La Dee-vina Comedia

The glory that is Demonland. Two posts in a row. One gives Spargo a minus 1 while the other a vote of +1. My votes: Gawn 5. Bowey 4. Salem 3. Petracca 2. Sparrow 1. Rivers Viney's tackling was superb, but he seems to have forgotten the gameplan once he has the ball. Those long dump kicks don't belong any more. (What's worse, is that perhaps he was trying precision passing and wasn't capable of doing it.)

How to tell someone you're not a member of the MCC without actually saying that you're not a member of the MCC. Am I right?

I imagine we'll try to put Tom Sparrow on Vlastuin.

I know context is everything, but I actually felt a bit uncomfortable reading this. I'm curious...did it also affect others in that way?

I hope your son is OK.

Warwick Capper comes to mind.

I wonder whether the fact that the court was in NSW made any difference? If it had been a Victorian court, there is a stronger argument that the Victorian Premier shouldn't be commenting as it could be construed that the Premier, whatever she said, might have been trying to influence the outcome.

And I suspect someone would have accused her of being "soft on crime" if she didn't speak out. It was really a "no win" situation for her whatever she chose to do.

Really? I could also have added that some people come out of gaol more hardened (as in "hardened criminal") than when they went in. Is that a better argument?

Reasons why some offenders do not end up in gaol include cost. The community has to pay for every person incarcerated. If we as a society want to imprison more people we would have to agree to pay for it. That includes capital expenditure to build more gaols (because the ones we have are already full) plus the daily costs associated with keeping them there (ie, paying prison officers, food, etc). So, for anyone who wants more people to be gaoled, be prepared for your taxes to be increased. Someone has to pay for it.

Would they? I'm not sure about that. Isn't there some law about implied consent (probably the wrong term) that once you are on the playing field, matters are allowed that might be considered criminal off it. The only incident I can recall that ever ended up in the courts was Leigh Matthews hit on Neville Bruns. There have been many more, both before and since, where the incident was more brutal than the Matthews/Bruns incident, but no criminal actions ensued.

Presumably, that's where Balta plays on Thursday. He should be grateful it's there rather than a ground at a correctional facility.

Clever sentence from the Magistrate. More punitive than it might initially seem by deliberately stopping him from playing in some games. I don't know whether it can be appealed, but he'd be risking a heavier option if he tried.

Pickett McDonald (unbelievable effort to be the sole KPD for half the game.) Bowey 3. Gawn Viney Rivers And bonus points to Goodwin for not panicking when Turner was concussed. He could have moved Petty to the backline but stuck with McDonald alone.

As a matter of interest, who was the last CEO we had (excluding temporary appointments) who wasn't a recycled CEO from within the AFL industry? Clearly Pert and Jackson were. I'm not arguing for or against recycling, just curious.

If you can guarantee me a flag in 9 years' time, I'd gladly put up with our current situation. "Only" 9 years is a lot better than 57.

I eagerly await someone in the media linking this to the lack of a permanent CEO.

I'm sure 20 years ago Australian soccer fans thought the men's national team would never be overshadowed by the women's, but here we are...

What's the conflict? That he's a former Demon?

Within the last few days Caroline Wilson has said that she believes Alistair Nicholson is on the short list for the Melbourne CEO position.

I'm more likely to cry if we win.

pragmatic/idealistic

Another way to look at it is that playing soccer removes the "excuse" that the oval shaped AFL ball is the reason for poor kicking. In other words, if they can't kick a soccer ball correctly, then they've got problems (mechanical, psychological) that need to be straightened out before we can expect them to kick an AFL football properly.

Are you suggesting the club ditch the soccer and send the team to Aldi for some body contact work?

Option 1: Have numbers to the ball, numbers at the stoppage. This results in the opposition have a spare on the outside or behind play. Option 2: Only have one player at the ball, leaving players on the outside to receive. Have the same number as the opposition at the stoppage so as to ensure the opposition doesn't have a spare behind play. The correct option is the one that wins the game. The only problem is, it's not until after the game you can tell which option worked on the day.