Macca

Frost ... he's got pace but is not good overhead and doesn't read the play all that well (on what we've seen) Not sure he's much of a kick either and he doesn't get it enough to be able to judge his decision making. Doesn't get to enough contests. However, it's still early doors and he should be given more opportunities, all the same. We won't have much choice - we're going to be coming up against some tall forward lines so Frost & O-Mac will get their chances. Dunn needs to lift big time and there's no one else apart from Garland. Aside from all that, the match committee haven't been all that interested in using Frost down back anyway. Perhaps Pedersen could be tried down back but the off-season may provide more of the answers. The MC are probably hoping the Diamond zone defence will cure our ills but again, it remains to be seen whether that can work or whether we can make it work with the personnel that we have. If we get to 10+ wins it will tell us a story in terms of what we need and who we no longer need. Those wins will answer some questions but the losses will pose other questions. I wouldn't be trading out T-Mac ... he's the only decent proven KPD that is on the list. And we need at least 2 more. Perhaps it's best to have 4 decent tall defenders on a list (given the injury factor and loss of form factor) We really need Dunn to get back to his best form.

And in the meantime a few of our other backmen could get amongst it and help out T-Mac (Jetta aside) Tommy gets to a stack of contests, has physical presence, spoils as well as the best, intercepts constantly, reads the play very well and is a leader in the backline. And he gets a lot of the ball for a key back. One of our smaller backs should be feeding off him constantly - perhaps even more than one player could do that. How many other backmen have we got that has all those attributes? None. As good as Jetta has been there are things that T-Mac can do that Jetta can't do (like play on a tall talented power forward or other types of key forwards)

Selwood lowered his kness/body on that "around the neck" (I think) but I had to watch it 4-5 times for confirmation. And even then one can't be sure. That type of decision (or non decision) is impossible to see clearly in real time (consistently)

Had a look at Murray's history and whilst there's a fair bit of game time in the transition/development/2nd tier leagues, I don't know a great deal about the strength of those leagues (you and others would know more) Certainly he's been a great acquisition for the Pens (so far) He was pulled from today's game but these things happen. Anyway, Tampa looked good when going out to a 4-nil lead so that series is very much alive too.

Good luck trying to get hold of the 1st defender bub. We'll either have to draft one in (and then cross our fingers and wait 3-5 years) or trade one in (what club would let go of a B+ or better KPD?) Until then we'll have to make do with what we've got ... and hope that O-Mac, Frost or another player can somehow become a gun KPD. I don't share the frustration that many seem to have with Tommy Mac - without him we'd be far worse off. Dunn & Garland are our next best options and both of them are far more flawed than T-Mac. One can't even get a game and the other is struggling to cement a spot. We're ok for shorter defenders and distributors off half-back but our backline (whether we play as a zone back there or not) is not a true strength. Sometimes we're good but often we're not. We just have to keep turning the list over and develop what we've got in the meantime.

The issues that many continue to not see or won't accept are twofold .... T-Mac is a good to very good player but not A grade - the vast majority of players (across the league) are worse than that so it's not really a fault. He was drafted at pick 53 for a reason - he's got some flaws in his game but from a drafting perspective, he's a been a huge win for us (Lucas Cook was drafted at pick 12 in that very same draft year) His good points far outweigh his flaws though ... last week he was one of our best but many here stubbornly refused to acknowledge that because of the 1 or 2 transparent errors that he made ... what about all the errors that others made with "fumbling" last week? - it must have happened over 50 times in the game (much like the St Kilda game) If we were to highlight all the fumbles (or the non clean possession and then average/poor disposal & decision making) then every single player would be being critiqued harshly ... that's apart from the players continually not playing in front or going half-hearted at the ball. All faults if looked at in the same way ... again, the focus unfairly goes onto 1 player when it's a "team" issue. The other issue is the movement ahead of McDonald when he has the ball in his hands ... the player calling for the ball has an obligation to get the ball - it's not always the other way around. A recipient cannot be flat-footed or jogging. Sprint to position and make yourself a real target. Often Tom has 1 option only when he should have a multitude of options - when he does have a multitude of options (which should be always) he doesn't turn the ball over. That's the way I see it. He had 25 touches last week and nearly every one of his possession ended up in the hands of one of our players (unless he was forced to kick to a contest) Our players are still lazy on occasions and that's why the turnovers will continue to happen ... so don't shoot the messenger so much. We need to continually create position and options and until we do that, we won't become a top side. There's cause and effect and we're looking at the end result rather than why errors occur.

