This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Use this forum for non-Collingwood related footy topics that don't relate specifically to any of the other forums. For non-footy sporting topics please use Nick's Sports Bar and for non-sporting topics please use the Victoria Park Tavern.
We shouldn't be surprised by any rubbish coming out of AFL HQ, of course, but I see S. Hocking quoted in the media as saying it's too early to tell whether the rule changes are linked to the low scoring across R1-R4. Now, that is a true statement. (I don't see why the rule changes are likely to have reduced scoring.) But this comes after the same S. Hocking justified rushing in all the changes on the basis that they'd been trialed in some VFL games among bottom clubs. Apart from the unrepresentative nature of those games, how many was it? Two? Four? And now he says (correctly) that 36 games is not enough.
S. Hocking has no qualifications relevant to overseeing rule changes. The way guys gets jobs at AFL HQ looks disturbing. It's all so unprofessional.
North have owned the ball for about 15 minutes but seem to struggle to land a kick inside the playing field going in from the wing to half-forward. Seriously, if I was a North supporter, I'd want them to bring back Harvey (and possibly also Blight and Greig).
North is the only AFL team I have ever seen that allocates numbers proportionately to the quality of its players. Number 50 is solid enough but, eg, 14 and 15 would struggle to get a VFL game at Collingwood.