Macca

I don't know about the technicalities but having a stationary arm was what was taught in juniors (in my day) It didn't have to be completely rigid but that arm certainly couldn't be moving about Now, the momentum of the ball is often governed by the hand holding the ball ... I'm baffled as to why these rules are always 'stretched' For instance, for decades a player was required to kick the ball over the mark ... that's no longer the case either. There are numerous other examples of how the game has been redesigned The coaches try it on and the league lets them do what they like (in a general sense) I suspect those overseeing proceedings prefer to see the umpires continuing to cop the wrath Because that's what happens. They (the umpires) are at the coalface and it's just easier to blame them In a way it's an ideal solution for those who are supposedly running the sport because it's just more of the same for the umps anyway. They are so used to all the criticism's that it's probably just water off a duck's back But that has never made it right in my eyes because we rarely get satisfactory solutions Every year is like groundhog day

Clarkson complained about the Bulldogs 'method' of disposal by hand back after the 2016 semi final ... mentioned that his own team would need to learn how it's done, hinting that they would do the same That's 6 years ago now So all the clubs do it and try to disguise it but again, the Bulldogs do it better than the rest (probably in all facets of a free kick, if we're being honest) For instance, as you and most others know, the handpass used to require a clenched fist punching the ball from another hand/arm that was reasonably stationary (certainly not moving about at a great rate of knots) Now, the hand holding the ball can be moving at a great rate of knots and the slightest of 'taps' on the ball is allowed ... so that new interpretation can be exploited and is exploited. And the Bulldogs are the best at it. Again, in close with a mass of bodies around the ball, the release of the ball after immediately being tackled is difficult to see clearly. Especially into what has actually happened My eyes see a throw only being paid when it's absolutely obvious. The rest of the time it's play on And it's gone way past blaming the umps ... this is a rules of the game issue which is an AFL issue

I'm with most here ... something needs to be done but I'm coming from a different direction and heading in a different direction We've probably narrowed it down to 2 real reasons ... either all the umps are all in it together in deliberately favouring the Bulldogs (for what reason?) or we have an issue with a team exploiting the rules or 'playing' the rules with the umpires just paying what they see (according to the rules) I heavily favour the latter argument so we could wait for all the other teams to 'catch up' or address the rules The Bulldogs have been doing what they are doing for a long time now. And that includes their premiership year I'm seeing more people in the media (and a few here on this site) state that the Bulldogs are just very adept at winning free kicks. So once that recognition is established, there might be some action taken The question is what can be done and what is being done? As far as I can see, nothing And there can't be a sour grapes approach ... the best time is a day like today when they have actually lost the game But until the league addresses the issue, we can expect more of the same. And the issue will probably get worse If you can't beat 'em, join 'em could easily be what the other clubs do And, it's not off topic as there is a direct connection re 'questionable' decisions and dissent or abuse Can you imagine if we're still talking about the lopsided free kick count (In the Bulldogs favour) in 2 or 3 years time? How about 5 years?

Yes the Bulldogs being expert at playing for free kicks and the league not addressing the rules that could put a stop to it all The lopsided free kick count in favour of the Bulldogs has been going on since 2015 (coincidentally, when Beveridge took over) And there's no such thing as a coincidence when it comes to transgressing or taking advantage. It's been a well planned exercise to a point where players like Weightman openly talks about how he plays for frees and how good he is at it Multiply that by every player on their list and that's a systemic issue Got a solution?

Pay the 50 on the spot is my view ... for the reasons that I outlined earlier It's probably time we agreed to disagree Sue, we are getting nowhere with this debate

The relationship between questionable decisions and player dissent is obvious. That's why the dissent happens As I said, if we can improve the rulings, there would be way less dissent. So flopping is by far the bigger issue Cause & effect We can either try and fix the A-end of the problems or try and fix what is causing those A-end issues If nothing is done, flopping will get completely out of control and then everyone will be wanting to do something about it As it stands, I see the flopping as a major issue - right now But at the moment there is nothing but crickets

Got another question for you We often carry on and want umpires to be sent to the bush for not getting decisions right (which I don't agree with by the way) So should the umpire last night who didn't enforce the 50 be sent to the bush? Or at least be cautioned or disciplined by his superiors? After all, according to the new rules, he did make an obvious error

And that can happen if all the players can behave themselves Oddly enough, if the players behave we'll be hearing a lot less from the umpires But if you know your footy, you'll know that the players do behave in large numbers. Nearly all the time For instance, there were 47 free kicks last night with the infringing players able to control their emotions on 45 occasions 2 players decided to go against team rules ... one let his team down badly and one got lucky So the issue is not about all the players ... more so those who do not want to accept the umpires decisions A small minority and that small minority are going to have to tow the line You'd pay it on the spot but you'd be conned into awarding free kicks to players who have flopped So the players who are doing the conning would get away with it Which is the same issue that we have now Problem not solved And if you reckon that you'd get every decision right, I'm not going to believe you

