La Dee-vina Comedia

I assume that's Daniel Harford, Jimmy Bartel and...who is White?

Thanks. If I'm reading it correctly, the data on blood clots showing a rate of 1 case per every 100,000 to 200,000 of doses is total of all cases, including fatal and non-fatal. Is that right? And as you point out, getting in your car to escape to the country to avoid lockdown is far riskier than getting AZ and staying put.

I'm a bit worried about your risk assessment thought processes. You willingly stand outside the Casey ground to watch training (for which we are grateful) even though you know there are snakes in the vicinity. The number of deaths in Australia from blood clots caused by AZ is 7 out of 7 million doses given, obviously the classic "one in a million". The number of fatalities in NSW from Covid is 76 out of 8.2 million people. That's more than 9 in a million. Are you sure it's worth taking that risk of remaining unvaccinated when an alternative is available? (I appreciate every person's circumstances and individual health profile can vary.) