Chook

I feel just the same way about Dangerfield. Flashy, but ultimately considerably less valuable than his highlights suggest. I'd pick Fyfe before Dangerfield, though Danger's a better leader so we'd likely need his type more than a younger player like Fyfe.

I hope we don't play Jack Grimes as a tagger. He's about a million times more useful as a third-man up defender playing on medium-to-small forwards like Robbie Gray than he is trying to shut down a dangerous midfielder.

You have to be a listed player in order to be a free agent. Delisted players are unrestricted free agents, but that doesn't apply to retired players. If it did, then any player could "retire" and go to any club they wanted, whenever they wanted.

If he ever returned, he'd just nominate for the draft like anyone else. We would have no special claim to him, but you'd like to think that no other club would take him before our first pick. After that it would be fair game.

If he ever plays AFL again and it's not for Melbourne, it will be a travesty.

Sexy.

Please for the love of all that is good don't click this link. Starve the bastards and they'll all die out one by one. This is the only Barrett I have any interest in:

You have to feel sorry for the other sperm that competed with Jack on the road to their mum's egg. They never had a chance.

Deledio elbowed someone in the head intentionally during a stoppage and got nothing. It's totally bizarre. I hope that if we do appeal, the fact that we just did so with Viney won't make them more likely to throw our appeal out. In an ideal world it shouldn't, but this is the AFL so you never know.

That's very optimistic of you. Bitter, but optimistic. Hmm...

Bail's jumper number is 44. A football list has 44 players on it. Ergo, Rohan Bail will never be delisted.

You don't dot I's.

It's always refreshing to hear from someone who possesses real, actual knowledge instead of mindless speculation and silly retorts.

We should put him out on the field this weekend. I'll bet his back's fine. He's just chicken if you ask me.

I credit myself with his turnaround. For five years I've been his biggest backer, and then the moment I jump off him in his return a few weeks ago he proceeds to tear up Eddie Betts and turn his career around.

I'm surprised to read that, because the only time in the game where I thought we wouldn't win were the first five minutes and the final three. Aside from those eight minutes, I always felt confidant that we'd break through like we were threatening to do all night.

While I think Mark Robinson's grasp of the English language is tenuous at best, I don't believe he is an outright liar. I expect he has some inside info, though who's to say how accurate that info might be?

One of the biggest reasons a "compensation" system of justice doesn't work is that often the victim or the perpetrator judges the punishment to be insufficient/unwarrented, which leads to a never-ending cycle of revenge and reprisals. Just look at the indigenous communities in Central Australia, or in gang wars all over the world. The purpose of the justice system is to minimise "incorrect" behaviour and reduce the likelihood of unregulated mob justice. The best way to do this is to divorce the victim from the perpetrator, so as to eliminate hard feelings on the part of either party. If Bob from the Eagles whacks Chris from the Dockers and is sentenced to miss his next Dockers game as a result, he or his team-mates might (consciously of subconsciously) feel slighted by the Dockers--which could in turn lead to further bad blood between the teams. Such a situation is not conducive to the maintenance of order in the AFL.

Please no one click on this link. It contains an unacceptable amount of Damian Barrett. The only way we can move on as a society is if trolls like this guy are starved to death. PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT CLOWN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!

110 tackles and lots of free kicks against definitely backs up the idea that they were doing a lot of scragging.

The justice system is not a revenge system. Compensation is not owed; only disensentivisation and re-education of the guilty party is necessary.

I think he'll be fine because: 1. The Dogs player didn't have his arms pinned 2. Howe's tackle was all one motion. The infamous Trengove tackle was a multi-step process where he grabbed Dangerfield's arm and then slammed him to the turf, in two separate actions.

It's not that sad if you ask me.

I agree 100%. I've wanted this rule in place for years.

That is the king of meaningless stats. It says absolutely nothing except that one team was seen as having infringed more often. It doesn't tell us whether any of those free kicks were there. It doesn't say where they happened on the ground. It doesn't say which free kicks were missed. It doesn't say whether advantage was payed when it shouldn't have been. And on and on we go.