La Dee-vina Comedia

All we know is what is included by Jeff White in the photo in the OP. Given the #kinghit hashtag, I think we can assume it is from the Stephen King kick. It actually raises a question in my mind about the kicking in danger rule. I don't know how the rule is worded but it seems to me a free kick (pardon the pun) is only paid if the kick actually makes contact with an opposition player. I would have thought a free kick should be played whenever there is a risk of such contact rather than only when contact is made.

Fair points. My reason for saying the comparison is fair to make, though, is not because of what Viney did but what other people might do. We know suburban and amateur football can be violent. A player who copies what Viney was doing may not appreciate the nuances of duty of care and press on another player's neck for too long depriving oxygen to the brain. That's why I think it's not unreasonable to bring George Floyd into the conversation. I appreciate others may think my view is an over-reaction, but I'd rather err on the side of safety.

ouch!

Should be both. I've said previously that the whole MRO/Tribunal/Appeal framework needs to be redeveloped. I don't just mean the process and the people involved, but a full review of its purpose (is it to punish players? educate players? does it have a responsibility to set precedents for the broader football community? should it protect the AFL's image? etc) It seems to me there continues to be divergent views and much mixed messaging as seen by the discussion about the Viney case in this thread.

Yes, but would you have read the story if it had said 'suburban footballer'? The headline writer got what she/he wanted by getting you to read the story.

I'm not sure if this is a question for linguits or philosophers. But if someone has MFCSS are their worries irrational or rational? Isn't the irrationality the MFCSS rather than the worries? I expect written answers on my desk by midday tomorrow.

I haven't seen or heard any George Floyd comparisons but it is absolutely relevant to make them. Viney's actions need to be condemned precisely because we don't want professional or amateur players doing what Viney did and assuming no physical harm can come from it. It doesn't take much for something to go horribly wrong and leave the victim with permanent damage.

Just to clarify, three times better than no vaccination or three times better than an alternative, such as Pfizer or Moderna? I assume the former...but we know making uninformed assumptions about Covid and vaccines can be misleading and dangerous.

The holding the ball/incorrect disposal rule is so confusing and inconsistently applied I have no idea how a coach could explain to any player what they should do once in possession of the ball.

It's also possible the suspension did the Match Committee and Viney a favour. By suspending him, he doesn't get dropped even though I believe his form warrants it. As I've said previously, I wonder whether Viney's actions were due to frustration perhaps caused by his body not allowing him to do what he wants it to do (as shown by him continually getting caught with the ball). A two match break might do him some good.

What if we tell the Greens that we're also taking out two lanes of Punt Road? That will discourage car use...and allow Gosch's Paddock to be extened to MCG width.

What would you use Collins' account for? Degree of injury? I understand that the MRO takes that into consideration but does the Tribunal? And is the degree of injury even relevant for a serious misconduct charge? (If nothing else, I'd like to see Hocking's replacement implement a completely overhauled MRO/Tribunal/Appeal system. The current model is inconsistent and overly complex.)

I've never been a J Smith fan. However, there is logic in him playing a senior game or two before finals in case we need him in September. On the other hand, playing Smith, Petty, Rivers and Bowey in the same side would be a really inexperienced backline quartet.

What we don't know is how much behind we are because of (1) our own incompetence at lobbying successive Governments and (2) because of the insistence of staying within spitting distance of the MCG which thereby reduces options.

Public Service Announcement to compliment = to politely congratulate or praise (someone) for something. "he complimented Erika on her appearance" to complement = to contribute extra features to (someone or something) in such a way as to improve or emphasize their qualities. "a classic blazer complements a look that's smart or casual"

Well, we can remove politician from the list of career choices for Jack post his AFL career. They never apologise.

And to be called ballsamic it must come from Moderna in Italy, so you get a free Covid vaccine as well

If the jumpers were reversed, most on here would be saying dog act and 3 weeks. For what it's worth, I think it deserves 3 weeks. Whether he was provoked or not, it's clearly intentional and head high. I don't know whether it caused any injury (I doubt it). It also suggests to me that Viney's head is not in a good space at the moment. Either his body isn't doing what he wants it to do, or he's frustrated at continually getting caught. In my view, a suspension saves the club from having to make the emotionally difficult decision of dropping him which will give himthe chance to get his mind and his body ready for finals. And to use one of Matthew Richardson's favourite and most overused cliches, "It's not a good look".

The word "Confirmed" doesn't mean what it used to mean. These days it mean "Confirmed for now - subject to change - possibly at the last minute". The evidence is in this thread.

I'm not sure if you were being serious, but I would be very disappointed if it lost the name of "Gosch's Paddock". There's something noble about preserving the history of the site for the league's oldest club. On the other hand, I'd love there to be a few rows of seating along one side which could be named "The Flower Stand".

Do we know who we took to WA? Presumably, any player who's not in WA by now won't have the necessary clearance to play.

I suspect it is just a coincidence. These negotiations would have taken many, many months, if not years. What I suspect is not a coincidence, though, is that the State Government has come to the party after we've publicly stated we're getting out of the pokies industry. I imagine any State Government approval was contingent on that decision.

If teams can use the medi-sub to replace an injured player who plays the next week, what stops a team from removing an under-performing player on the day who's not really injured but claiming that they are ("hamstring awareness", for example)? May as well just drop the pretence that it's a "medi" sub and give the coaches what they've always wanted - a fifth player on the bench, albeit one who's a substitute and not an interchange. If you look at how this happened, it was originally going to be a "concussion sub" knowing full well that the concussed player would miss 12 days and therefore (except when there's a bye) at least one game. The AFL quite rightly realised that coaches would mis-use the "concussion sub" by using it for any injured player who was going to miss at least a week by claiming he also had a "bit of concussion". Hence the "concussion sub" became the "medi-sub" but without the mandatory 12 day break. Hence, it is now just a sub.

6. Oliver 5. Petracca 4. Lever 3. Neal-Bullen 2. Jackson 1. Hunt

Genuinely entertaining reading the 30 or so posts preceding this one (from the time the Qld lockdown was announced) with the benefit of hindsight. So much (understandable) panic and that's just on Demonland. Just imagine how much lather AFL HQ was in!