Macca

Tim.Tebow is back in the NFL! Signed a 1 year deal with the Jags as a tight end. I hope he does alright 33 years old now but he'd be fit & healthy you'd imagine

Best Bet Doomben (Saturday) R7 No.2 Mugatoo 6.00/1.70 Meets the topweight Zaaci 3kgs better off despite beating it home by 2 lengths in the Doncaster Or ... the place bet in a multi could be used as 1 of 2 bankers. I'd be surprised if Mugatoo isn't in the finish As for your pick Gorg, Streetcar is a big chance!

Extending the 666 rule for other types of stoppages has been talked about rjay ... again, worth of debate

You make a lot of good points there rjay With no prior we'd see a lot more holding the man adjudications ... the would-be tackler can't assume that the player will take hold of the ball. If he does, the tackler gets pinged It's way more complex than those who believe that the tackler would all of a sudden be favoured

Chess is even more difficult unless you're some sort of maestro! With no prior players would become more adept at grabbing the ball and disposing in the one action (or soon after) I have actually seen the above in action for over 2 decades. You won't have but that's not your fault Cue Cat Stevens

To ease congestion the VFA went to 16 a side in the early 1950's whilst the VFL built a 'perceived' oversized ground out at Waverley ... the land was acquired in 1959 So these issues we have are far from new. It just seems that way to the youngin's

For those trying to remember re prior opportunity ... does anyone remember the phrase being used back in the 70's, 80's or 90's? (if you were around back then)

Deliberate out of bounds? First talked about early in the 20th century and actually implemented from 1926 through to 1939 So it's not a new thing We can learn a lot from the past. Or at least, we should do Prior opportunity is a relative new rule in the whole scheme of things ... and the new rule had led to a myriad of other issues

When I played there was no prior rule nor was there such a rule in the VFL/AFL Most have forgotten but it is true. And it was in the rule book. The onus was on the player grabbing the ball ... get rid of it quickly or get pinged As a result there was very little congestion and the ball was in constant movement I'm showing my age but others of my era will agree (if they test their memory)

The cry of 'ball' has always amused me ... never joined in on that bit. But lets face it, footy fans love it when a player is pinged (yaaay etc) So a lot want the tackler rewarded but want to keep the prior opportunity ruling ... go figure I just want to watch footy the way it should be played ... fast, furious, open with long kicks and high marking. Dashing wingmen, high flying forwards etc etc Scramble ball doesn't do it for me. Dreamteam & Supercoach freaks who love all the dinky possessions will disagree but I could care less

My opinion is that the ruling should be open to debate not shut down (because people are afraid of change?) Personally, I want to watch football, not scramble-ball. And I'm tired of all the complaints about the umpiring (the tin-foil hat brigade) The way it is right now is unacceptable even though I believe the game is being umpired quite well The man on the mark ruling is artificial but it has opened the game up for the better But more needs to be done with regards to the actual ruling with regards to the tackling adjuducation If nothing is done the argument will rage on for years with the umpires copping the brunt of the frustration

Thanks for taking what I said out of context again rjay. Edit out the stuff you don't like hey? I'll have to try that You left out the thrust of my argument where the prior opportunity ruling has led to all sorts of other issues including incorrect disposal, numerous packs with congestion etc etc. Along with supporter frustration And I'm not at all blaming the umpires either. They are doing a fine job given the circumstances. This is an AFL ruling issue so the problem lies with the custodians or the rulemakers Too many coaches are talking about ditching no prior for it to be for selfish reasons in my view As previously stated, the current ruling has led to a compromised outcome where other issues have been created (throws, ball held in etc etc etc) The law of unintended consequences

What we've got now with regards to a player being tackled are handpasses that aren't really handpasses, the ball simply being let go or allowed to dribble away, the ball spilling free, a part of the boot barely connecting with the ball being regarded as a kick, futile fake attempts at trying to dispose of the ball along with tacklers making sure the ball is trapped in with the player being tackled etc etc All things considered the umpires are doing a fine job sorting it all out. What was once illegal is now legal, nothing is clear cut and quite frankly, it's a bit of a mess. The new man on the mark ruling has improved the game as a spectacle but more needs to be done Most watching are left frustrated and tearing their hair out. I never see any bias or favouritism but what we see now is far removed from what we used to witness I'm normally very cynical of the coach's motives but their 'No Prior' is worthy of debate ... it wouldn't necessarily become a tacklers league as some might imagine either. Lots of clearing taps, knock ons and as a result, way less congestion and packs is how I'm picturing 'No prior' But do nothing and the frustration will remain. There's not much more that can be done with the current prior opportunity interpretation

Against a team like the Crows you could play tall but would you contemplate playing that tall against the Doggies or Lions? If not, don't bother doing it against the Crows. Wasting your own time & losing an opportunity to continue to practice what has worked so far I'd be very surprised if another tall doesn't make way for LJ ... probably an unlucky Weideman