Just about ... any sort of chat can't be about questioning an umpires decision, or abuse, or dissent The players are best off saying nothing ... otherwise they run the risk of being pinged And penalties applied as they happen for dissent or abuse so I don't support your idea For instance, the offending player last night had no need to question the impire ruling regardless of whether he was right or wrong. The decision had been made and he just had to wear it. So the player let his team down In the end, he cost his team a goal And I regard any questioning of umpiring decisions as contemptable. Clam up, show respect and and accept the decisions So maybe the infringing players can get pinged on the field as well as having to front the tribunal afterwards. That might have a bigger effect Just like when the flopping for high contact should have been addressed over a decade ago ... they con the umpire (and the fans) and get away with it. So ping them retrospectively after the game because they can't necessarily get pinged during a game But as a realist I can't see that happening until the problem gets so out of control that they are forced to take action A question for you What would you do about players flopping around for high contact frees? And where do see that type of decision going? (worse?) As previously stated, there is a direct connection between that type of decision and all the frustration we see. As well as the dissent & abuse Cause & effect

On another thread I have talked about retrospectively pinging players for staging & flopping (or anything else like that for that matter) And over the years here I have made many other such references ... especially when it comes to the biggie - the contentious high contact free kick (which is getting worse) I distinctly remember having a long discussion many years ago about that type of free kick with dc But I'm also a realist so if those sorts of actions were to happen, public opinion and the media would be talking about it (at least) And they aren't, not on this site either But we are creatures of habit and we don't like change My view on the 50 (paid or not paid) keeps leading me back to the overall and the big picture. In other words, we can sweat the small stuff as long as we address all the issues that are in fact, in my view, bigger issues So 2 x 50 metre incidents last night vs 15-20 high contact (possible) incidents ... it has to be remembered that players flop about and stage for free kicks but they are not always awarded the free. Our players do it from time to time So if you were to ask me what is (by far) the biggest issue it's the high contact free ... miles ahead of player abuse & dissent, which by the way, we can still curtail at the same time There's probably 10 issues to address if the truth be known as holding the man, in the back and marking infringements are missed or paid too There is a simple solution for the players with regards to the 50 ... don't argue the point or question the decision and you won't get pinged And all this 'robot' talk is nonsense ... for instance, there were 47 free kicks paid last night and on 45 occasions the infringing players all managed to control their emotions 45 from 47 is a decent result So I saw last night as a positive ... if I was a perfectionist, maybe not

Always nice to back the first winner of the day (a bonus 50 on winnings too!) And worth following is 'Tokorangi' too - impressive winner

I saw a more than a dozen soft high contact incidents last night ... some were paid, some weren't. As viewers, we don't really know if the whistle is going to be blown (or not) for that type of incident So we have a far bigger problem with that type of decision ... which, by the way, leads to player frustration and possible dissent or abuse. Holding the ball - similar issues. In the back - similar issues. Infringements in marking contests - similar issues. Etc etc etc As for the non applying and the applying of the 50 last night. One player got off the hook and can count his lucky stars (although if he was pinged, the player he infringed against (if awarded the 50) wouldn't have had a shot at goal) Whilst the other player got rightfully pinged and cost his team with his selfish act. His act resulted in a goal. Don't react at all and there's no penalty You can bet he won't be doing it again and if he does, his coach will be furious with him (again) So the coaches are instructing their players to clam up if a free kick is awarded against the player. Eventually, the reacting players will have the finger pointed at them And that might happen more quickly than people think The rule is going to be applied and there will be the odd inconsistency (as there was last night) Just as there is with nearly every other type of footy incident

Long term the league would be better off with the average of 4 FTA games staying as it is with the other 5 games all being available on another source or 2 (as it is now) If they split the 5 non FTA games up across various platforms they'll be asking for trouble and if the FTA content is reduced, the same For the greater good, the league can't be too greedy looking for a cash grab (and that opportunity will present itself if Amazon & Paramount enter the fray with the big bucks) As it stands, there are a number of AFL fans who will watch the Rugby League on Thursday evenings if the AFL don't have a game scheduled for that day

Well, we eventually turned Scully into Steven May & Tom Sparrow I believe. And at the rate that Sparrow is improving, he could easily have a better career than Scully. May was All Australian last year and a premiership hero So Scully goes to GWS and we receive a compensation pick in the mini draft (Hogan) in return Eventually Hogan goes to Freo and they give us picks 6 & 23 in return (we gave them some inconsequential pick in the 60's as well) We give pick 6 to the GCS for May and use pick 23 (eventually pick 27) in the draft on Sparrow Turned out alright when factoring in Gawn at pick 34 as well All's well that ends well

Dropping T-Mac does add clarity to the one position in the forward line other than the positions filled by Fritsch & Ben Brown Weideman needs to perform to stay in the side but T-Mac also needs to also put pressure on Weideman's position ... so if Tom replaces Weideman down the track, the same scenario applies with roles reversed So it's no longer a debate about which player plays the best (in the same side) and who goes and who stays But Tom does have another avenue and that is as a reserve backman but with Smith seemingly ahead of him and Tomlinson in reserve, that path is a more difficult one So it's over to you Sam but ... Tom needs to stand out for Casey as well And Sam will almost certainly play across the half forward line and further afield ... a role others here have mentioned that he may be better suited to. Lead up marks and then dishing off (quickly) could be his go (as opposed to playing as a deep forward)