We might end up with San Jose against the Pens in the final - hoping for that anyway. Pittsburgh were quite impressive today whilst the Sharks have their next 2 games at home ... win both and they'll have a 3-1 lead in their series against the Blues.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this issue Gonzo .. whilst you make some decent points I see the overall issue as being far too large to conquer. It's a no-win situation where the arguments nearly always become circular ones. I can honestly say that I rarely, if ever, even notice the umpires or the officiating of the sport in general. I'm certainly not asking you or anyone else to view the sport that way ... everyone is different.

What we want from umpiring and what we get from the umpiring of the game will be mutually exclusive. The sport will never be umpired to the satisfaction of the masses. It's not giving up either ... it's the nature of the sport.

Good points ... I'd go with that 'thbt' But as for on the spot, it's too difficult to get right on a consistent basis.

Bottom line is that these type of incidents all happen far too quickly for the umpires to be able to adjudicate on these matters in a consistant way. The ideal outcomes that people talk about are impractical in all reality. At best the decisions made are intelligent guesses. It's almost impossible to clearly notice what a player does when he is milking a free. A replay facility would solve a lot of the issues but that's impractical as well. So it's either vent or don't vent.

You may be right but it still all happens far too quickly for the umpires to be able to adjudicate on the matter in a consistent manner ... they may get a few right but they'll miss plenty. It's just the nature of the sport There will be others like McLean, it's inevitable. They may clamp down on these types of incidents and the umpires might see some of the goings on ... but they'll miss plenty so we'll therefore get inconsistent outcomes ... and we'll still be talking about it in 5, 10, 20 years time. These types of adjudications have been argued about for over a hundred years - it's the same type of theme every single season. My advice is to somehow come to terms with it all otherwise it will do your head in. Try watching that McLean video without ever watching any of the slo-mo replays. The ducking of the head is one thing - I agree with you on that. But the bigger picture issue is the shrugging of the arms in an upward motion and the dropping of the body - both quite legal as far as I know. How do you fix that?

Considering we see so many 'high tackles' in the sport these days, one would think that we'd have an epidemic of broken jaws and the like ... you would also reckon that the umpires would admonish the high tacklers with a warning about tackling in a dangerous way ... they don't of course because most of the high tackles are never dangerous at all with many of the tackles being initially aimed at the torso or hips (or trying to pin the arms or at least one arm) More often than not, the tacklers don't have an intent to tackle high in the first place. Why would tacklers deliberately tackle high (so many times) given the virtual zero tolerance to tackling high? It must feel strange to be having ones arms around a head, neck or over the shoulders after initially aiming at the hips with a tackle. Again, it's not an umpire issue, it's a laws of the game issue.

There are at least 3 ways to milk an "Around the neck" free kick. 1 - Ducking ones head - that one is mostly obvious and the offending player should be pinged every time - we don't actually see a lot of players do that anyway (what players often do these days is covered in points 2 & 3 below) The ducking can result in a severe injury so they need to be hot on that (the people instructing the umpires) 2 - Shrugging the arms up Selwood style - I don't believe it can be seen consistently in real time by the umpires - so, we're going to get inconsistent outcomes (unless the interpretation of the rule is changed) 3 - The dropping of the knees or body - again, I don't believe it can be seen consistently in real time by the umpires - so, we're going to get inconsistent outcomes (unless the interpretation of the rule is changed) If you watch closely, McLean is often doing both (points 2 and 3) yet it's hard to pick up in real time ... a slight of hand, so to speak. He's accentuating the contact which therefore makes the action/outcome look more dangerous. My solution would be to not pay a free kick for "incidental" contact to the head, neck and shoulders area. Around the neck needs to be blatant with intent from the tackler (like what we saw with Lindsay Thomas) A dangerous tackle (so to speak) Some tackles are crude and dangerous and only those type of tackles should be penalised (primarily) Otherwise, I can easily see the issue getting worse with more and more players doing what McLean is doing. I don't believe that what he does is that difficult to copy.

