sue

Lots of posters are bewildered by Tommo being dropped after playing well. But if we all noticed he played well, surely the selection panel did too. There must be reasons other than the club is insane. (I've no idea what they could be.)

To be more like C'wood means we'll have to find a Maynard to knock the daylights out of a top oppo player and then have the AFL do bugger-all about it. I hope the first never happens, but if it did, the the second would not.

what a joke. Totally risible. So now any player can do it and then express contrition and his club will 'make him more aware in future'. Probably not. But I bet the first player penalised will not come from a 'big' club.

Ah, nothing like contracting out to dodge responsibility.

Sorry, but to my mind that is pretty infantile and I'm surprised any professional media department produced it. Did they really? (Of course I take delight in GWS beating the bastards.)

You'd be right except for the fact that who knows which players are in those 'very few'. It's one thing to expect players to be available, it's another to make it complusory.

Personally I don't feel the need for endless 4-6 weeks and have no problem with short/long term. And as for ALL players being forced to see the media.- I hate that. Imagine how that could affect a bloke going through some personal probems etc - getting asked all sorts of slimy questions so some self-styed journalist can big note themselves.

Neither chompimg nor chanting. Champing is the word, as you say from horses. (Though I see chomping is gaining currency.)

If true (and I wouldn't put it past the AFL to be so arrogant as to think they could get away with such a sham), I wonder what recompense the AFL will be making to those teams. It's not as if it involves shafting us and StKilda etc. Did the AFL ever give a reason for introducing an 'opening round'?

As I understand it that was a decision of ICON, not the clubs. Doubtless wanting to save on staff and cleanup etc.

Stop undermining what Angus himself said and giving support to the AFL when he sues the pants off them.

I don't care about their 'army'. But imagine what a statement it would send to the AFL and their media hangers-on if there was a total boycott. But as I say, since there is no way or organising that (eg. you and many like-minded, will be there), it just a vain fantasy on my part.

It would be the best thing to do if the boycott was absolutely 100%. But since that is impossible, I guess you are right.

hmmm, but no statement from the AFL itself. Odd.

Sorry I've asked it before but not seen an answer to date: Where is there a definitive statement that the AFL did so? All I've seen is Gus saying it was his decision.

What about bumps that are for shepherding rather than attaching the bloke with or going for the ball? There would be a grey area between just standing in the way of an opponent trying to get to your teammate with the ball and bumping the opponent to prevent him reaching your teammate. Who would have initiated the bump - the player shepherding or the opponent trying to get past him? I guess when you have 100 grey areas, a 101st is no big deal....

Content? Sounds too much like the "Black Knight's" behaviour to me.

While one can argue that we have better things to focus our energies on(*), please explain how 'banging on' about Maynard gives them ammunition? Take any historical evil action that people may be reminded of. I don't see that reminders gives ammunition to the supporters of the evil action? (*) not that what we do on forums like this has any effect on anything except ourselves.

I wasn't referring to him (I have never forgiven his pro-Essendon position in the 'enhancement' program). But his co-presenter said it 3 times, so I guess she got it from him.

But that's all, as you say, your 'guess'. i have heard in ABC radio them say he has been forced to retire by the AFL. And a couple of posters here have said that too, but I cannot find any statement from the AFL saying that and Gus said it was his decision. Anyone....?

Is that true? All I've seen is Angus saying it was his decision.

and the 10 journos who your club has lined up to video it.

I hope you are right. But I fear you may be sounding a bit like the Black Knight of Holy Grail fame.

Surely a waiver for that deadline is in order, though what good it would do, I dunno.

If you believe that Maynard was genuinely attempting to simply smother, you and I are on different planets. So I think the quesiton you posed is irrelevant. Just because you can reasonably argue (as you did) that Angus' condition had a long history, says nothing to absolve the AFL and its sychophant/gravy-train media of the shameful outcome of the 'trial' of Maynard.