La Dee-vina Comedia

LeCras sounds like a bluff, anyone know how long hes been training for?

On 3AW Rumour File today it was 'reported' that Le Cras has returned more quickly than expected because he had not torn his groin muscle off the bone - as was reported at the time - but had instead suffered from a twisted [censored]. Makes my eyes water just writing this.

Have to believe he's going to play. What would be the point of naming him and then saying he's not quite ready? Either he was or he wasn't ready yesterday when they named the team.

Sheedy has said this week they would target KPPs over other players.

Meaningless. Sheedy has for years played a game of not always telling the truth. I'm not criticising him - everyone involved in football understands that it's all part of the bigger game. Some are just better at it than others.

I'd like to think I tip with my head rather than my heart, but I suspect emotion sometimes takes over...but not in he way you might think. I reckon I'm a harder marker for the Dees so am more likely to tip against than for when it's a true 50-50 proposition. I'm probably a bit like the coach who has his own child in his team and treats him more harshly than the rest of the side to avoid being accused of favouritism.

How do you reconcile this statement with the following part of your post?

In your 'preferred approach' it seems that the umpire decides whether there is advantage.

Touche.

I should have been clearer. I didn't accurately differentiate what I meant to say. So, to clarify, if the choice is between how the rule operated last year (umpire decides) or this year (player decides), I think players are better placed. But if the rule could be changed altogether so that it operates a la hockey or soccer, the player effectively has the first call because play continues until the umpire believes the team has been disadvantaged or there is no advantage to take, at which time he then blows the whistle and play stops.

Who would have thought before the season started that Bail, Tapscott and Martin would be in positions 5, 6 and 7 on the Demonland ladder after four rounds. Good on 'em.

This thread has got a bit confused. 45HG16 has made the point, correctly, that the Martin play was not "advantage" - it was play on. "Advantage" can only be paid if a free kick has been awarded, not a mark. So, in this instance, Martin played on presumably because he was not sure if the umpire was going to award him the mark. On balance, he probably did the right thing as to not have done so should the mark not have been awarded may have resulted in him being tackled and holding the ball awarded against him. The culprit (and I'm using the term very loosely) is the umpire for not blowing the whistle quickly enough. But given the fumbling nature of what was in the end a mark, the umpire could not blow the whistle until he was certain.

And for those arguing that the umpire should decide whether to determine "advantage", I can't see how the umpire could be in better position than a player to make that decision. Sure, players will sometimes get it wrong, but surely less often than an umpire.

My preferred approach is to look at the way referees in soccer and hockey award penalties. If the equivalent of a 'free kick' is required, the arm is extended showing that the penalty has been identified, but the whistle isn't blown until after the referee has determined that not to award the free would penalise the team for which the free should be paid. In other words, the referee effectively allows the player to take advantage before the whistle is blown. If the referee then decides there is no advantage, the whistle is blown and the ball comes back to where the infringement occurred. I haven't thought through all issues, but it removes the other problem with the current advantage rule which is that the team against whom the free is awarded is stuck between a rock (letting the player take advantage) and a hard place (preventing the player from taking advantage and in so doing giving away a 50 metre penalty).

6. Moloney

5. Trengove

4. Sylvia

3. Bail

2. Jamar

1. Rivers

I found it quite easy to nominate the first four, but much harder for the last two. And what was it with all the fumbling from Gysberts, Garland and at times Moloney?

Not entirely true. He will improve on his kicking, but I think his handballing is up there with the best at the club. As I said, I think the main issue is that Scully knows exactly where a player should be, and rockets one to the spot, but if that player isn't there, it can make his disposal look poor. I think his mind works too quick for some of our players, but I could be wrong!

I'm old enough to remember Robert Flower (and even earlier still). He had exactly the same problem - so when he played in the Victoria State of Origin team he was invariably in the best players because when he disposed of it those players were good enough to be in the right place at the right time. He was undoubtedly the best MFC player I have seen. If Scully comes close, we'll be very, very happy.

He's an absolute freak. The things he can pull off...

Reminds me of a certain number 33.

Stefan Martin (in his first year)?

Can we please have another semantical argument about what a 'star' is? Or an A-grader?

Superstar > Champion > Elite > Star > A-Grade > most footballers > hack > spud > anyone who walked out on MFC (Bruce, McLean, etc)

How's that order? And what's missing?

If I recall correctly history shows that on average seven of the teams in the eight after round 7 will still be in the eight after round 22. So, let's wait four more rounds before we get ahead of ahead of ahead of ourselves. (The first 'ahead' because we haven't played GCS yet; the second because it's not round 7; and the third because it's not round 22).

what field is Jack Watts in

Perhaps he's outstanding in his field

at the beginning of the match where barely any of our players wanted to get hit/earn the hard ball, it was Gysberts who was standing up. Went in very hard for such a skinny and inexperienced kid. That's good for him and the promise he shows, yet embarrassing how a 4th gamer was showing up basically everyone else on the field for us.

