sue

There are a lot of worse things that go on as model behaviour. Eg. gloating and mocking over an opponent when you get the better of him, and well, Tom Lynch.

for even more jobs paid for by rebel let’s all dig some holes and fill them in again. Just as insane.

Sorry to repeat myself, but Rebel could get exposure (that's all they want of course) in other ways that would have put the cash into footy. Instead the bulk of the cash is going to some turf jockeys and a transport firm (unless the AFL has extracted a lot more from Rebel which I doubt).

The percentages of kicking for goal from the boudnary may not be high, but you'll get a lot more shots at goal or the ball will be hit into the corridor where for good reasons defenders do not hit it now. As for a defensive exit causing the curent problem, it will be used even more with this rules change. When you kick it to your tall player near the boundary opposition players often think it is a win if the hit it out on the full, thus turning loss of possesion into a 50 50. You'll be keen to give them more opportunities to do so.

But this won't discourage kicks along the line into the forward zone. Quite the contrary. Kick it there and if you don't mark it, then it will either be hit out on the full or back into the corridor - both cases probably giving you a shot at goal. It would almost be madness to kick it anywhere else but down the line. So the play will be closer to the boudnary than ever.

They could trial this in the GF. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/that-is-wrong-and-unfair-afl-greats-slams-crazy-rule-change-conversation/news-story/e118ca3e4ac211b1bd75db034e3c9e5d

Disagree. Bloody stupid stunt to do regardless of who is paying. If Rebel wants some exposure, there are ways they could pay for it which would see actual cash go into footy instead.

Just want to congratulate you on the bolded phrase. I am so sick of commentators saying 'he marks the ball at its highest point' when what they actually mean is what you wrote.

From the ABC site: While I doubt the 'rugby state' reference indicates a likely new club for Hogan, I am puzzled why his conviction or not should be relevant to moving to NSW or QLD. Reads like states can ban people from other states with convictions which is nonsense Good luck going to the USA though.

You probably overlook the disasters at other clubs which is a natural bias. Show me the evidence that some other clubs have not done the same, including the Saints before I will feel too glum about this year.

And I bet you would have wagered good money at the end of 2018 that we wouldn't slip to #17 in 2019. Even the most infected by MFCSS is not that gloomy. Always look on the gloomy side of things - it has a catchy tune.

hmmm, not many perfect kicks to his lead in that. Close to zero.

What has St Kilda done in 1 year? We started at #17 and if we won one more game we too could have been thrashed by Richmond.....

Commentators don’t seem to think it is necessary

$750 fine. Wow that will really discourage him and his $%# coach from continuing to snipe. A football penalty is the only thing these guys understand.

The problem is that his soft knee to the neck in itself is not suspendible by the standards the AFL sets but the AFL does nothing to rub it out. Also he gets off on other infractions which lesser lights spend time in the stands for and is a serial offender but the 'crimes' do not add up to anything, whereas a single vigorous tackle (with no ill intent but with the oppo trying to kick the ball instead of protecting himself) gets you rubbed out for 4 weeks. So what does the AFL need to do to stamp out that sort of behaviour? A few 50m or 100m penalties might get the Hardwicks of this world to stop players acting like Lynch rather than praising them. Or maybe the tribunal can do some accumulating of misdeeds and if a player gets too many naughty points, he's rubbed out for a week.

But in the AFL fantasy land, it is the outcome that counts. So if Lynch had slipped as he did that and crushed the Saint's neck he might just get a penalty - then again, big name player + finals = no bloody chance.

What else can you expect when the AFL is now a corporate business. For those who follow footy in the off-season it is useless waffle as you say. But it is perhaps of some use to those members who aren't following footy media etc - it lets them know the club is doing something however ill-defined. Probably be complaints of lack of member communication if nothing was sent.

Presumably because a balance of what goodies we get for him minus the inferior backup rookies we replace him with is beneficial to us overall.

All the more reason to enjoy the karma now.

hmmm, not a group of people I'd want to use to bloster any position I hold. But rather than just make your bare statement, please explain exactly why someone like Bob Skilton was not a great because he wasn't in a premiership team. In what area was he deficient?

As OldDee mentioned, most people here are rusted on and probably don't represent the broader membership base. We have 3 memberships for family members who have collectively been to 3 matches over the last decade. Surely that's not typical and most members expect to go to the MCG at least a few times a year. However, I'd think/hope there were not too many who just buy membrships on a 'pay per view' basis and that most members see the cost as a mixture of club support and 'pay per view'. But if that is not true and people can't get to matches in 2021, a lot of clubs will have a problem.

Thanks. So the GM Football probably has no day to day duties. I presume Football Admin makes sure the bus and air travel is organised, jumpers, footys pumped etc.

Sorry to air my ignorance, but I'd be grateful if anyone can provide a list of job titles in a FD and what they actually do - like a duty statement. For example, what does the football manager actually manage?

But what would you replace all 10 with? Trading out some of our good players to get extra draft picks doesn't sound like a good way to fill a list.