggested the rule change would actually result in lower scores (doesn't say why but I'm guessing) and mick mcgrane says it will result in teams greater defending through the midfield by which I think he might mean flooding back bbn or at least setting a deep defensive wall. Both views support that of Lucifer's hero. It will be fascinating to see how it plays out. Perhaps lower clubs will flood to prevent blow outside, much the way struggling NBA teams try slow down games and avoid fast break basketball.

They're not. If the police catch them with drugs they get charged. Simple. It is not the AFL's - or any employer for that matter - job to catch and punish players who break the law. If it is why stop at drug use. What about tax avoidance? Assault? Copyright?

Agree to an extent. He does get up the ground a bit, but I guess not often. But when he does if he doesn't clunk a mark his lack of agility becomes a liability. Also the roos funnel much of their forward entries through him which gives him more opportunity than other forwards. This reliance on brown is also a bit one dimensional. Shut him down and shut the roos down. As was the case in the latter part of last season. This highlights the fact brown can only really play forward, which really reduces the roos' flexibility. If tmac gets shut down we can throw him in the ruck, to the wing or chb. All that said as you note he is definitely a talent. One of the best marks on the lead since dunstall I reckon.

Totally agree. A 50 metre penalty is often way too harsh a penalty for some infractions, for example running into the exclusion zone. It is also random in its impact (which penalties should not be wherever possible - or at least the randomness should be minimised) in so far as some 50s give a player a shot at goal (and sometimes a certain shot at goal - eg the 50 is paid 40 metres out) whereas the same penalty paid in the backline is less of a penalty A easy solution is having both 15 and 50 metre penalties as options, each with prescribed infractions (and perhaps some wiggle room for umpires to use their common sense).

There was at least one - to here I think - and as dc suggested it was confusing as to whether he played on or not as he was sprinting forward. Presumably it wasn't as he didn't run off his line but then he did play on by kicking the ball well short of where the mark would have been (which the umpire never got to set). As I suggested I can't see why player wouldn't run quickly forward and play on. But there will be scenarios where they run quickly but don't play on and the oppo player impedes them because they think they have or are about to. Possibly resulting in a second 50.

Spot on ds. Particularly in regard to the confected moral outrage. Particularly from ex players from 80s and 90s when the prevailing culture was excessive alcohol use. II care about how players prepare, train and perform. If they can do those things well I could care less if demon players use recreational drugs. My view is the players should never have agreed to include testing for recreational drugs.l in the first place Just stuck to performance enhancing only. And the AFL made a rod for it's own back including testing for recreational drugs. Stupid. I understand their motivation (getting treatment for players) but they should have stayed well clear of something that is none of their business. That said I as applaud the hark min approach they have taken.

Agree. His strength is incredible running capacity - as was so evident in the first half of last year. Opposition defenders could not go with him. And his footy smarts. A natural. I have to admit though that early doors i had expected him to develop into a better pack mark than he has become. One on one he is brilliant as reads the ball so well and times his body work but he doesn't clunk that many park marks and doesn't really launch at packs the way say Weeds does.

Agree on both points. The one advantage Tmac has over Hogan - and it is an important one - is that he is a much, much more reliable set shot at goal and not coincidentally has better technique, one that is more likely to hold up under pressure. I know which player i'd like to have the ball shooting for win after the siren. I also think tmac is a marginally better one on one and contested mark. Though perhaps that's bit tough on Hogan.

50m penalties The player with the ball: Must be allowed to advance the mark by 50m without the infringing player delaying the game. Will be able to play on while the 50m penalty is being measured out. Impact on competition: once players get used to this rule i expect players to play on at almost every opportunity, except when the 50 gives them a shot at goals (and even then sometimes) Why not? Will be one more factor speeding up transition. Impact on dees: no specific impact - I wonder if players with genuine speed like Hunt will really try and exploit this change Potential implementation and interpretation issues: i'm curious how the umpire will determine when a player has played on. yes the rule remains play on when running off the line but a player bolting will be almost ahead of the umpire and running to yet to be determined mark. Will it be play on once a player passes the umpire? If so that would require a rule change. Will a player bolting forward confuse the umpire and make it hard for him to work out where the mark should be? I suspect there ill be some confusion with this rule. The other issue is that it will make a 50 metre penalty potentially even more of penalty and therefore the impact of any poor 50s by umpires will be magnified. It was already often such a harsh penalty for small indiscretions - this will make that worse. Kicking for goal after the siren A player who has been awarded a mark or free kick once play has ended: Will now be able to kick across their body using a snap or check-side kick BUT must kick the ball directly in line with the man on the mark and the goal. Impact on competition: marginal i would have thought. Particularly given the second part of that rule which meaning they players still cant creep across like Franklin does with his arc. Players using the snap and checkside almost always take step off the line, effectively playing on but won't be able to d that so will have to adjust their set up (eg start their run up behind the boundary line Impact on dees: nothing in particular Potential implementation and interpretation issues: the only issues i can see are the same as the ones now - correctly adjudicating if a player has ran off his line and played on

So i guess he has had no interruptions to his interrupted preseason.