sue

In answer to your question: Nothing. Feb 4 plus weeks is Feb 18, not today (sorry to quibble over 1/2 a week). But I think that pushes your range to "round 2 unlikely, but 3 a possibility". Round 3 is not much different to round 4. And you have him regaining match fitness etc faster than most would assume. So 4 -6 was always on the cards.

That's what I understood. No way to stop the doomsayers from doomsaying.

Think of the joy experienced by a pessimist when they are occasionally proven wrong.

I crossed it years ago

Funnily enough I'm the opposite. Generally considered a pessimist, but I'm an optimist when it comes to the MFC.

Some never miss a chance to be first in with the gloomiest interpretation of anything. I expect it is some sort of primitive magic where by stating the pessimistic view, it is hoped that will prevent it actually occurring. Or maybe they are just genuine pessimists.

While Weideman has not yet lived up to our hopes, the thought that BB would take pressure of Weideman allowing him to blossum was attractive. Oh well....

Au contraire. They would seek to hide their own malfeasance and appear virtuous when they get the chance.

I didn't realise BB had been playing for us for that many years already.

Even if Eddie had never done anything wrong personally he should have resigned the moment that report was delivered. Any ceo/president who was in charge of an organisation for many years would do so upon receiving such a report no matter if they themselves were clean as a whistle.

A politician has to be better at spin than Eddie has managed recently

Whatever the merits of Eddie, he just does not get it. He is still saying the club is not racist despite having a report commissioned by the club (ie. not by Carlton or some other enemy) which specifially says the club is systematically racist.

One??

I don't recall 50m penalties back then.

Very true. I presume the player on the mark can't move until either the ball is kicked or the umpire calls play-on. So we will see the player with the ball starting to play on, the player on the mark then reacting but the umpire is slow to call out 'play-on' and so a 50m penalty is applied - unfairly. As I've long argued, the AFL has the play-on rule back to front. Rather than wait for the umps call, let the player on the mark make the decision. If he gets it wrong and goes too early, then pay the penalty. Seems blindingly obvious to me - am I missing something?

Sorry to be so slow, but what is this new rule meant to remedy?

It is clear that Eddie was reading from a prepared statement when he said it was a proud day for the club. So how can he say he used the wrong words due to the pressure of the day? Clearly he/they would have been burning the midnight oil to get the statement right. So it is equally clear he/they were trying to pull the usual PR stunt of turning a negative into a positive. Indeed it was his opening sentence which is most carefully considered wasn't it ? (I ask because I can't find the full statement on line).

We seem to have some experts on the amount of bandaging that disqualifies a player from training who were mysteriously silent on that subject before now. Let's see what happens and hope for the best.

I wouldn't mind paying on a pay per view basis, but I do object to paying a large fee to sign up to 'plans' where I am paying for stuff I have no interest in. I have zero interest in any sport other than AFL. But Kayo has me effectively helping pay for loads of sports and guff which I don't want. Ditto for Foxtel. It's like going to the supermarket wanting to buy just a can of beans but being forced to buy all the canned food in the supermarket, none of which I eat. I may be unusual in following only one sport, but I suspect a lot of people are interested in only a small handful of sports but are forced to pay for dozens, including farnarkeling. (Actually I would pay for that.)

Many handpasses where almost all of the balls momentum comes from the hand holding the ball rather than from the fist are deemed legal these days. Unfortunately it's a thin dividing line and hard to umpire. But it might be umpirable to require any over the head handball to require the holding hand to be stationary at the moment off impact.

It is typical PR spin to pretend a disaster is a great success and something to be proud of. If you pay attention to what is being said it is usually clear that they are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. But when that lie is just too much of a stretch to be at all credible, it is piling a disaster upon a disaster to try that sort of wheeze(*). Whoever advised Eddie (himself?) to try that line needs a new profession. (*) For the ultimate in PR wheezes watch the Absolute Power BBC radio and TV series with Stephen Fry and John BIrd as the owners of a scurrilous PR firm.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Could you explain why C'wood would have chosen such a notorious biased person to do the review?

It seems to me that the female footballers generally are very good at taking marks even under pressure but terrible at picking the ball up off the ground even when under minimal pressure. Do others agree and if so any idea why? The ground ball takes more time which gives time for nerves to affect the player, or is it that it is just a harder skill?

Maybe, but what if it was thought by the coach(es) that by giving him the role it would draw out his best again? Given how surprising it seemed at the time, I reckon this may well have been the plan. Would have been a masterstroke if it had worked. And risked being seen an insult to members, players if not. Sitting on the outside it is hard to make strong statements.

as long as we continue to follow Richmond's path I'm happy with that name.