The game tonight was ok only. Was expecting better but GWS just seem to lack real purpose when the heat comes into the game They don't use the corridor enough and can't seem to get on a run when needed. Not a lot of physicality although they were better than last week. There's something missing though As for the Saints - hard to judge them tonight but they do keep winning. As Ben mentioned above, their defence is decent They are a reasonably good team but I'm not sure they can reach great heights just yet. A top 4 spot is within their grasp though with a 5 & 1 start to the season. And if you're top 4 you're a chance

The Giants all walk taller with Toby in the team (no pun intended) He doesn't drop his head or give up and that sends a message to his team mates. Plays for keeps. He's a bit of a product from a bygone era but there is no denying he captures an audience But can he not cross the line? Does he need that edge to his game in order to be at his best? In my view, probably The game should be a good start to the long weekend of footy ... the 4 FTA games should all get a big TV audience Our game is quickly becoming a standout blockbuster (as long as the crowds are maintained), the ANZAC day game always has a great atmosphere and the Freo/Blues game on Saturday evening might answer a few questions

And of course Libba when talking about Carlton tanking That was one of the quickest about-face's of all time ... he went from one extreme to the other in a couple of days Journo's would know the line they can't cross too ... oddly enough, if the controversy has a knock on effect of having the sport front & centre in the media, that seems to be ok Take the H/S with the attack on Goodwin. Got everyone talking about footy and the AFL would have loved that

In some games it's way more than 3-4 (actual attempts at staging, not all paid) In the Cats/Hawks game there might have been 15-20 instances Not that I let it bother me ... it is what it is and the better team usually wins and it evens itself out anyway Except if you are the Western Bulldogs ... they have a clear advantage because they are coached really well to exploit the high contact ruling And it's no good for the punters to point at the Western Bulldogs either. They are just "Playing' the rules It's an AFL issue and only drastic measures will fix it, Sue Also, this particular type of free kick leads to player frustration ... which leads to umpire disrespect It's a blight on the game

We've created a monster with the head being sacrosanct along with the concussion issues & protocols The exploitation of the head high contact can only get worse in my view. As time goes on all the teams (not just Selwood & the Doggies) are going to become adept and coached to win the high tackle free kick We can't fix it even if we had the motivation to fix it ... unless we retrospectively ping up to 100 players per round for staging & cheating So the ducking, shrugging up of the arms and knees dropping will continue and get worse And everyone will complain but the problem will rage on Anyone got a solution? Apart from expecting the umpires to sort it all out (which is an impossible mission)

Previously (not that long ago) we were told that it was going to take a couple of years to get the players fit. At the time I didn't want to believe it but as it turns out, they were right. Done for tanking, 186, Various coaches. Upheaval. AFL intervention Along with knowing deep down that we were miles off (years) from contending. It was demoralising knowing we had to wait an age and even from that low base we had to start to make every post a winner Fast forward to now (and after a breakthrough flag) and those thoughts are gone (well, almost) We slip up and we're back there again so we need to get better with no let up. So there should be no issue with motivation (at the club) Our rise has been quite a story ... there's a best selling book there for someone with great penmanship Hemingway? 'The Rise of the Demons'

With 2 forced changes do we want to take a total of 3 out of a winning side? (that is also 5 & 0) So T-Mac & Weid to stay with T-Mac going back? Bedford comes in you'd imagine along with BBB Dunstan as the sub? Or maybe Smith for some added versatility (if needed)

There's a few holes in it but some excellent suggestions ... as well as a few suggestions that I struggle to agree with I reckon a watered down version would be better The 4 sectors makes sense but you'd maybe keep the boundary umpires and let the 4 umpires adjudicate on onfield decisions only The boundary umpires can remain a part time job ongoing. Boundary umpiring is for the fitness fanatics so let them continue and you don't have to pay them top dollar The teams of umpires also has merit and the goal umpires and field umpires swapping roles could work ... having 2 goal umpires at each end makes the job of the goal umpires much easier. Just standing next to the goal post seems easy enough I don't agree with the goals and behinds scored being tampered with ... touched ball remains a point as does hitting the post in my view But overall, I like Eddie's idea for change And the sport should be able to afford full time umpires ... pay them a lot more and get the umpiring squads to do 2 games as Eddie suggested

And I was the same in my playing days as well as serving on numerous committees (the absolute suburban hack!) ... just keep bringing in the proper talent and you win more games Get really good and you can win big. And for the first time in my life (and many others I'm presuming) we've now got that team at the MFC. Under Northey & Daniher we were good and sometimes very good but we weren't the best nor were we superior to the rest And are we getting ahead of ourselves? Doesn't feel that way at all ... we are very good and that's for real. League-wide, the finger is being pointed at our club (as the best) And we can get even better as our recruiting is still really good. As is the coaching Bring on the Tigers!!!

Of course So the clubs that have transgressed need to be cautioned, then fined or premiership points docked It's like the racist chants in soccer ... ultimately the clubs or countries then have to play in front of empty stadiums The AFL should have acted in a stronger way with regards to Adam Goodes but we hounded him out of the game