Nasher

If that's meant to be a joke, it's sick. YOU ARE SICK.

Bruce: [Essendon] might become a lot of people's second team. How about, no? Anyway, very happy with this. I'm comfortable with focusing on St Kilda be humiliated, all the while giving Essendon no credit for it whatsoever.

I hope you have received the support you needed.

Nah, there's something honorable about a hard fought draw. I think whoever loses, I just hope they lose by a lot. I will have to accept that that just means the other side won by a lot.

Such conflicting feels on this. It's definitely better for us if Essendon win, and I'd love to see the media jump right off the Saints because they are so inconsistent but... It's Essendon. Barracking for them feels like treason. Another one of those games where I wish everyone could lose.

Hate to say it but I don't mind the Essenshit clash jumper. Red sash, red background with black outline on the sash to separate the two. Thought red jumpers were out of bounds against the Aints though - although I am well sick of having that debate.

This is my view also. People blatantly abusing others with no attempt at tackling the topic get banned. I have to admit as admin I've always found this a difficult aspect to police because I enjoy it when things get heated - even when I'm on the receiving end of it. I'm aware that others are more sensitive to it, but I copped quite a lot of abuse in my early days as forum admin for my moderating style that my skin hardened to the point where nothing gets through. I do believe that how you feel is how you feel though. A harmless jibe or throwaway comment to some is someone else's hurtful and cutting remark. It's not about hardening up, it's about respecting the fact that not everyone has the same tolerance for criticism. If anyone ever feels like they're being particularly vilified or targeted, I'd encourage you to directly approach myself or other moderators. It may be that it's been missed or we just haven't thought it was a big deal. I can say that I will always do my best to listen and understand, even if it doesn't resonate with me immediately.

I think this is the list: Melbourne The rest can please themselves.

I think the AFL's ridiculous attitude to this since the beginning shows why it must be part of the WADA code. They have attempted to sweep this under the carpet and underplay it at every turn; this occasion case in point. As if you could trust them to honestly and transparently implement any sort of drug code.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 25, 29, 36, 39. That's this year's list for mine. 16 players is a very solid core. Two players in that team - 6 and 23 - are in decline and probably at the point where the slope becomes steep. We need players to step up and take their place or the core weakens. 17 and 28 are "wait and see" for mine. Fast establishing themselves in the core but I'm not ready to call them yet. I want to see how this season pans out with 25 as a forward. A couple such as 19, 30 and 43 have done an excellent job of establishing their place in the side this year, but I still classify them as foot soldiers whose places are up for the take. They've had excellent seasons though. We've got a good pool of players now who can step up and play, but for mine any of the core 16 coming out will weaken the side. Apologies for referring to players as jumper numbers. Writing on my phone and being lazy.

I can't quite find the bit where it says she was spared prison time because she was female. She received a suspended sentence because it had zero impact on the victim. In the case of the woman I knew, the victim, while initially willing, felt shame, depressed and socially isolated according to the judgement notes. There are varying degrees of criminality in all crimes. Judges use their discretion all the time based on a number of different factors. It's very shallow analysis to say that she wasn't sent to prison, therefore it must be because she's female. Try looking a bit deeper. I note the WA teacher's career has been appropriately extinguished still (just as the AFL execs have been) and she will still be recorded as a sex offender, which has severe ramifications for future employment. Her future has been completely gutted. Just because she didn't spend time behind bars doesn't mean she wasn't punished.

I personally know one former female teacher who is currently behind bars for having a sexual relationship with a male student. If you know of others, I recommend reporting it to the police.

She's not a senior exec. Before you suggest anything sexist, it would be the same outcome if it was a senior female executive with a young male.

No, like any misdemeanour, it's okay until you get caught (or your conscience swallows you whole - betting it's the former in these cases though).

When you're a senior manager in a high profile organisation, you're expected not to conduct yourself in a manner that puts your organisation in to the news. It's part of the job, and what you accept when you take on the $300+ salary.

That's what I thought too. I know of the gulf in quality between VFL and AFL and so forth, but you can't ask for much more than what he's been doing down there. I'm nervous because I don't rate him but there's no question he has earned selection, and it would be difficult for him to offer any less than Stretch at present. Reckon JKH would have been in a few weeks earlier if not for hitting the piss when required not to.

Anthony Ingerson still the MFC's best Crows import - Bernie not too far behind now, although for different reasons. Ingo was more a missing puzzle piece, Bernie more the first edge piece of an otherwise blank puzzle. I'm very appreciative of Bernie's efforts during the Roos rebuild, and really hope he can make it to 100 MFC games and the associated life membership.

I've never sighted this rule myself, but last time I saw this mentioned on Demonland, it was the opposite of what you said: don't pay free kicks UNLESS they are obvious, not ignore the obvious free kicks.

Cool, thanks. If I use his 2017 figures from AFL Tables I get the same result as what you said now, so that's good. Just wanted to reconcile the answers. It looks like anything below low 30s is getting in to danger territory and mid 20s is below AFL standard. Oliver, Wines and Viney are all a touch below 50%. Paddy Dangerfield is 56%. Freak. For what it's worth, all the main stats sites (footywire, AFL Tables) etc all use the same data feed, so they should all agree with each other if doing the same calculations.

How did you arrive at 25.3%? Using his career totals off afltables, using CP/(CP+UP)*100 gives ~32%. Jordan Lewis results in about 36%, Jack Viney 49%, Cale Morton 23%, Bernie Vince ~35%. Not mounting any argument here, just trying to understand the scale on this statistic as it's not one I've come across before - I'm guessing a 'typical' AFL quality outside midfielder (so not Toumpas or Morton) number would be a fair bit lower than the 40 you quoted though - I'd expect Vince throughout his career to be reflective of a good outside mid.

You need to log in with your admin level account to see it. Try that. Everyone has one of those, right?

This is bordering on delusional. Watts in 12 games has kicked more goals than Pedersen has ever in any season. I know goals aren't the only metric, but they are a pretty key one for forwards, I'd have thought. Hogan kicked 40 goals in his first and second seasons at AFL level. It's not about what he could be in the future, it's about how good he is now. Pedersen is still in the side because a) Watts is out injured, b) Hogan is rusty and c) as reward for his efforts during the season when our tall contingent fell apart. He's a spare parts player. One that played his role to aplomb, but still a spare parts player.

I interpreted it the same way as Dees2014 initially because of all the previous ways I'd heard the term used 'gun-shy' in the past, and because ProDee offered no other context or explanation whatsoever other than a one-liner. I know I wasn't the only one. English language and our interpretation of what people say is shaped by our experience, generally, not by whipping out a dictionary every time. I thought his point was unclear. I'm surprised Dees2014 still took that view after ProDee went to pains to explain that it wasn't his implication, though.

There's something wrong with the way we (collectively) look at these things I think. Pretty much every AFL fan I've ever come across wishes they'd stop farting about with the rules, but then as soon as something happens that upsets us, everyone madly start flipping through the rule book looking through which rule we can change to address it. Then we wonder why our umpires can't police the game properly. Like has been said a dozen times, this issue rearing its head is a problem for why Carlton are 16th on the ladder, not a problem for the rules committee. ANB would have had to kick for goal if we'd been playing against Geelong, would probably have missed, and they'd have had a shot at winning. But nah, it's the rules fault.

Nah, he's always been called that. This is just the first of his 2000 odd posts that you've noticed. (Ted Fidge)