I was surprised that after his clearance work got us Jurrah's first goal (and I think also Jurrah's first point - which should have been a goal) that Gys was removed from the centre square for the next few centre bounces. I appreciate rotations may in theory make it harder for the opposition to match up, but I've always felt that [cliche alert] when you are on a good thing you should stick to it.

dur, this is the real crime in 7's broadcasting, not friday nights at the 'G.

why is this delayed? its not like better homes and gardens is on first. it is on because they can cut from the final siren straight to the news. AND IT WORKS AND PEOPLE WATCH IT. if you want to [censored] with them, change the bloody channel when the game ends and dont watch their news.

btw - it is an absolute disgrace. A.D. you have a lot to answer for - ross oakely wouldnt have stood for this crud.

Actually , I think it would be more effective to run a campaign not to buy products advertised on Channel 7 during delayed broadcasts. I have a suspicion similar campaigns have worked elsewhere - but can anyone help with evidence to support that statement?

While I think he's a good tagger, he also reminds me of James McDonald - runs all day, and while not an elite kick can kick with either foot, can tag but could also be a running midfielder. Perhaps not as much in and under as Junior, but a lot to like. Perhaps we should call him "Junior Jr".

When McKenzie comes back I suspect Bail will become the "second" tagger - that is help McKenzie when he needs a rest and otherwise be given more opportunity to run free. I like him a lot. Amazing what is still there in the draft at, what, pick 64 or thereabouts.

I'm not sure the answers are really adding to the debate. The real question is: Should Morton play in the starting 21 or at Casey? He shouldn't be the sub which means if he's in the starting 21, who becomes the sub? Although Dunn picked up his game toward the end, I thought he struggled overall today. Not enough to be dropped, but perhaps to be the sub to allow Morton to play a full game.

Watching today i couldn't help but think Jones and Bartram should be competing for the one spot.

er...I wouldn't have thought so. Bartram plays tight; Jones doesn't know how to. Both are flawed but both absolutely try their hardest. I've been troubled by Jones in the past, but had him in our best today.

6. Jamar

5. Moloney

4. Rivers

3. Jones

2. Bail (I know Black got a lot of it early, but in the end, Bail outlasted him and became an important cog)

1. Gysberts

Tempted to put Martin in...but just missed out.

Given Frawley will lack match fitness (and assuming he plays, of course) I expect MacDonald to be on the bench with Petterd, Martin and Jetta (sub). Maric misses out. This adds a defender, when compared with last week's team, meaning Grimes or Tapscott or both can be given a chance up the field as part of the shifts which occur with rotations.

Am I imagining it or was one of the reasons given for introducing the new substitute rule a concern expressed by the AFL that the speed of the game could lead to greater impact injuries? If so, and if the substitute rule leads to a reduction in the number or consequences of impact injuries, then the substitute rule should continue to be supported. And, if the evidence shows an interchange bench of two plus two (meaning two substitutes) is better for players' long term health perhaps that should be supported, too. Having said that, though, I'd want to see hard evidence that the substitution rule is working in this way rather than making an unsubstantiated guess.

With respect to Bell, I wonder whether the persistent concussions he talked about led to the lack of awareness or vice versa.

I'm not sure about Roost It's comment favouring 20 + 2 subs instead of the 21 + 1 (but it's by no means an outlandish suggestion) but I agree 100% that it's time to ban runners from the field. With the interchange rule allowing players to come on and off they can receive messages directly that way or the interchanging player running on can carry a message to players on the field. Too often the runners get in the way. At one stage on Sunday the Melbourne runner nearly gave away a free kick (or was it a 50m penalty?) because he was too close to the action.

Note: I realise this is a footy forum so I should say "I agree 110%" but I just can't...

All 3 of them were guessing, and inconsistent all day. Not to mention their friend the boundry umpire needs to spend some more time at the gym.

I was looking for a boundary umpire with a fluoro green vest to sub in.

Putting him to the backline might be an option, but he can only kick on the left. Mind you, Scott Lucas played OK when sent to CHB. I certainly think trialling him in the backline at Casey is a worthwhile development.

6. Moloney

5. Trengove

quite a gap, then

4. Jamar

3. Davey

2. Tapscott

1. Martin

And I liked Bennell's game, too.

I'd like to see Jetta line up on Jack. I think Jetta could be a good stopper with his hardness.

I thought Thomo was suggesting Lewis Jetta would play on Jack Watts...

It would be a fascinating duel, though in a bizarre sort of way.