Nasher

I really hear you there. I have two older brothers: #1 barracks for Collingwood, #2 barracks for Richmond (big extended family - we grew up outside Vic and were all influenced by different people). The dynamic has been pretty simple - #2 and I basically close down any attempts #1 makes at talking footy - he's unbearable when those bastards are winning, which for us seems to be always. That's been the way for the best part of a decade now. #2 and I have basically be able to pain share and empathise with one another. #2 rang me not long after the Richmond game this year. Getting thrashed by Richmond was too much for me. It wasn't just that we were shit (again), or that we'd been flogged (again), it was that it was bloody Richmond. Those guys are meant to know what it feels like. It was the first time, and probably the only time I'll ever reject a call from one of my brothers. Great post, btw.

Part II was a lot more insightful than Part I I reckon. It sounds as if Craig plays a part in literally every thing - I like the analogy of being the godfather in Part I. I also found it interesting that assistant coaches and the players also seek him out for advice - that wouldn't have occurred to me before. There's a lot of benefit to having a former senior coach, who is somewhat at arms length being around to bounce things off and get feedback.

Obviously nobody here is going to know specifically if Viney is still growing or not, but the average 17/18 year old still has growing to do. Probably no more than a cm or two though you'd think.

I've read more in-depth analysis on this forum. Maybe Walls should just start stealing content from here like the Hun writers.

My view also. If this were a business I'd reject that resignation.

I was going to make some hilarious gag about us drafting footballers and not basketballers before it occurred to me that we have 3 highly rated ex-basketballers on our list. What's Oden got planned for 2013?

Particular points of interest for me this week are Tapscott, Jurrah, Blease, Martin, Cook and Watts. Cook for the "hurry up and kick on so we can stop this Darling whinging once and for all" factor, and the others because they're the ones I believe should be bashing the door down for selection in the near term.

Couldn't agree more, Deeoldfart! Very pleased that Bennell and Fitzpatrick have been awarded for good form - very good form in the case of the former. I'd have made the Fitz for Sellar change even if Sellar hadn't been injured. Petterd for Dunn was a pleasant surprise for me. As I've said a lot of times this year I believe Petterd is the superior player (and it seems obvious they're both competing for one spot), but Dunn did enough most weeks to hang on to his spot by the skin of his teeth. This is a golden opportunity for Ricky - if he works hard enough he should be able to hold Dunn out of the side for the rest of the year. Perfect changes for mine.

Just out of curiosity, are you aware of how you currently appear in people's eyes? And believe me, I say that as a fan of yours as a contributor to Demonland, both as a poster and your previous contribution as a moderator.

He also said that Bartram "laid it bare for him" - that doesn't sound like pussyfooting around the issue to me.

Nominations happen before trade week.

But you still don't seem to acknowledge that it'll be one less AFL match Wojcinski can play in. If I were Wojcinski I wouldn't give a shit about missing two VFL matches, but I sure would give a shit about being ineligible for four AFL matches.

I doubt the VFL would issue a zero week suspension. I think it'd have to be a minimum of one (two) weeks for it to work in that situation.

The point is that the whole team IS playing. The Geelong seniors, who David Wojcinski is listed to play for, will play on all four weeks that he is rubbed out for. It's four AFL matches that he is not eligible to play for. That a couple of them happen to fall on weeks where the VFL team doesn't play is what seems to be confusing for you.

He must sit out two VFL matches. In the time that those two VFL matches have been played, four AFL matches will have been played. He's an AFL listed player, so his suspension must scale to the AFL.If there were no state matches or byes in the VFL, he'd have been given four weeks, and still missed four AFL games.

ffs stuie, it's not that hard to grasp. The VFL suspension was engineered so that he'll miss 4 AFL matches. It doesn't matter about the state matches, byes etc - the outcome would've been modified to suit so the end result was still missing 4 AFL matches.

No, that's too absolute. I think the system is fairer than any of the alternatives.

Is the net result not to cause us to pay fair value?

I thought you were suggesting reverting to the old system because I thought that you could not possibly be suggesting regulation because that idea is absurd - but it seems that you were. An "independant" assessment of a player's worth is, as I said in my previous post, asking for trouble. This system, while imperfect, makes some allowance for clubs to make its own judgement about a player's worth. Under your proposal, I think you'd see the worst of both worlds because the assessment is going to be imperfect - you'd get players whose values are over-valued and it would discourage clubs from taking this option, and you'd get players who were under-valued and you're back where you started with Ablett Jr, Scarlett and Hawkins going to Geelong basically for free. That we might "overpay" (I use this term very generously - really we're not overpaying, just not getting him cheap like some want) for Viney is byproduct of us being crap on the field. It's not because GWS are "tampering".

Jamar said in an interview recently that if there was a contract in front of him today he'd sign it. It's all just words of course, but I don't get the feeling he's looking for the nearest exit. I have no idea about Moloney's intentions, but I'd be surprised if he's seriously considering other opportunities.

You may notice I also said I thought it was perfectly within the spirit of the rule. Daisy, am I to presume that you are proposing we revert back to the old rule of clubs being able to just use their last pick on F/S picks then? Because that's the only solution I can see that doesn't introduce subjectivity, i.e. treating it on a case-by-case basis, which is just a recipe for disaster.

But this is exactly the scenario the current father son rule was designed to cater for - to prevent clubs from being able to pick up gun father son selections at rock bottom prices. If Viney is clearly rated as a top 10 pick, how is it "more fair" that we get him for 25? Let's be honest. Those who reckon this is draft tampering are just pissy because we might have to pay pick #3 or so for Viney. If it looked like we might finish 9th on the ladder all we'd hear is the sound of crickets.

The point of that rule is to force clubs to pay market worth for father sons. If GWS bid pick 1 and force us to use pick #3 (or whatever), then that's what they've done. Our choice is to take it or leave it, we're not forced or trapped in to doing anything. Not only is it legal within the rule, I think it's perfectly within the spirit of the rule.

What does this mean? It sounds like you want to leave him out because of his date of birth. Sure he's a long term prospect, but if he's playing up to scratch - which he currently is - then he's also a short term prospect. I'd feel very nervous about forecasting his omission next week.