sue

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.

I don't want to buy into the general argument here, but if you get a bonus just because the company does well even if you didn't shine, then there is a difference. (Also bonuses are not the same as getting better future contracts.)

Which makes me wonder what fraction of drop kicks failed because the surface was poor. Could the drop kick make a comeback on today's good surfaces? Certainly was a thing of beauty, if not a joy forever.

I don't disagree with much of that, but as you say, I doubt if anyone will be able to produce direct evidence that he doesn't listen. That will be just inferred from the team's lack of success. Given the large number of other factors that may effect performance, it's a big step to say he doesn't listen. Maybe when he fails to make the sort of changes some posters point to, it's because he's been listening too much - but to the wrong advice! Let's speculate as to who this conservative stick-in-the-mud is. (Yes, my tongue is planted firmly into my cheek.)

I really have no feelings either way about Goodwin because I don't have any data other than our win/loss ratio plus some obvious externals like our injuries in 2019 etc. and who knows how much the players are responsible as soem posters have discussed. Several posters repeatedly say he doesn't listen. What is the actual evidence for that? (genuine question).

Well it makes a good story, but if the PO is concerned with overall efficiency, such oddities may be inevitable. Maybe you should lobby for a "local mail only" post box.

Surely the only reasonable thing is to just skip 2020 and do in 2021 what was scheduled for 2020. (If any of the 2020 matches did by some miracle go ahead with normal crowds, eg perhaps round 1 Carlton v Richmond, then stick to normal schedule of course.)

Since quarters often run to 30 minutes total as they did in days of yore, perhaps he couldn't understand how that was possible if the actual playing time was less than 25 minutes. Do we now have 5 minutes more of conjestion driven ball-ups etc?

Ah, the old excuses versus reasons issue rasies it ugly head again. I am reminded of the 'irregular verbs' of Yes Minister. But in this case irregular abstract nouns, "I give reasons, you make excuses".

Well as much as it hurts to say it, he did explain how he fell into that fairly minor hole.

That bloke in picture #16 looks pretty good. What a welcome sight.

no, just making a very weak joke.

Definition of MFCSS: But maybe these pics the wrong way around.

Surely you know it is a put-down for a well-off person who is a socialist. Whereas if a poorer person is a socialist he is just full of envy. They've got you either way.

amateur hour. Presuming Treloar is now signed up with the Dogs with a contract stating his salary from the Dogs and nothing else, then the problem is entirely C'woods in the absence of other evidence. Treloar then sues C'wood for the balance of his entire contract and a wise judge rules in his favour but adds " I see you have been also paid by the Dogs and there must have been some agreement about the transfer, so I'll just deduct the sum the Dogs are paying from what C'wood owes Treloar".?

Maybe I haven't followed this closely enough, but are there not occasions when it is worth breaking the rule (only penalty loss of rotations) and vice versa? If so, then individual players would have to decide whether to break rule or not. And would they not want some advice from the coaches?

So players will have to decide if it is worth acting and thus reducing the team's rotations or not. Will coaches be holding up a big sign saying "don't act, we are short on rotations"?

I really don't want to get into politics, so I hope this is my last word on the subject. Be let slide by whom? I presume you mean other posters since the mods can't chase every short not strictly footy comment. There have been numerous references to Dictator Dan that slid by. Did those offend you too? They probably offended some. Remarks that offend one's beliefs tend to be more noticable/offensive than one's that support them. I know it's tempting to comment (eg. me here), but it's best if we let one-liners that offend our personal beliefs slide by and have a quick nod at the wisdom of posts that support them.