nutbean

The positives and negatives of individual players and the skills has been done so I don't need to add to them. The positives for me... Just winning for the team - Beating any team that is put on the field is very good for this young team. Even though it is a practice match, it builds camaraderie and confidence in each other. Contrast this with how deflated the team must have been losing to Essendon and Carlton last year when there had to be an expectation of us winning. There was an expectation that we would beat an undermanned bulldogs side yesterday and we did. I am under any no illusion on how much we need to improve. But winning is always good for team building Winning for supporters and membership - again, I am not booking finals tickets - but winning these encounters must help with memberships and getting supporters to games. A positive for a club like ours that has been down for so long. Goodwin - how comfortable does he look ? I have no idea on him whatsoever except what is mentioned by Roos and the players but I can't help but be impressed. It is early days, and it was much easier for Roos to pass on the nucleus of a really good mature team to Longmire, than the youngsters Goodwin will receive but i am liking what i am seeing.

you have got to love Demonland - are we the only club forum that can have a thread on a practice match that segways into a heated debate on getting charged to print tickets at home ???

correct....what happens in the community stays in the community ( WRONG - when a crime of any magnitude happens in the community - ummm. you contact the police ? that should be obvious)

my mob is no better - the ex principal at Beth Rivkah ladies college was also doing unspeakable things to students - the answer to that was to ship her off to Israel out of reach...And we all saw what was happening at Yeshivah college.... Spot on about organised religion....

I just chose to leave the entire post alone.....

they took the meatballs off the menu..damn those Swedes..they have lost my business

maybe so - but certain ticketing establishments ( like the example I provided) don't charge - it is my view they are trying to make it as attractive as possible to get the punter to print their own tickets - saving them the labor consuming processes of printing ,enveloping, addressing and posting tickets themselves. The ticketing agencies already require emails from customers and have an automated system to send emails confirming purchases and sending invoices. The technology required to send out tickets is very little in difference to other companies sending out bills electronically like Telstra and the the likes of Origin/AGL etc. You can make a case for booking fees as they need to cover wages, advertising, web maintenance and all the work the do to get the tickets to market etc etc - you cannot make a case for charging us to print tickets at home - they are charging an inflated price for an ultra cheap delivery method.

I think he is looked at as depth and width

You forgot to add that all this was done in a split second..Giant suggests that no-one comes near Clark - the video shows that he is running at the ball while participating in shoving match with his direct opponent. Giant's critique completely leaves out that Enright bumped Clark and changed his direction mid air. ! How anyone can suggest this was deliberate is just beyond belief.

I go to a ton of gigs - do not get me started on ticketmaster and ticketek. Worse yet, if anyone mentions Ticketmaster Resell ( which in layman's term's means "we want a piece of the scalping action") I will have apoplexy

Handling charge was their booking fee in this instance.And yes... I love the convenience of printing at home too. Whilst I won't lose any sleep over it, I do think it is a giant rip to be charged $3.50 to send me tickets electronically ( note that they already send an invoice/confirmation by email free of charge).

There are two charges - a processing or booking fee which i have no problem and then you have a delivery fees - you can pay for tickets to be delivered by standard mail, registered mail or you can print the tickets at home. Many times they do not charge for print at home option - Tickets/Items AU $201.76 Handling Charge AU $5.95 Delivery via: eTicket No Charge Other times you get charged - as i said - cash grab and as BB said - thieves

love your work P-man but i stopped reading at the first mention of Dwayne.

any charge for a print at home ticket is absolutely a cash grab - nothing more.

Save Ferris

Whilst he himself may not be guilty of pedophilia, I believe that he and others were aware of what was happening within the church and either opted to do nothing ( it was not a matter of interest to me) or move offenders into other parish's where they could re-offend rather than turn them over to the authorities. Pedophilia is an evil - nothing more, nothing less. In my eyes the only question that needs to be answered is did Pell know what was going on - if he did then he aided and abetted.

i prefer my full moniker - "the greatest man"

you are right ...but it does appear that they have changed the interpretation and I would suspect the clubs would know or the MFC should have challenged the Oliver decision.

I would like to see Indiana Jones play ( there's a man not afraid of the hard ball - although he is apparently terrified of Phil Baker)

That's where Vanders played the majority last week ?

I'm not sure I understand the need for distinction between intraclub and club vs club matches. If the argument is to remove all practice matches prior to the season and only have match simulations at training which will reduce the risk of injury ( but not altogether remove it ) then I understand it - you remove tackling and a lot of the physical contact. But the risk to injury is only marginally less in my opinion from an intraclub match to club vs club as opposed to a lot more reward from playing another club. The tackling isn't as hard but tackles still go wrong and there is still physicality.

