La Dee-vina Comedia

There's a lot at stake here for GWS and Greene. Perhaps the AFL is trying to avoid potential Supreme Court action on questions of procedural fairness.

I suspect whatever happens today, there will be an appeal. GWS and Greene will want to appeal any suspension and my gut tells me the AFL will appeal if there isn't a suspension.

There is no doubt in my mind that both teams in the Grand Final will use their sub, whether needed or not. If not already activated due to an injury, the team which is behind in the last quarter will activate him for fresh legs while the team which is leading will activate him so he can enjoy the feeling of being a true part of the Premiership team.

Trojan Horse approach to gain eventual access to the Holden Centre?

Players are already being fined for bumping into umpires accidentally. It would make a mockery of this incident if Greene was fined.

Everyone who's commenting on this game saw it on TV - commentators included. How anyone could tell who was playing on Cameron when he kicked those three Q1 goals I have no idea. Certainly, Smith was closest to him for at least two of the goals, but who's to say he wasn't just the quickest defender to react? My concern with Smith is that he lacks experience, continuity and game sense compared with Hunt. It's not Smith's fault and he should be lauded for getting as far as he has. I just think Hunt is a better option. However, if the match committee decide Hunt should replace Bowey, I think Smith may stay in ahead of Hibberd who I fear has reached the end after providing us with excellent service.

I hope I'm wrong, but this may be a sign that the umpires feel they are not being supported enough by the competition so chose not to make a point about it.

I think it's the best Melbourne team I've seen. I was too young to remember the 1964 team. What I particularly like, though, is the balanced quality between the experienced and the young. To have five All-Australians (and seven in the squad) in the same year as having four players all not just being nominated for the Rising Star but all getting votes from one or more of the judges (who could only choose five players each) is quite astounding. That Bowey got votes after playing only four(?) games is extraordinary.

I seem to recall that in olden days (I mean 1970s), players with a previous guilty record were given harsher sentences by the then Tribunal. When we first moved to the MRP where the points system was put in place (1990s? 2000s?), there was a discount for first offences* (which is the nicer way of saying previous offenders were given tougher penalties). If I recall correctly, the past behaviour provisions no longer exist. Toby Greene is the perfect example (albeit an imperfect footballer) of why repeat offenders should be prenalilsed more harshly. That's pretty much the way most law enforcement works. Increasing penalties for repeat offenders with the intention of getting the offenders' attention. *Edit: Actually, maybe there wasn't a discount for first offences. Rather, I think it was a discount for accepting the penalty without troubling the Tribunal.

To be fair, although they appoint people to the Tribunal and appeals board, the decisions aren't those of the AFL. And I don't support Greene getting off by paying a fine. I just think it will be a way for the appeals board to look like they're trying to be tough on umpire contact. It won't work, though. They'll look weak, instead. If it were up to me, he'd be suspended for 4 weeks and be required to pay a fine of $20,000 to a community group.

I realise you're a Smith fan, but Goodwin has shown all year that players will play only in positions they've trained in or played in (either in the Seniors or VFL). As far as I know, Smith hasn't trained or played as a forward all year. He's not going to be going forward now.

I'm struggling to see how Rivers and Brown get votes ahead of Gawn. Or a few others. Still, if that's how you saw it, so be it.

I'll predict the Tribunal will suspend him for two weeks which will be appealed. On appeal, it will be downgraded somehow and he'll be fined a large sum, maybe $20,000, which will be donated to a community cause, with a suspended sentence of three weeks should he transgress in this particular way again.

Equally, we're not yet gawn. (Sorry)

I think a Royal Commission is required to get to the bottom of this.

Did your calculator explain why the numbers don't add up to zero? (Not that it makes much difference, but the home and away figures add up to -2.)

You made me go back and look at TU's post. I think it is a double negative, but it's not clear cut. If it had been said positively, it would have said "There is no-one on the list" rather than "I doubt there is anyone on the list..." I like a good argument about semantics. And as to the issue, I agree with TU's point. Anyone else would have been criticised if their opponent had kicked 5 on them.

I think Toby will be playing, but I don't think he should. (But I also don't think GWS will win next week, whether he plays or not).

I couldn't find a spot for Langdon... 6. Oliver 5. Gawn 4. Petracca 3. Lever 2. Neal-Bullen 1. Brayshaw Apologies to Viney, May and Langdon.

Seems to have recognised his limitations and keeps his kicks reasonably short (eg, 30-40 metres) so that they more regularly hit targets. Thought he was one of our best last night.

I believe Daisy, Leppitsch, Bartel and J Watson are the best at the special comments role. They all have one thing in common - recently out of the game (or still playing, in Daisy's case) as either player or coach. And it shows in the commentary which is more about strategy than the efforts of individual players (which is the "go to" of the commentators longer out of the game, such as Wayne Carey and Matthew Richardson).

I think Hibberd is the least likely to be the medi-sub because he lacks versatility. If a defender is injured and needs to be replaced, Brayshaw can go back (if it's one of the smaller defenders) or McDonald if it's a tall. Structurally, they can be more readily replaced by Jordan, Jones or Melksham. In other words, those three provide more options than does Hibberd as the medi-sub. The more surprising non-selection as an emergency is Weideman. Not because he should be the medi-sub, but because the idea of four emergencies is to cover all positions for a late change and there is no true tall player as an emergency. I guess if any of our talls need to be replaced before the game, Melksham will come in.

So, if it was a real team instead of one with midfielders masquerading as wingmen and forwards, who would go out and who would come in from the 40 man squad? Assume for a moment that all the true defenders selected (ie, Lever, May, Allir, Stewart, Rich etc) and forwards (Hawkins, McKay, Greene, etc) remain in the team. Would Petracca miss? Would Salem get in? Fritsch?

Not quite fair. Half the Board is leaving, too. That includes Mark LoGiudice and Jeanne Pratt who have each been there over a decade and therefore overseen the appointment of at least 5 unsuccessful coaches.

Not sure what you meant here. North Melbourne? Making predictions about that club's relocation to Tassie or its demise once a new Tasmanian team joins the competition?