Macca

Super Bowl LV Mic'd Up! Tampa Bay/Kansas City

@Gorgoroth @Dappa Dan @DeeSpencer @JV7 @Dee Zephyr @Go the Biff @titan_uranus @layzie @Clintosaurus @DemonDave The lines are up and the first game is on Friday! (Dallas @ Tampa 10.20am) ... decent precursor to the big game on Friday evening. Go Demons! MNF is Baltimore @ Las Vegas (in the new Allegiant Stadium) whilst SNF is an interesting match-up (Bears @ Rams) Other standout encounters include Steelers @ Bills, Packers @ Saints, Browns @ Chiefs & Seattle @ Colts

Apart from the open betting race that the Makybe Diva Stakes is, there are some real shorties running around @ HQ on Saturday But they might all win ... Ingratiating, Artorius & Ayrton are all odds-on in their respective races!

Probably! So whichever way it's adjudicated, there are issues It's just that kind of sport ... unique in so many ways. One grey area creates another grey area My thinking has always been to be 5 goals better than the rest and if that is so, the law of averages will see the cards fall our way Otherwise it's Que Sera Sera However, we may not be 5 goals better than the rest like we were in the Smith days but this year is our best chance since those days (all things considered)

The $11 for Incentivise didn't last long (albeit all-in betting) ... into $5 now after being $8 a couple of hours ago

The player in question wasn't named What's the issue?

Good info, well explained Thanks & kudos

Socceroos at Vietnam on Tuesday evening (World Cup Qualifier) On Ch10HD live from 9.30pm n.b. we defeated China 3-0 last Friday to kick off the campaign (highlights are up on youtube)

Yeah, clearer! Not sure that works with the narrative though haha #pardonmycynicism

Don't know WCW As it is, there is very little information available about the ruling at the time. Quite scarce in fact, but it was a ruling Google might help a bit more from the last time I searched (3 or 4 years ago) I'm assuming the rule was brought in back then to stop teams hugging the boundary line (trying to waste time?) but who knows?

It's a bad rule. Another grey area open to interpretation Last handpass, kick or directed punch away or tap away is the only rule that can go close to working. So the Caleb Daniels & Angus Brayshaw kicks would be clear cut if that rule was in operation Leave it as it is and there will be arguments aplenty (maybe that's what the AFL wants*) Interesting that the rule that I'm suggesting was in place from around about 1926 through to around 1939 And no, I wasn't around in those days *The conspiracy theorist lurks in all of us

Replays going back a couple of weeks (as well as the 4 features from Saturday)

I reckon our defence can match their forward line and our midfield shades their midfield. Our precision out of defence can also be a factor If that happens our forward line can do quite well or even better especially if the ball is moved into our forward line quickly with decent disposal However, we also need our forwards to display defensive pressure from the word go. Not just the small forwards either, all of our forwards Couple all that with our all over defence and we should come away with the win So it's not so much what Geelong are capable of, we're well aware of their capabilities. It's more about can we be at our best. Our best beats their best as their weakness is a lack of forward line defensive pressure and they're all over defence isn't strong either. They like to play keepings-off in their own backline but I reckon that stifles their offensive capabilities Need to nail those gettable shots at goal too as the opposition are capable of being accurate in front of goal So you break it all down and we're advantaged as long as we bring our best Demons by 20 - 30

Ah yes, the home town decisions Back in the day you couldn't buy a free kick at Windy Hill, Vic Park or Princes Park. The oldies have told me that it goes all the way back Happens in a myriad of other sports too ... especially in the NFL & Baseball. Used to happen in soccer before the advent of VAR Cricket as well and even neutral umpires seemed to get influenced. Reviews have changed things to a point where the umpires are now more like orderly's But in Aussie Rules with all the grey areas and no reviews apart from goal line technology (which is dodgy anyway) we are pushing the proverbial uphill. The game is harder to umpire than it ever was I get the passion and emotion but the lack of understanding is baffling. Do people really believe that the game can be umpired correctly with all the stuff that is going on and all the grey areas? Honestly, I've been hearing the same argument since the 60's. Nothing changes from year to year and the raging arguments just go on forever

We were a total of 16 free kicks down for the home & away season. That's about 0.7 of a free kick per game And when considering the professional free kicks that are given away from time to time, 0.7 of a free kick per game is a negligible amount