I read him religiously ( pardon the pun) as I do like to get another side of any argument - I rarely (if ever) agree with what he has to say but ( as bad as it is for the blood pressure) he does have a point a view and it is healthy to read across the spectrum before deciding where one sits on any issue George Pell: Backflip on cardinal an (Andrew) Bolt from the blue Who knew that conservative writer and broadcaster Andrew Bolt was also a master at the art of satire? In his latest piece, published on Wednesday, the News Corp columnist delivers a sobering analysis of Cardinal George Pell's second day of testimony to the child abuse royal commission. In doing so, Australia's most powerful Catholic appears to have lost one of his staunchest defenders. And loyal readers have been left in a state of perpetual shock, asking if this might be the "backflip of the century". Some wondered if Bolt's latest views would compromise his chance at an exclusive interview with the Cardinal on Thursday for Sky. And it's not certain. Sky is hedging its bets when asked to confirm. On the question of what Pell knew about notorious paedophile priest Gerald Ridsdale - his former colleague and housemate - Bolt posed the question that looms large for the commission. "Is the Vatican's third-most powerful leader a liar when he says he never knew what Ridsdale ... was doing in Ballarat? Or was he just dangerously indifferent to his responsibilities and to the warning signs that children were being raped?" It followed Pell's testimony on Tuesday about when he learnt of Ridsdale's offending. "It's a sad story and it wasn't of much interest to me," he declared, prompting audible gasps. And with that comment Bolt changed his tune, writing that Pell had "uttered words that will stain his reputation forever". He said Pell failed to explain why he never asked about Ridsdale's movements between parishes, and writes about his tendency to fall back on the lines of command defence. He even described the commission's questioning as "rightly aggressive". It's a withering and unexpected commentary on the man Bolt has long described as the victim of a vicious witch-hunt. And some readers were surprised. "Stain on Bolt's reputation … Split personality mad … Backflip of the century ... Is this real life?" they wrote. One questioned if a character assassination of his good mate Tony Abbott was next on the cards. Only recently, Bolt condemned police and his own newspaper, the Herald Sun, for running a front-page story about an investigation into allegations Pell himself sexually abused children. "Last week I called the witch-hunt against Cardinal George Pell vicious and shameful," he began. "Now the campaign to destroy Pell has become sinister as well, after it was joined by - in my view - elements of Victoria Police." He went on to write about the "scandalous injustice and abuse of state power" and Victoria Police's "culture that encourages officers to hunt Catholics and smear their church". In other pieces, Bolt has leapt to Pell's defence. In his column on Tuesday, he questioned the "public determination" to force the Cardinal to take the blame for the failure of others in the church. And then, in another bizarre twist for the conservative columnist, Bolt on Wednesday appeared to backflip on his backflip, saying on Sky that he thinks he owes the Cardinal an apology for his comment piece. "I joined that attack on George Pell, as you've just read, and I think for the first time in my life I'm trending positive on Twitter as a result," he said. "I think I owe an apology and I'll go back to being hated on Twitter." Asked about Pell's testimony and the admission he never asked why Ridsdale was being moved, Bolt said the Cardinal was not "plugged into the community" and had been "incurious". "But … I think where the exaggeration has occurred is in thinking that he knows of abuse and he doesn't care. And that fits a stereotype," he said, adding that Pell had devoted his life to the church. "I mean, you gotta [sic] really think he's a sociopath, as some clearly do, and I think that's highly improbable." Bolt has been in Rome to cover the Cardinal's testimony for Sky all week, watching the extraordinary testimony of the man he has so long championed. It remains to be seen, if Bolt does get his one-on-one interview, if he will ask the question he posed in his column: Is the Cardinal a liar?

I understand what you are saying and I am sure the AFL loves the extra exposure and interest and the AFL certainly don't want rusty games in round one but I don't believe this is the main driver for practice matches. As yet I have never heard a coach say that they don't want practice matches ( due to injuries or any other reason). The coaches certainly have showed very tepid support for state of origin as it risked a lot in terms of injury for little reward and there is not 100% acceptance of the Irish games either ( players that would go into a Grand Final with a niggle do not do the same with the hybrid games)

I was going to write something along the lines of suggesting minimums - Petracca - minimum 3 weeks but imagine the outcries ! - "that doesn't tell us how long he will be out for !!!" Maybe they should go with a broader range - 3-8 weeks - still don't think people would be happy.

Disagree - practice matches or against other clubs have existed since I have been watching the game ( a looong time). An in house practice match will always be compromised. You need to divide your list in two to have an inhouse practice match. I think it is important to your game plan that you have as close to your best team as possible so we have cohesion going into to the season. So that leaves you with two choices play at intraclub match between your possible best 22 versus the rest which is basically a mismatch - not what you want make the two teams more evenly matched as they did in the intraclub match we already had by playing some better players on both teams - this doesn't really help team cohesion and getting the game plan down with the best 22. There are plenty of other reasons - you want your coaches to coach against opposition coaches so they can also perfect what they are doing and be critiqued by the head coach. Do players treat intraclub games seriously enough ? Viney did and even his Captain said there is a unwritten rule as to what you can do your team mates and Viney may have gotten a bit ahead of himself ( or words to that effect) so in the Captains mind you do not go about an intraclub game full pace. If you suggesting all practice matches are banned including intraclub - I disagree even further. I will ask you a question - we have been training the house down for years but not one premiership in recent memory ! You only improve through competition and intraclub competition is a good start but practice matches against other clubs is even better.