Yes Patches ... we have an attacking side where Langdon, Hunt & 1 or 2 others run in tandem (and it's working) Speed, good skills & execution And on the other side Brayshaw is often at the forefront of a defensive style with the opposition being continuously stifled It's such a vital component of our game plan where we get to play the games on our terms. Make no mistake though, the opposition are going to come at us with a will to breaking down our game plan. The more that it is exposed, the harder it will be to maintain Goodwin made mention of it yesterday ... along the lines of that as the game goes on, our game plan eventually wins out Rinse & repeat but again, we can be broken down but we've got talent on our side where as the oppisition need to find a way to hunt us down. We should be relishing the prospect of being the hunted

He's being scapegoated, whipping boy, whatever you want to call it. Coming 3rd in the Brownlow has annoyed more than a few here Since 2018 he has mostly been played on the wing. Not his natural position as a footballer. So a degree of leeway needs to be applied because the same sort of output won't be forthcoming As it stands, he's making a good fist of it (again, all things considered) But if people were being fair in their evaluations they'd be pointing out every one of the 11 times that Oliver turned it over to the opposition on Sunday Brayshaw is not starring but he is doing his job admirably

Up until we put Brayshaw out on the wing he would have played all his footy on the ball ... bit like Greg Williams, Terry Wallace or Greg Wells being told to play the wing position Not as easy as it might seem for a bloke who would have played as a centreman in days gone by I'd prefer to see him play in his natural position (do what you do, do well) but for team purposes, he needs to be played as a wingman So suddenly the boundary line is constantly in his vision as opposed to the vast expanses of the corridor I reckon he's playing quite well all things considered and he should be judged on his overall output

His disposal was quite good after 1 early error (the spacial awareness turnover) The other possessions where the ball didn't directly go to a teammate was when he was under pressure and in that situation he (like anyone else) needs to dispose of the ball ... or he gets pinged for holding it. Winning a ball in congestion and then executing perfectly (every time) is the stuff of dreams. Won't be happening Oliver turned the ball over to the opposition 11 times ... 10 coaches votes yet he had more 'clangers' than anyone else

If Jackson comes back in (as expected) then the default MC move could easily be last man in is first man out And I can't see us dropping Ben Brown so Weideman would probably make way unless we decide to go super-tall If Weideman goes out he'll get more chances as the season progresses. It's a long season, injuries occur as well as others needing a 'rest' from time to time

It wasn't a shank at all in my view ... if anything, he connected too well and the ball went quite a distance (and it tailed off after being caught by the breeze) Kicking accurately deep into that pocket (under instruction) comes with a degree of difficulty attached And as stated previously, we go to that long option to the pocket like all the teams do these days so when a ball does go out on the full from time to time in that area of the ground it's something a MC needs to wear It's a bit like a top level soccer team handing the ball back to the opposition purposely so as to improve their own counter-attacking game So I don't necessarily see it as an unforced error even though the stats guru's probably see it that way By the way, deliberately handpassing the ball 1 metre to a teammate who you know is going to be tackled improves your DE percentage. Go figure Related ... Onballers often have to find a way to scrub the ball forward by hand or foot because of the pressure they are under ... thus, many have less that perfect DE ratings. So Oliver turned it over to the opposition 11 times on Sunday yet he received the maximum coaches votes

Except that Brayshaw's first 'perceived' error where the ball went out on the full deep in the forward pocket could best be described as a default professional free kick He'd be under instruction to kick long to that pocket if all other options aren't available ... and if you watch carefully the wind grabbed hold of the ball at the tail end of its trajectory Goodwin wouldn't have been unhappy about Carlton receiving a free kick in those circumstances as it's the worst spot on the ground to receive a free kick (the man on the mark is actually brought into play) They (Carlton) either switch play (which is risky especially if we've designed a set play to counteract) or be forced to kick it down the line thus opening up the opportunity for us the regain possession of the ball All part of a set play as I viewed it. Of course, I'm not saying that we want to deliberately kick the ball out of bounds deep in our forward pocket but if the ball does go out of bounds on the full in that area of the ground it's not necessarily a bad result Oddly enough, the ball ended up back with Brayshaw a couple of times soon after that perceived error

Tommy Mac is only 4 votes off the top 10 (in the league) What a turnaround!

A super nutmeg!

This Dogs/Port game is full-on ... players are in auto-mode of disposing of the ball the split second they receive the ball Another finals type pressure game that we need to be able to match & better

Yep, no luck here with exactas today Gorg Might do better in the UK tonight Savatoxl has been running very well but I didn't see it beating that field in the Goodwood. Terrific ride by Vorster & the McEvoy's do it again Eduardo just too good for them in the 10,000