It is not so easy to pick Rev, in my opinion ... if one was to put oneself in the moment, it looks like 'around the neck' in real time. It's a clever move but I'm not sure how what McLean does can be outlawed unless we disregard incidental contact (as I mentioned in a previous post) I know people don't like rule changes but the rules are often exploited (look what happened with the rotations and the feet/knees in first at the contest) Unless they tighten up (or relax) the rule on 'around the neck', the issue will probably get worse. And the umpires act under instructions, any rule changes need to come from above. The umpires aren't working in an autonomous way, despite what people might think.

A largely unfixable problem .. most of the free kicks given to McLean needed slo-mo replay in order to make a proper evaluation and we don't have slo-mo replay. Even if we did have slo-mo replay the games would then last 5-6 hours or more. There are no practical solutions - nearly every "around the neck" given to McLean looked quite obvious in real time so what hope have the umpires got? (they work in real time) I'm just surprised that it's taken this long for a player to be able to exploit the rule on "around the neck" ... we've seen Selwood shrug his arms and others drop their bodies but this bloke does both ... others will copy and refine the art. The top junior players will have noticed more than we notice. My only practical solution is to do away with the 'around the neck' rule to a large extent (unless it's a Lindsay Thomas type tackle) Incidental contact to the neck, shoulder & head area could be play on - we could learn from Union & League. The tackle should be deemed as dangerous. A Lindsay Thomas type tackle should also be a reportable offence (as well as a free kick against) I've always found the 'around the neck' adjudication to be questionable anyway. A flawed rule that can (now) be easily exploited. Otherwise, expect much more of the same and don't expect the umpires to change their evaluations. It all happens too quickly and can only be partially fixed with a replay facility anyway. Welcome to professional sports, AFL.

In retrospective testing, 31 athletes have returned positive tests from the Beijing Olympics and another 250 tests are being analysed from the London Olympics ... it could be assumed that many or most of the tests were from athletes that won medals so a reshuffling of medals in all sorts of events in those games is possible. Rio Olympics: AOC boss John Coates unsure if Australians among positive doping tests from Beijing We've already seen a retrospective gold medal awarded to Jared Tallent from the 50km walk in London so could there be more? (not necessarily Australian athletes) Better late than never is a much better outcome than athletes from the steroid era ('68 - '92 or thereabouts) being able to keep their achievements because of a testing system that can't be used retrospectively. And even if these current cheats are simply "outed" then that is a somewhat pleasing outcome. WADA & co* are never going to 'catch up' per se but the blood passport system could show up the cheats down the track ... again, it's not ideal but it's better than not catching them at all. It should happen in all sports but many of the governing bodies of many professional sports aren't too interested in catching their own drug cheats - it's bad for business. *In order for WADA and the other drug agencies to have some real teeth those agencies would need funding to much greater levels than is currently in operation ... and that is highly unlikely to happen in my opinion. The drug agencies best assets are the blood passports and the retrospective testing. In other words, we'll probably have to wait for a number of years to get more satisfactory outcomes.

Round 8 3 - Liberatore 2 - Bontempelli 1 - Picken

Stage 6 in the Giro (tonight) ... Cycling News Giro d'Italia - Official site SBS - Cycling Central

So, there's still a bit to play for in the EPL ... (the first 2 points has more to do with the Spurs/Gunners rivalry) Tottenham will finish 2nd (and above Arsenal) if they win or draw* at Newcastle Arsenal will finish 2nd if they win vs Villa and Tottenham lose at Newcastle Man City will finish 3rd if they win at Swansea & Arsenal lose at home to Villa ... Arsenal would then finish 4th Man Utd will finish 4th if they win their last game vs Bournemouth & Man City lose at Swansea 7th spot on the table might secure a Europa league spot depending on various results (see link below) West Ham, Southampton, Man Utd, Man City and/or Liverpool can or will secure a Europa League spot depending on a combination of results (again, see link below) Either West Ham* or Southampton can only finish as high as 5th. Man Utd can finish as low as 7th after losing at West Ham on Wednesday morning. *goal difference is not a realistic factor with some of the above scenarios. Remaining fixtures Premier League permutations: Which clubs can still qualify for Europe next season?

