Macca

Yeah Gorgo ... the Panthers have got a tough road schedule. You're probably right. Tampa might be decent though ... they're getting talked up.

Interesting ... always good to get the true info. All our other picks in that draft were complete busts although we did pick up Kevin Dyson in the pre-season draft. Later on (in 1995) the Bulldogs drafted Jako with their pick 9 (so he was twice drafted with a first round pick)

A few observations ... Atlanta have bounced back and they're the team to beat in the NFC ... however, the Panthers might push the Falcons especially if they at least split their 2 games against Atlanta. Order is restored with the Pats doing it easy in the big easy The AFC West division could turn out to be a real battle - KC, Denver & Oakland all look the goods whilst the Chargers can play spoiler. Carr looks terrific and Reid's teams always compete well Baltimore could push the Steelers all the way in the AFC North. They look solid, Pittsburgh the same Jay Cutler gets a win for Miami - whooda-thunkit? The Rams drop a game they could easily have won ... the NFC West could be a tight division with Seattle not looking all that impressive either. Packers outplayed but again, the Falcons came out firing and full credit to them. The scoreboard flattered Green Bay in all honesty. The Cowboys came down to earth with a thud although playing in Denver is nearly always tough. Siemian continues to impress for the Broncos. For divisional purposes, I'm hoping that Eli & the Giants can get it done tomorrow.

The last 2 winters have been utterly freezing out in my neck of the woods - The Deep East. I'm thinking of moving to the globally warmed parts of Oz. But hasn't it always been hot in QLD?

We could do it Dappa ... maybe a designed system where we don't have to ever come back here and adjust our line-ups. Just pick our players, lock 'em in and see how it pans out. Here's a idea that I thought up ... we all pick 2 x QB's, 2 x WR's, 2 x RB's, 2 x Kickers, 2 x TE's & 2 x Defensive players. Bur then, we only count the fantasy score of 1 of each pair of players. This allows for injuries and such-like. Others might have better ideas but the above idea could take less than an hour for participants and that's the extent of the time needed. The time consuming bit would be for whoever runs it

Paulo Dybala ... the next big thing? From yesterday's game for Juventus ...

The TV numbers are very low ... you'll have to go searching for clarification though.

Not to worry ... there are still a couple of others who haven't got off the mark.

Ha ha ... even McCarthy is giving penalties away. Who we got next week?

And if they didn't agree we'd be back to arguing about another decision. Rinse & repeat. And if that becomes an argument amongst neutrals, we then have to factor in those who support either of the teams. More arguments. This whole subject matter is a circular argument anyway because I don't believe anything will change.

Ok ... if you take your focus off the umpires and just look at how they're instructed to umpire the sport, you then should be redirecting your focus onto the rule-makers (custodians of the sport) We can continue to blame the end result or we can look a bit deeper as to the cause of these issues. Again, cause & effect. By the way, I've had this discussion with numerous friends and acquaintances over the years and it's only now that people are starting to see where I'm coming from. Oddly enough, the added congestion in more recent times has rammed the message home. Even if the rules were far more clearly defined and we had a much more open game, I still fully expect the umpires to make a modicum of mistakes. The 10% rule.

It's interesting how we've got divided opinion on the Toby Greene incident. Again, if we can't agree, how can we expect the umpires to make a correct decision? Whichever way they go, there's going to be vehement disagreement. You may think that you are right and for what it's worth, I see things your way, but, what do you say to people who believe that Greene was just tackled in a crude way and did nothing untoward?

My fix with regards to the officiating in footy ... 16 a side with 6/7 subs and zero interchange. Only 4 of the 6/7 subs can be used. We'd have a much more open game, congestion would be kept to acceptable levels and god forbid, the players might end up playing in their actual positions. Won't happen though ... not a snowflakes chance in hell. So, the officiating will probably get worse and the angst towards the umpires will continue.

If we used rugby league as a comparison with regards to ease of officiating, the sports are absolutely poles apart. I watch both sports and the angst with the umpiring in the AFL is off the scale as compared to league. Ditto for union, soccer and American football. I played a fair bit of footy & cricket and whilst I umpired in cricket from time to time and found it quite easy, I also umpired a half of a social footy game once and it was one of the most difficult things I've ever encountered. You say that footy has a 'definite set of rules' ... how so? No 2 people can ever agree on what any of the 'rules' actually are and the rules aren't clearly defined anyway. Let's keep it real dieter. What this is all about is the lifelong tradition of screaming at the umpires like complete and utter lunatics. No other sport comes remotely close to creating so much angst. Just like drafting, the angst about the umpiring of our sport is a system issue. Question for you diets ... how is it possible for 18 sets of supporters to all have the same levels of persecution complexes combined with a massive victim mentality? (re the umpiring in their respective games) And is there a set of supporters who reckon they get a consistent great go with the umpires? There should be 8 or 9 sets of these types of supporters but I've yet to come across 1 yet. How so? Of course, the levels of angst is closely related to the winning & the losing too. Win and win well and you won't here bo-peep. Lose a close one and there's hell to pay. haha

It's not an umpiring issue Gonzo - it's a rules of the game issue. I understand your angst with the umpires but you (and others) need to possibly look further than what the actual decisions are. @Bossdog said it best at the top of page 4 in this thread. And he is spot on. You could make the umpires full time and pay them a million a year each and it wouldn't make much of a difference to how the sport is umpired. The sport has always been difficult to adjudicate and that dates back to the 19th century - thus, all the angst. But it's even harder to umpire the sport now with the mass congestion and all the flooding. I've seen things your way but shifted my stance decades ago once I came to terms with how difficult the sport is to umpire. For you and others reading this ... have you found yourself saying the same thing about the umpires year after year? If so, why would you believe that anything is ever going to change? Now, I've already said that I've seen things your way ... do you want to try and see it my way? A warning though - my stance isn't a very popular one. You'll be standing apart from the crowd and that can be uncomfortable.

