Macca

I'd like to keep Watts but if the decision is made to move him on, the sky won't be falling as a result. We definitely need some outside runners who can use the ball well ... but those outside runners still have to 'go' when its their turn. And there lies the problem with Jack And he won't be suddenly turning into an A grade talent elsewhere. I can see him doing 'ok' elsewhere (if he is used properly) He's just not that good a player, never was and almost certainly he never will be. I view sport in a practical way ... so, I'm now looking at what we can get for Jack in a trade. If there is genuine interest from a number of clubs and they genuinely want him, we can win out in a trade.

Although we did get Vince for Sylvia via pick 23 The Crows turned pick 23 into Matt Crouch There's always a catch.

A couple of randoms that sort of mesh together ... good tunes, all the same ...

The Bears can win @ Lambeau but it's an intimidating place and there's an enormous amount of pride at stake. Not losing becomes a supreme motivating force in this great rivalry - the oldest rivalry in the sport. I look forward to this clash and the return clash like no other. It would be no different to the rest of you blokes ... there is always one team that you you just have to beat, no matter what. And that team is?

If it's true that 4 clubs are interested then that can drive up the value of his trade value. Assuming that he is gone, I hope the club can make the best of the situation. Clubs have previously gone after players who have played well against them so the Pies could be a player. Buckley is getting a good return out of Howe and they like to get the ball quickly to the outside ... Port & Geelong the same. The strange bit is that we're in dire need of some skilled, speedy, outside players. That is one of the next steps in the teams development. I would have kept him for that reason ... we're right on the cusp of being able to use him properly. Losing Gawn & Hogan for a lot of the year and with Weideman not coming on, we had to use Watts in roles that he's not suited for.

Pittsburgh Tennessee Philadelphia

No winners this past week and it doesn't get any easier in week 4 (1 point) Keep in mind that the odd numbered weeks from here on in count for 2 points (except week 17 where we play for 3 points) Leaderboard in the comp 3 - JV7 2 - Dappa Dan 1 - Go the Biff, Clintosaurus, Macca 0 - The usual suspects Can we trust the Jags yet? ... and surely Cinci & the Giants will get on the board soon. There's sure to be some upset road wins but which ones? Don't ask me. Not a super round of games but there are 7 divisional match-ups ... and those games are often close.

@Lucifer's Hero I do agree with the sentiment of your post though ... also, the Brownlow has a history of questionable outcomes. Dating back to the 70's

It's an AFL issue ... backed up by a cooperative media. And the footy public don't care enough either. It's convenient for the AFL for the umpires to take the heat ... although the heat dies down quite quickly anyway.

On PTI today Kornheiser was suggesting that an un-timed down could be given considering that Detroit were not to know that Tate didn't get into the end zone and score. Play stops in that situation to review the scoring opportunity. A day later and I tend to agree with Tony ... the issue then becomes when is an un-timed down given and when is it not. It's interesting that Golden Tate has now been involved in a few of these types of TD incidents.

Every year I get more and more into the Champions league ... the best of the best. If you've got foxtel most of the games end up being shown and the 1 hour highlights package is not to be missed. On again from tomorrow morning (beIN sports) The pick of the match-ups this week are Dortmund vs Real Madrid, PSG vs Bayern Munich & Atletico Madrid vs Chelsea

Ha ha ... it's hard enough getting used to the LA Chargers & the LA Rams but now I'm mixing up the 2 LA teams. WTF. Anyway ... you're hosting the Eagles in week 14 so the Goff vs Wentz match-up happens then. I was only 3 months out Gorgo. Oh ... and good luck at Jerry's world next week. An early game too.

No winners Dappa ... there were 10 road favourites too, which is about as big a number as it gets. And it looks like a race in 3 for your division ... the Giants are still capable though and can either play spoiler or get on a roll. The NFC North is much the same with the Bears perhaps being a fair bit better than we thought. Packers host Chicago on Thursday night and we'd want to play a lot better than what we've shown so far in order to win. Looking ahead we're at Dallas in week 5 - another tough one. But there's a lot of tough games.

Just viewed it ... the sport really is a game of inches. Correct call though, all the same. The 10 second run-off rule had to be adhered to. My lads were just as lucky though ... rescued by Rodgers again. The man is a freak and as long as he's healthy, we can win enough games to usually contend. Still fighting my way through all the games but I'll record & watch NFL Primetime to get a better overview. But off-the-top ... Jags impressive, Titans as well Bills, Jets, Bears & Saints win - who knew? Pats get out of jail but Houston look to have found their QB - too soon? KC march on with Reid at the helm, Atlanta just as good. Both favoured to win their respective divisions now. The Seahawks might be in trouble, The Rams need to make a move in that division. Washington could be decent, ditto for the Eagles. Giants are almost shot. Despite there being 10 road favourites, only 2 of those favourites won No one scored a point in the comp - order is restored! Keenum steps in for the Vikes and steps it up. The NFC North is wide open.

