Rogue

+1 It's ridiculous to claim Bennell's cards will be marked if he doesn't 'perform' over the next three weeks.

Cook's been playing in defence lately. Gotch has said that we've had to move our forwards, like Cook, into other positions to accommodate FEv.

I haven't really rated Jetta, but BP mentions two things that suggest he might have more than I've seen. First, BP suggests that Jetta isn't particularly suited to a small defensive forward role. Maybe I'm judging him harshly if he hasn't been able to play a role he's suited for, but it also sounds like he's got to get much fitter to play a midfield role. (I also think he's way back in the queue, but hey). Second, BP asserts that Jetta was a good kick at junior level, and isn't sure why we haven't seen that from him at AFL level. Maybe he's a better kick than I've given him credit for. However, at the moment I'm pretty underwhelmed. I would have been happy enough seeing Joel Mac coming in and play a defensive role, releasing guys already in the team to play further up the ground.

This bit is certainly right.

+1

That's a shame; thanks for letting me know.

I agree.

I disagree. It would be 'newsworthy' and thus the media would show it, as WYL has said.

Great to see McKenzie in the 1s this week. Is Campbell playing in the Casey reserves? Does where a player is named actually mean anything these days?

I don't agree that we should be taking it to court.

You won't need to pre-book a ticket unless the game is a sell-out. How many QB games are a sell-out? I'm betting the answer, at least in my lifetime, is a big fat zero.

No, I don't think so. It depends how fussy you are about seating (and how many seats you/your group need/s).

As s-t-i-n-g-a has said, we did have a biomechanist there. The idea that we should not have run other defences alongside this seems odd to me.

rhaz wasn't suggesting it was bad that the football department is playing Tom Mc as a mid - that's a strawman. What rhaz - and I - were pointing out is that form was displayed in the seconds. He'll need to improve his form to maintain t he same output of disposals/goals.

MacDonald comes in for Trengove if needed, playing down back and releasing other mid-size players further up the ground.

Awesome.

I can definitely remember Gieschen doing so on multiple occassions.

Exactly what I thought.

If they didn't randomise it then there'd be no point hiding the identity of the coaches, so I doubt that'd be the case.

Interesting thought experiment. I didn't find the previous cases compelling but I I don't know whether you've got it wrong here. However, I'll play demon's advocate and make two quick points: First, why do you assert that, because the push was hard enough to make Player B fall, Player A has necessarily used 'excessive force'? Tinney's remarks in the Trengove case suggest that you can tackle someone - presumably, to the ground - 'legally' without using excessive force. If that's the case, it's not clear to me that Player A would be deemed to have used 'excessive force' for simply pushing Player B hard enough to make them fall over. Second, why do you assert that Player A, in the act of pushing Player B over, has breached his 'duty of care'? I have only read the relevant Appendix to the rules, so I'm simply assuming that duty of care relates to taking reasonable care to avoid forseeable actions. (If the AFL has defined it in the rules, let me know!). It seems to me that one could coherently argue that while Trengove may have breached his duty of care when tackling Dangerfield, Player A has not necessarily breached his duty of care to Player B, as one might think there are important distinctions to be made between the two cases. For example, Player A does not in any way impede Player B's ability to regain balance - Player A does not drive Player B into the dirt, but simply pushes Player B - or impede Player B's ability to break their fall (by, say, holding onto their arm at any stage). I'm not laughing. I enjoyed thinking about your analysis, though.

If the player falls over or faints it seems that there would be a very weak causal link, so I don't think your attempt at a slippery slope argument works.

Exactly. I wish people would stop banging on about this. You might think this is a stupid rule, but it's the rule.

He's played half a game in the magoos' magoos. You'd choose him?

I don't think he's a walk-up start, but there are three guys who can ruck for us this weekend, I think we need two, and he's one of them.

Never mind, I found out the answer. According to a 2010 booklet, the cost is $5K, with $2.5K refundable. I'm not sure on what grounds the $2.5K is refundable.