binman

Nah, i'm really glad we went the Toump not Wines. Wines is just a Viney wannbee - why get an imiation when you have the real deal? Wines would be surplus to requirements as you only need one Viney. Good call on that selection as the Toump will be a gun and Wines has peaked and found his level.

Byrnes is in the team until the Toump, Riley, Blease or Tappy force the issue. My tip? Byrnes to make way sooner rather than later for the Toump who no doubt has been asked to improve defensively (as has Blease). I'm not sure it will be this week though, certainly not Blease as this is the first really top game he has played. Remember Roos has said 5-6 top games in the magoos is the benchmark to go up. Has the Toump put enough together yet? Unfortunately the scorps have a bye the week after next so no chance for the players noted above (or Gawn for that matter) to press their case when during the dees week off.

Surely GNF we would only trade with Freo if they could come up with the right deal (which you reckon they would try hard to do given their need for a forward). Yes the dees get nothing if they force him into the PSD but still we would want to get a decent return. Is your confidence we would trade him to Freo if that's what he wants based on a feeling they would come to the table with a decent offer? I can't see them giving up Fyfe but jeez there's not much point us taking say a pick 20 and a b grader and being a push over. If he did want to return to WA - even if he is fixed on getting to Freo - we could offer him to WC and create some sort of leverage. Edit: blimey talking about this makes me feel ill in retrospect. Surely we are due some luck with a forward gun. Imagine Ben Hur's reaction to this discussion!

I mostly agree. The only point of difference is that i reckon he was great for us last year and even the year before was pretty good, so in my view he has been delivering for some time now. As i have said before i reckon he has long been our most underrated player and over the last 3 years is our most consistent player outside of Jones. Also must manage his body well as has hardly missed a game through injury.

Show cause notices not infraction notices. If served the players respond to argue why they should not be charged. Have option of appeals board and supreme Court. Will gone for monrgscand months

spot on. We were poor going inside 50, particularly in the first half when we were the better side. Cost us the game.

Parking at the ground is a pain i reckon - takes ages to get out. But if that's not a problem i guess its ok. Coming from the wet i reckon a good option is somewhere on the road that circles around the Myer Music bowl parallel to St Kilda road and then walk from there. Down by the river is tricky at night as you don't get much movement. Up round st kilda road people are coming and going from the arts centre. Its also free

But surely you were moving forward WJ as opposed to our boy Jack who slammed the brakes on

wj I'm interested in your opinion. Given the complexities of this case should we have used grace at the first hearing?

Never in doubt

Hilarious. The poll on afl.com is should viney be set free? Who is he, Rubin Carter?

Nope, he challenged the MRP decision at the trubunal (and won). He didn't appeal a tribunal decision

across all the online footy forums salty is the best poster

Me too. And credit where credit is due. Neeld done good getting Dawes on board

What's with DL posters suggesting dropping players who are no chance of getting dropped. First terlich and now Salem!

Mine was in the 3rd q (I think). Viney gets a head high free as he streams forward with a center clearance. Barely slows down, plays on immediately and runs out of the square and puts the ball on a leading jkh's chest. The future right there. Jamsrs mark and Tyson's goal weren't bad either!

Not here saty. There is no way Roos will drop Terlich, no way. Running out of credits? I must be watching a different game to some others because he's done nothing this season but add credits to his bank. One of the first picked on form but given the importance of a settled back line is an absolute week week out lock.

Funny article from Barrett. By his logic Hodge should have been suspended last year when he accidentally broke Murphy s jaw. He wasn't. Surely that case is precedent for this one as in that case it was determined it was accidental as it is in this scenario. Realistically he only had one other option which was to run into Lynch front on. If he did go front on he may well have caused even more damage to lynch(and almost certainly would have hurt himself in such a hit) as he may have hit his head flush with his chest. He might have broken his neck in such an incident. Which would be ironic given he likley would have escaped being charged. In any case his decision to turn and brace is consistent with OH&S legislation where one of the most important principals is your first duty of care is to yourself. If he didn't turn his body to protect himself he may well have ended up with one player with a broken neck or smashed face and one with a chest full of broken ribs or internal organ damage

Gleeson is a huge football fan. I think he barracks for the blues or tigers but i heard him interviewed not long before he retired as chief steward and he said one of the things he most looked forward to was being able to go to the footy

That doesn't make sense. Of course the impact was high and once found guilty he should have copped 4 down to 3, which is what the rules proscribe and therefore not unreasonably severe. If you are looking for a possible disincentive for not appealing it would be a concern that they determine he got off too lightly.

oh please. By one account he did so to highlight his clean record so they could give the lowest possible penalty

I could not agree more. So much for bawdens promise of transparency and clarity about the rule. Also how on earth did they determine impact was medium?

I get people are upset but having a shot at Gleeson is rubbish. Read the above article to understand why. And by the by it is really stupid (and sadly typical in recent times where knee jerk is the standard reaction) of people to bag him out for his question to Viney asking if he could have spun out of the way. One it is his job to prosecute the case. Two Bond (who was at the hearing) said in response to dimwit Healy and Russell's incredulity about Gleeson's comments (he's got no idea, has he ever played etc) that in fact it was clear he was only half heartily suggesting it as an option, said it with a slight grin and was actually giving Viney the opportunity to clarify he had no other option (a dorothy dixer that Viney accepted). Context not apparent in tweets from Schmook. Bond was actually quite forceful in his comments and made it clear Gleeson was doing a good job. It's one thing upset demon fans not understanding context and being sucked in by social media quite another for so called journalists and media people to not get it. Des Gleeson is the perfect man for that job and it really annoys me to hear stupid unwarranted criticism. He is a bloke that deserves a bit more respect as reflected in this quote: 'It is no fluke Des Gleeson was known for his integrity when he carried out his duties in one of the highest offices in the horse racing industry. For 35 years Des was a race steward and he did his job so well that he spent the last 12 years of his career as Victoria's chief steward.' http://www.moynegazette.com.au/story/1238365/profile-des-gleeson/

And i doubt mids get many more disposals on average. Its the back half whose numbers would have increased given they're the ones doing much of the chipping around (with some midfield help)

In good form there Saty. Liked this line: 'Asked Dave Misson about Watts, said he will be fine, which could mean he will play or be out for 6 weeks' Thanks for the reports guys