Bit of light reading with Bill Simmons latest column ... The LeBron James vs. Bill Belichick Mailbag

Well, I agree and all the AFL needs to do is instigate the rule about the ducking of the head ... just ping the players immediately and the players will stop doing it. But this is the AFL rjay ... their eyes are on the dollars. They are great at making money but they are the poorest custodians of sport I've ever witnessed. They've allowed flooding & congestion to go on unmarked and because of that, footy fans can't work out what is going on. And how can the sport be properly umpired given that scenario? The issue of the shrugging of the arms & the lowering of the torso via the legs is a different matter altogether though. That practice is not related to 'ducking' although many think it is. And the blaming of the umpires because of what we 'see' is shortsighted thinking. Go straight to the source, cause & effect. There are always reasons for poor results. We're pointing the finger in the wrong direction to satisfy our frustrations. The AFL probably prefer it that way too.

And do you reckon anything will ever come of it willmoy? These parliamentary enquiries are often there for show and are often done to justify the existence of those doing the investigating (think Yes, Prime Minister) The huge TV rights money means that the AFL are going to do whatever it takes to keep that flow of money coming in. There can be no 'bad' news as such.

Even if Garland was told that his opportunities were limited, he'd end up getting game time in the seniors because of our lack of real depth and the occurrence of injuries. But often the obvious doesn't need to be said ... Garland would know where he stands and he is contracted. I doubt he'd be happy playing in the 2nds so we'd be getting full commitment from the bloke regardless of whether he's good enough. There's a few other contracted players who are in the same sort of bracket. Looking ahead to the 2019 season and beyond, there's quite a few who won't make it that far.

From a personal point of view, BW was one of my favourite players. Barassi brought a number of different types into the club or back to the club ... Zantuck, The Fidge bros, Keenan, Crosswell, Jacko amongst others.

There was a time when players did get pinged for ducking (70's, 80's?) ... but because of the ruling, not many players ducked. Zero tolerance has that effect. But the problem is now far worse because of the arm shrugging and the lowering of the torse via the legs dropping. And it's difficult to detect in real time. Often it's impossible to make out what has happened. Yet we blame the umpires. My solution is not a band-aid approach ... mine is a complete departure from how the decision has been adjudicated previously. My concern is that the current issue will only get worse and therefore other problems could arise. The law of unintended consequences. Whole clubs could quite easily teach all their players on how to milk high contact ... given the current rules of engagement, why wouldn't the clubs do so? We could do it. I'm not saying we should but what if we did? While we're at it, we could ping players harshly for deliberate high contact.

It all amounts to the same thing in my eyes dc I would only ever pay high contact if the tackler deliberately targeted the neck/head area. And I have felt that way for decades. High contact frees handed out are generally soft and often the contact is incidental and/or negligible. In league, union, the NFL even soccer, high contact penalties are only enforced when it's an 'obvious' infringement. Incidental contact is let go (generally) In our sport, some of the most frivolous free kicks are given for the softest of high contact. It's a part of our sport that I detest. And now the players are out to exploit the ruling ... the Eagles did it in a game against us a few years ago. Remember that? The alarm bells should have been raised there & then.

My understanding is that if a player is on 300k for a year, he receives all that amount whether he plays zero games or all 22 games. That's what they mean when they talk about guaranteed contracts. There's probably the odd performance based contract but if all players were on match payments as well as a 'retainer', just imagine having to try and manage the salary cap? The clubs would probably be happy with the guaranteed contracts from a logistical point of view ... otherwise they run the risk of only spending 90% of the cap or in the worse case scenario, 110% of the cap. That's Carlton territory.

In that incident Greene lowered his torso as a result of letting his legs collapse (so to speak) ... however, like many other players, he disguised it well. Hard to see in real time from a consistency point of view but nonetheless, it goes on and it will only get worse. As for nearly having his head pulled off, Greene suffered zero ill-effects and what we saw was a player milking high contact because he's allowed to do so. Make no mistake, the high contact controversy is only going to get worse.

In sports the world over there are numerous players on extended deals that end up being side-line players in their final year or 2. It's a legacy of pro-sports. And all the clubs would be in the same boat. Or at least getting to that point. The better performed teams have the luxury of being able to off-load a veteran player or 2. We off-loaded Evans a few years ago but it was said that he was only going to receive up to about 150k or thereabouts. Unless we front-loaded his 3 year deal, I'm imagining that Garland might be on 250k - 300k next season ... so calling time on the bloke could get a bit dicey. Players these days are generally on agreed set yearly amounts so the days of match payments are largely a thing of the past. It might still happen for certain players but the players union pushed for guaranteed amounts years ago. That's my understanding of how the salaries are set up ... if not, it would be a logistical nightmare trying to spend as close to 100% of the salary cap as possible.