As I explained in a previous post, the Dogs don't get pinged for holding the ball very often (the AFL allows a player to let the ball dribble out or be knocked free in a tackle as well as small throws being allowed when tackled) So that somewhat explains the low free kick count for the Bulldogs opponents. And they've been playing that style for at least 6 years now And you are right with your observation that the Dogs are regularly first to the ball. Again, the player 2nd to the ball has a hard time of it winning a free kick especially when adding in that the Doggies rarely get pinged for holding the ball Beveridge worked it all out years ago and I'm surprised that more teams haven't followed suit. It's of absolute no surprise to me that the Dogs have a large free kick differential

Well match fixing can't ever be ruled out but if we took into account the amount of times that the cheat label gets thrown about by footy fans about umpires, then nearly all the games could be called into question And that's a stretch (to say the least) ... I'm happy to accept a match fixing scenario if it can be proven And let's not forget than any form of tanking is by default, match fixing. Football dept led under the eyes and ears of a compliant Board Little known fact that no market was ever framed for the 'Kruezer Cup' You couldn't lay a bet on the game

Fair enough I'm still not convinced that no prior has been good for the game. Interesting that Buckley & Wayne Campbell have led the charge for no prior to be removed. Other coaches as well I believe (?) Most of the current issues centre around what happens around congested situations (of which there are many) So it's either clean things up around the congestion (very difficult assignment) or reduce the congestion (easier solution) I'm in the latter category

The Doggies don't often get pinged for holding the ball where as other teams do get pinged for holding it Since 2016 the Bulldog players have become adept at letting the ball dribble free when tackled or the ball often appears to be knocked free once tackled. And as we know, many 'little' throws are let go in the same scenario. Once the ball hits the deck another Doggies player is often there to pick the ball up to go through the same process (unless they can release the ball) So that can explain 4 - 6 free kicks 'not paid' to the opposition per game as I see it But again, isn't that a rules of the game issue? If the umpires are instructed to 'keep the ball moving' in those scenarios then they are doing what the AFL asks of them

The AFL allow players to duck into tackles and whilst like most others, I dislike the practice, if it's allowed then you play to the rules However, I would have dragged Selwood up to the tribunal years ago in a retrospective way and given him a strong warning (or weeks) for his ducking. But they've let it go and Selwood has therefore spent his entire career winning free kicks for ducking. Many other players have followed suit as a result (including Spargo) There are a lot of other areas of the sport I dislike but it's up to the AFL to frame the rules correctly Otherwise teams and coaches will take advantage. But I'm a great believer in cause & effect and there are too many players on the arena for starters I watch the Doggies really carefully and they are well ahead of the rest with regards to milking frees. Tighter parameters and they wouldn't be able to do it AFL issue not an umpiring issue

If you accept that the Doggies are quite adept at winning free kicks as well as putting themselves in the right position (in front) to win those free kicks then we'll be in agreement So apart from pointing at the numbers and the discrepancy in the Bulldogs favour with regards to the free kick count, as well as ruling out any sort of bias (cheating) what's your reasoning on why the discrepancy is there? I've taken the time to explain my position yet you're just there scratching your head and wondering why You got any sort of believable explanation?

I reckon it's demeaning to call an umpire a cheat no matter what the reasons might be It's unnecessary and inappropriate In the same week where a footballer has walked through an umpire (said player also received levels of support) If we continue to disrespect umpires, what's the end result? What wins games of football are high levels of talent, a solid game plan and top level coaching Have all those attributes on an ongoing basis and you'll be dreadfully unlucky not to win big In other words, be 5 goals better than all the other teams and you're in control. Thus, the uncontrollables are minimised

You do realise that some teams are stronger in some areas than others yeah? Like our defense is better than the others (at least in terms of scores against) The Bulldogs are more adept at winning free kicks than others. Smart team, well coached And if you call an umpire a cheat you are intimating that the umpire in question is cheating for a reason What reason? Money? Just for the hell of it? Why would they do it without some sort of profit motive? And can you actually prove that umpires really cheat without pointing at the free kick count? (all the free kick count does is show us a set of numbers - it doesn't point to cheating)

Well when I played there was no prior rule ... not in the way it is ruled now. The phrase didn't exist. Late 70's, 80's and early 90's There was the odd ball up if the ball was trapped but the onus was on the player to dispose of the ball correctly No prior is such a part of the landscape that many believe it was always the case. It wasn't I actually reckon the would-be tackler has more of an advantage with no-prior. The ball player used to be able to time his acquisition of the ball