Ha ha ... there's been more than a few muso's who have divided opinion. It sort of goes with the territory. They say that you never want to meet your favourite author too. I'm more about the music itself these days nb. I've got to get into some more new stuff though. Quite like Imagine Dragons ...

Hunt might poll quite well (12+ votes?) ... he's the type that the umpires may notice. There again, I'm not very good at these types of things. As others have said, Clarry should receive about 20 votes or so. Edit: Ugh

The problem is tbat there are no real 'precedents' in the AFL ... they quite literally make it up as they go along. And this latest decision highlights tbat ... we shouldn't be surprised either. Whilst I don't agree with the current ruling anyway, why have such a ruling if it's only going to be enforced when it suits?.

For a top 4 team their 1st half against the Crows and yesterday's 2nd half against Richmond were woeful. They wilted when the game was there to be won. They've got enough pure talent to continue to make the finals but there's often a big gap between top 4, top 2 and then winning the whole thing. Put it this way, many of the intangibles that the Crows & Tigers have, GWS doesn't have. And those intangibles can't necessarily be manufactured. They're ahead of us though ... if we can bridge the gap talent wise, we'll go past them. We need to pick up 3 - 4 good players in the off-season. 1 or 2 of those 3 or 4 good players might be project players though (draftees)

As well as that Gonzo they can trade out failed draft picks to clubs looking for scraps (Carlton etc) A couple of their decent players seeking new homes won't come cheap either. Their biggest issue is that they're not a proper footy club ... a club should have a heart, a soul along with hungry & demanding supporters, a strong culture and a clear vision on where that club is heading. They've got plenty of talented individuals though ... I can see them hovering thereabouts (finals) but that's about it. In this finals series the Crows smashed them early and the Tigers smashed them after half time. Both games were in hostile territory ... there's a pointer.

Yep ... it definitely happens. Hogan had his vertebrae smashed in one of his first practice games. Some say deliberately. Cite that. Many key forwards in the past were belted from behind on a constant basis. Playing in front has it's price. That's why it takes courage to play in front. As an aside, the sling tackle is rightfully being stamped out of the game. But it's a brutal game and the AFL should know when to pull the trigger and when not to.

The sport is often over-officiated (e.g. the bump and the outlawing of it) and at times under-officiated (e,g, the 'throw' is often now allowed) It's not rocket science but the AFL often try and make it that way. Despite all that it's hugely popular and the bottom line is that most just want their team to win. The rules & the aesthetics are of a secondary nature. I view the sport and the MFC in a completely different way and always have. But that doesn't mean that I don't want what is best for the sport. Without a point of difference the end goal may never be reached.

I did mention that once here but that's not my agenda. If that's what you're on about, you're way off beam. I only mentioned it because of the relevance of the AFL's paranoia about head high hits. As previously stated, there needs to be an obvious intent with regards to hits to the head for any sort of ruling to have real substance. Otherwise, the debate goes on forever. And not much has changed since the Viney incident. Anyway, I've said all I need to say so likewise, I'll talk to you another time.

The incidents weren't that dissimilar in terms of the head being struck by a bump (whether intentional or not) ... and that's what this whole ruling is about. Incidental contact goes out the window in favour of 'duty-of-care'. One could even argue that there was more intent with the Viney incident (not that he should have ever been cited of course) Anyway, the AFL will 'manage' this to their heart's content. Any publicity is good publicity and all that.

So why were you so adamant about the actual ruling with the Viney incident? You argued black & blue back then that the whole ruling was a crock of shitt. Have you had a change of mind? You and just about every other person on this site could see the injustice back then - and just because it's a player from another team this time around shouldn't make an ounce of difference. Unless that does make a difference ... I'm arguing big picture, as I normally do. I couldn't give a stuff about which player or team is involved.

One could argue that you're the one being silly. Or just plain stubborn. I can't see why we can't talk about the why's & wherefore's of the ruling whilst discussing the actual incident. Most others are ... perhaps you should take them to task as well. I never saw you as being such a stickler for poorly instigated rules but there you go. Make sure you argue this strongly when it's a demon involved in such an incident. Oh hang on, you did so with the Viney incident (the other way around though) 3 and a half years from the Viney incident and we're no closer to resolving this issue ... and we'll never get there either (save for the AFL turning the sport into 'touch' football)