Here's some facts (with a good dose of opinion) ... Our sport (Aussie rules) is by far the hardest game to umpire in my opinion (it's daylight to the 2nd hardest sport to umpire) There is no replay facility (apart from goal line technology) Many other sports do have a replay facility. There are more grey areas in our game than any other sport (by a country mile) At any given moment, a free kick (or non free kick) could be awarded for in the back, holding the ball, tripping, holding the man, incorrect disposal, around the neck, play on or a ball up - all for the one incident! Seriously, what hope have the umpires got? And people want consistency? It's not possible. The umpires are not biased and do not favour a particular side. The free kick count is irrelevant ... the umpires just pay free kicks as they see them. Those who say "It's never been this bad" generally say that every season. Those who moan about umpires when their team loses usually have nothing to say when their team wins (apart from the obligatory "The umpiring was bad - for both sides") Anyone who follows the sport from a young age should have come to terms with umpiring by the time one reaches adulthood. My advice - just watch the game and ignore the umpires. Nothing is ever going to change and you will never get consistency - our sport won't allow that to happen. Whinging and moaning about umpiring is a futile exercise. I don't expect to change anyone's mind with the above stuff but it might have the effect of toning down the anger and frustration that many seem to be afflicted with. The umpires are not destroying the game at all. *ducks for cover"

It's my experience that once a team has proper depth, the cream rises to the top (the best players do not want to be anywhere that bunch of players who might go out of the team) So I'd expect our better players to get a lot better - this is already happening to a certain extent. And those around the fringe will be desperate to stay in the side ... there's nothing like strong competition within the ranks. Someone else made mention of the selfless acts we're starting to see and the giving off of goal scoring opportunities. Greater competition within the ranks should equal a greater team emphasis from all our players. In other words, right now, there is no room for prima donna's or those who won't do the 1%ers.

Salem in ... I reckon he's done quite well this season considering it's just his 3rd year of footy ... and, he has only 28 games under his belt (60-70 games is still a good benchmark for when a player should be established, hitting his straps and having a sense of belonging) Some players start peaking early where as others need more time ... Salem is still finding his feet in some ways. His kicking to position out of the backline is first rate and is underrated. He doesn't waste it. Michie could be the one to make way on the last in, first out rule of thumb. That may well be the only change although Lumumba may have some claims (but who goes out*?) ANB is another who is pressing for selection but he may have to continue to bide his time. Trengove is progressing towards a senior call-up too. Dunn won't be relishing playing in the 2's, same for Dawes. And what to do with Frost & Newton? Brayshaw will be ready to go soon enough. Sooner or later the MC will want to give Weideman a taste And then there's vanders, and others. We've finally got some proper depth ... A senior spot needs to be coveted these days. *Stretch might make way for Lumumba but Stretch deserves a decent go at it ... at any rate, we are once again in that "nice problem to have" situation.

Every season I get a little bit more interested in college (and slightly more knowledgeable) but I quite honestly haven't got the time to fit it in. I find the weekly rankings a bit intriguing but that's about it. Bringing in semi-finals added more interest but they'd need a final 8 (at least) to get more of my attention. If they at least did that the teams would start to feel more familiar.

The Packers drafted 3 players for our defensive line, 2 offensive tackles, a WR and a DE. Our first round choice (DT Kenny Clark) looks a decent pick by all accounts. Anyway, from all reports, all the choices were valid and pleasing but I don't know a great deal about any of the draftees (I don't watch much college football apart from the odd big clash) Time will tell. Drafting remains a bit of a mystery to me as it does in the AFL. All the knowledge in the world can often amount to not much at all. I just trust that they know what they're doing and that they know what they're looking for (and I wish them some luck as well - because, there is an element of luck)