Deemania since 56

In celebration of the initial fact that he got 18 - then, the irony of missing the 19th - and in recollections of previous decades watching footy with my father; I had asked if Fanning ( I was too young to see him play) was as good as the FFwds of the Jesalenko, Hudson, et al era and his reply was 'Far Ken much better .. unstoppable!' It all made me smile.

I'd actually hope that JSmith gets a run up forward ... a swingman for BBB during the game - or down back (somewhere) where he was morphed into backman territory - due to the short-term loss of Petty. Sparrow - straight in - plays tough and is rilly handee looking at the sticks.

Penalties and related severity, infringement validity/legitimacy and unnoticed oversights bearing favour therein/thereof seem dependent upon which club you are playing for - if it is the whim of the magistrating 'officials'. Evidence? (Watch a game of AFL football, then another as a comparator with different teams.)

Clearly a sign - no, a blatantly obvious example ramified by any aspect from which one might evaluate the alleged incident, plus others of recent history - of the analytical incapacity so frequently exposed by the designated AFL 'official' responsible.

That, despite all and sundry failing to see the 'fault' in the incident from Hunter, is the crux of the matter and the AFL leadership has done nothing about it. We must drive the message home in some abstract way; no other club is required to endure penalties like these so nominated (Hunter and JVR).

For me, so well put ... fully understand ... strongly aligned ... constantly challenged about variant decisions ... it ain't a fair suck of the sav but that is the way they (AFL) want it all to be ... too many vested interests and dollars to accumulate. Take the backhand pecuniary interests out of the game and a more level playing field would result.

Thanks, thinking of other things whilst at the keyboard; sorry! You got my drift....well done.

That's football! Long bombs must be out (as passes to the forwards). We should put Kozzie and Jordan and Chandler to the test as goal sneaks, spread where it hurts. This will give Fritta more space to find his mojo - and we have two rotating talls to get that *&^% ball down with direction. The Melk has to niggle Allir, all game, and pass by foot to our runners. There ain't no time for static forwards in this game against Port. Clarrie and Tracca will dominate and it is a big test (once again) for Rivers. If Melk is not selected or is on the bench, Joel Smith may well have a considerable responsibility and wouldn't it be a great breakout to have him ready and in form?

Time to bring in the biodynamics experts, with support from a good exercise physiologist and kinesiologist (Phys Ed - Human Movement Studies), and an experience physicist, all accompanying a KC and any donated video of the incident that may be available. Y'see, I don't trust Champion. There is no telecast of the complete and graceless end of the tackle. So Champion went for broke as a nemesis of the MFC. This one might just get him replaced.

Got in early, that's all.

Nicely put, correct, undisputed yet still we have to tolerate preferences with extraordinary inaccuracies from those to whom experience and alleged foresight, including straight-forward decision-making have no bearing.

Across the AFL, sling tackles will occur, and some have 'opponent care' built in so that these remain 'merely vigorous', non-sling that appear questionable as the recipient, caught with the ball, attempts latent redemption for being beaten by unanticipated defence tackling, and ensuring the enactment of any possible head-first/noticeable head-last contact with the ground, earning a free under the revised rules of the game. This is justified by the Tribunal transferring very severe blame to the tackler. We have a new form of ballet in our game, in other words and this post-event deception has the AFL, umpires and Match Review Critics totally fooled. Perhaps it could be incorporated into the Dees' training regimen? Half of the alleged swings that I have seen over the past year are convincingly staged - and I reckon the AFL realise this anomaly.

It did not take long for the tribunal to get even with the MFC.

Could we ask for anything better? Oh, yes: The Filth go on a rambling losing streak across the season from this point.

Hawthorn were dull, but interesting as well. They are obviously a young team lacking experience at the level across the board; however, in the third quarter they came out to put into action what they had learned (against the Dees) from the first half of the game. It proved effective and they did rally but were unable to sustain the effort against the Dees' pressure and inbuilt alternatives across the ground. Nice to get the percentages, nice to get the four points.

Thanks for that, very comprehensive and fully agreed. You have made very sound judgments and comments - wish I had the patience to scribble these all down as you have.

Such inconsistencies (and the frequency across a game thereof) are now deliberated, not merely appearing as little mistakes from the umpires. The AFL is doing nothing, once again, about this cancer to the game whose prevalence is with us forever in the future - as footy fans will not be able to interpret any difference now that it is embedded. It is no longer as case of ' ...having a flutter on a roughie in the last and watching the nag get up...' The playing field is now totally uneven.

Frosty is the epitome of 'chaos football', that has to be remembered. He's travelling the footy field at just under light speed - we are still, all gobsmacked. Onyer Frosty, have a good game.

...and the anointed people, their preferences and behaviours that impose such misery on the general public. You can fool the people above you some of the time, but you cannot fool the general public.

At this rate, I've just been forced to open another bottle of Drambuie, sipping whilst waiting, but it (the brew) has made this a very interesting and at times, comical, evening. Thank you, Demonlanders.

It is a matter of principle, and it is fascinating us all. We expect higher standards from the AFL overlords who gamble for their own interests with our common sense. Anyone with a mindset to preserve a young man's innocence is not operating in the gutter; far from it, actually.

JVR took off to spoil as he was not able to access the flight point to mark. He went up with some force to effectively reach the incoming ball - no contact at that point - but in that split second of hitting the ball (no contact at that point) he was already obeying the laws of gravity (he was already coming down) and a reversing opponent moved into his soft inner arm (not bent or braced) as JVR was descending (by the way, JVR did all that is possible in avoiding deliberate contact or enacting injury to his opponent). That is evident from watching the event, from watching the replays ad nauseum, from an understanding a basic knowledge of the physics of moving matter. JVR is therefore being penalised for what? Taking off the ground and following Newton's laws of gravity? If he had wings or a jet engine strapped for ignition on his back, it would not be an issue....

The Walls of Jericho will come tumbling down...that'll show 'em!

Yes, but looking forward to seeing Frosty play, again. I have missed his unique pitch on the game.

Richo is one of the best, these days. I, too, learn from his insights.