mauriesy

I don't bet. But that's all that needs changing to the Marriage Act itself. Any other legislation would be enabling and probably separate.

I would suspect that the enabling legislation will just be to cross out the words "a man and a woman" in the Marriage Act, and substitute "two people". The "traditional marriage" supporters just want to continually lead the argument up side streets, blind alleys and dead ends.

What's this then? http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2017-09-18/casey-win-afl-development-league-gf Posted yesterday. No pictures though.

"I heard it from my old man who heard it from a client who heard it from 'someone' at Melbourne" is about Tier 99.

Andrew Leoncelli is doing exceptionally well for himself in property development.

Aren't Kennedy and Kent contracted to the end of 2018? Apart from yesterday's delistings, the other players coming out of contract this year are vandenBerg, King, Vince and Weideman. I'd expect a year (or two) extension for all four.

An outlying statistic (single highest score) is not a good indicator. In the 2017 regular season, Melbourne kicked more points than 11 other teams in the AFL, including Richmond. The average score per game was 92.5 points. Melbourne kicked over 100 points eight times, and over 90 points 15 times. A few of these matches were losses.

TMac to play the rest of his career forward, like David Neitz.

Hey ... here's an A+ for you.

On the other hand, it also allows the opposing side to cover their men elsewhere on the field, as opposed to playing on quickly that can catch the opposition out of position. A static marking game plan does not appear to me to be particularly more productive. We also have to be careful with some of these team ranking stats. Sometimes there is only a few percentage points between 1st and 18th in the league.

Ah, political correctness ... the new patriotism and the last refuge of the supporter.

That means we must be well off in all the other games if our overall free kicks for and against are nearly equal.

But your original post in this asked "why are we so slaughtered with blatant frees" and "we always seem to be on the wrong end of the stick". Sounds like an expression oif bias against us to me.

What ... about 390 free kicks for and against? That's an even number per game, unless of course you think we're entitled to our fair 75%. Even the most fortunate team in the AFL only gets on average little more than two free kicks per game over their opposition. But I guess it's all a "conspiracy". Gawn's frees against were for putting out a straight arm and blocking. If you've got a problem, argue the rule, not some fanciful notion of anti-Melbourne bias.

It's pretty silly even thinking that the AFL would "even up" the competition through umpiring. After their input to resurrecting Melbourne FC over the last three years, why wouldn't the AFL want Melbourne to be a "feel good" story as much as any other team (like the Bulldogs last year)? Can we just stop with the victimisation, feelings of being a lesser club and negative thoughts all the time? As for most supporters knowledge of the rules, calling "ball!" is fundamentally a mental failure, just like calling for a 50-metre penalty as soon as anything happens to the player getting the free regardless of how trivial. The comments here about certain umpires are also disgraceful, particularly in regard to physical appearance and stature. I don't know how we would ever encourage people to go into umpiring if the incredible bias and perjorative comments here are any indication.

Some of the posts in this thread are downright embarrassing. They make conspiracy theories like Roswell and the moon landing seem plausible. The idea that this is all one huge plot by the AFL to even up the competition, or worse, to blatantly discriminate against Melbourne, is just a joke and makes Melbourne supporters look like incessant whingers to every other team in the competition. Football supporters everywhere don't understand the rules applying to holding the ball. If they did, there wouldn't be the incessant and tedious cries of "ball!" every time a player gets tackled.

Funny how last time we beat them 18.12 to 13.12 and this time it was 14.12 to 10.12.

It was a great day. Warm and sunny. In the Olympic Stand I was surrounded by newcomers to the game. Four Chinese visitors right next to me.

So let's say someone is punched in the street where they suffer some bleeding and bruising, as opposed to exactly the same punch where they fall backward, hit their head on the concrete, suffer brain damage and die? Would you argue the assailant should only be punished on the intent? Outcome is critical to what they're charged with and ultimately sentenced.

No Dangerfield and Geelong look ordinary.

AFL Rule 15.2.1 In Possession of the Football A Player is in possession of the football if, in the opinion of the field Umpire ... (a) the Player is holding or otherwise has control of the football. There is nothing in the Rules that says a player kicking for goal is not "in possession". AFL Rule 15.2.2 Remaining in Possession and Bouncing the Football ... (b) Where a Player is moving whilst in possession of the football, he or she must bounce or touch the football on the ground at least once every 15 metres, irrespective of whether such Player is running in a straight line or otherwise. I've counted Ben Brown's run-up to kick as around 23 paces. Give the rule, why isn't he required to bounce the ball once during his run-up? Or, alternatively, why is he permitted to have such a long run-up at all?

Jeez, Hibberd's last kick goes through for a goal and you'd be salivating over the win.

What makes you think Tyson would just want to pack his bags and move to Adelaide? He's already been Oakleigh Chargers-Sydney-Melbourne.

Nobody puts a gun to a person's head in regard to playing the pokies, but it can be just as addictive as any gambling pastime, probably more so. When families suffer because some addicted person is frittering away their money and the kids are in poverty, just saying it's all "free will" doesn't quite cut it. What's worse is that the programmed winnings are only 70-80% of the players' "investments". Sooner or later everyone loses their money. It amazes me that most pokie players don't realise this and they keep going. Pokies are the best example of the idea that "gambing is taxation for the innumerate". Owners and operators are not absolved of problems with addiction. You need to study the psychological ploys to keep people attracted, plus the pay-out mechanisms and machine programming that keep people hooked. IMHO, they're a blight on society and football, and the sooner they're gone the better. Not that with the dependence on their revenue by clubs that's ever likely to happen.

Gotta love SEN. Four hours ago he's bound for Melbourne, then 30 minutes ago he's a certainty for Collingwood.