sue

I think it's more than a bit of nothing. By bringing up the runner-welfare duplication role Wilson show she enjoys putting the boot in regardless of relevance. In fact as I wrote above, you could well argue it is a good thing to combine the roles. But she implies the opposite just to sink the boot in. That casts doubt on everything she says about anything, not just MFC. I'm not saying we are not in a mess etc, but as a general policy, I'd look at everything she says as liable to have been twisted or exaggerated to support whatever case she is making.

Yes the club is in a mess - I'd say that even if the CEO/Board etc were perfect - playing badly is what matters most and that's what we've been doing. But typical C Wilson. She looks to put the boot in from every angle, however absurd. For example: "An even stranger double-up was the move to use player development manager Reece Conca as a runner on match days, a clear conflict given he was delivering instructions to players at the same time as he was also responsible for their welfare." Even stranger?? You could argue that the welfare manager(with footy experience) is the perfect person to be the runner. A person without current experience in that role is more liable to cause damage than one who knows the welfare situation of each player. C. Wilson has been contacted for comment. (Actually she hasn't, but what a slimey line she repeatedly uses.)

Yes. It's amazing how many people have said 'it is inexplicable' meaning that as a critism of the club rather than an acknowledgment of their own lack of information. There are of course good arguments for playing more new players, but there might be several other players who should be 'rested' before resting a slightly injured Viney (depending on which new player is brought in and other factors).

Another proof that the AFL's interest in the actual game is nothing compared to $. A fair draw is essential for a proper competition, but with all the special matches (including ours on someone else's kings birthday) a 'rivalry' round is the last nail in the coffin. Amusing how some of the rivaries are invented just to fill the round.

I'm no armchair pugilist. I'd love it if the umps cracked down on the niggles, jumper punches and shoving and whacking that has nothing to do with the game. Commentators seem to love it - start with sacking them if they do A "gentle clip" which arises from a 'football act' with no malice surely should be called an accident. If you don't allow accidental, then no tackling as well as no bumping. Ban the speccy? Ban the not-so-speccy mark but which still knees another player (of either team) in the head because they have fallen forward a bit? No amount of virtue signalling by the AFL will help save footy. And while I am in rant mode - re-player safety, the AFL has not kept to its undertaking to encourage head safety by penalising players who ducked trying to 'earn' a free. At worst umps just ball it up. That's gone the way of 'dissent' - no, I tell a lie, dissent does get paid very occasionally, ducking never. No need to apologize for calling those 2 C'wood players names, certainly not BM.

I think it is indeed contradictory to say he plays favourites (which you dislike because it leads to sub-optimum teams being selected and lost games) and at the same time say he's trying to win games to save his job. You don't win games and save your job by playing players who shouldn't be played. I think the issue is timing - at what point do you throw in the towel for playing finals versus playing new players who may or may not be ready for it etc. That is a difficult decision. But simply accusing the coach (and playing committee) of playing favourites/job saving is a bit over the top, especially without insider knowledge.

There seems to be a contradiction in what you say unless I missed something. Is he saving his job or favouring certain players for no good team reason? Seems to me one contradicts the other.

Why do you and many others assume that not playing such players is proof that Goodwin is just trying to save his job? Surely given where we now are, playing them would be just what would be expected of a coach. And thus what a coach desperate to hang onto his job would do. Another win or 2 clearly won't do much to help him keep his job. So you could equally assume the coach has good reasons not to play them rather than that he is just trying to save his job. Of course, earlier in the season when there was some remote chance of finals it might be reasonable to say he is just saving his job by not playing them. But imagine if we lost what could have been season defining games and the new players had played badly. The pile on would then be 'why did we play them - they were not ready and now the season is down the toilet'. A coach can't win.

In an earlier post I mentioned banning the player who concusses a player when going for a speccy. That too should be independent of whether the victim was a team mate or oppo. In fact, I'd say no doubt at all in that case. (I assumed the AFL was unlikely to do penalise the speccy causing concussion. But I can imagine them introducing such a ban for an unrealistic attempt.)

Many are saying we should use a different lawyer to represent our players. While it is true he has been associated with many puzzling lost cases, don't be too hard on him. There is another common factor present in all those cases, namely MFC is not C'wood.

If the AFL had any consistency in its reaction to a fear of future concussion litigation bankrupting the game, they would have to ban any player who attempts a speccy and KO's another (team mate or oppo). But they won't because the speccy brings in the fans (sorry I meant $'s) and so instead they do ludicrous virtue signaling in cases like May's.

Here's another reason the AFL may rue this decision. (I doubt any logical arguments as detailed here will have any effect.). If players start making very early decisions that they may not be first to the ball and that it's safer to stop contesting the ball, they will focus on being ready to tackle instantly the opponent takes it. Result - even more ball-ups with a zillion players within 10 metres. Not a good look for the game. (Though I guess the AFL will dream up some ill-thought out tweaks to the rules/interpretations to try to lessen that, leading to a new set of unintended consequences.)

The usual pile on of people moaning about how hopeless the club is. There is no evidence about how sick he was before the game. Some are even conflating his being in bed on Monday as being bedridden before the match! Maybe he was just a bit off on Saturday and thought he was OK and gave no indication to anyone he might be coming down with something that would justify not playing him. If he played NQR, it's most likely down to him, not further evidence of how useless the club is.

Am I reading this right? The AFL wants a bigger cut from bookies because of the integrity risks of being associated with gambling? https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/jul/18/afl-gambling-revenue-bookmakers-victoria-regulator-vgccc-ntwnfb

It's your preception. But until an insider blows the whistle and says who has the negatives(*) of the coach and others, I'll reserve judgement. (*)young'uns may not get the reference.

And so much ugly wresting goes on that it is a complete toss-up as to when and to whom a free kick is awarded.

I think that is right, but it has led to a very ugly wrestle. Why not just limit how far the ruckmen can run before they can impact the opponent thereby limiting the force of the encounter. Doing away with the erratic bounce would help too. Umpires to throw it up to a height designed to ensure the rucks can get to the ball before they get to each other and start wrestling.

Was arm-chopping against the rules years ago? Or is it a relatively new rule?

afl.com.auHow Dee bounced back from family tragedy to find his bestDaniel Turner has starred in the Demons' defence this year, just months after tragedy struck his family

Not sure what replay you access. What was on the clock in Q4 at the time?

I give up.

Nothing about the corrupt and inconsistent MRO/Tribunal surprises me anymore, but if Kozzie got 3 weeks for what was arguably at least partly due to his opponent's actions, how on earth could Xerri not get more?

Most blatant blocking by Cameron (though not too successful). No free. Umpiring continues to be soooo inconsistent

Sorry, didn't see that. I think it is nice to see some C'wood supporters embrace their 'image' as we joke about our snow trips and cheese etc.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jul/09/ato-commissioner-sent-ai-meme-mocking-collingwood-afl-supporters-to-all-20000-staff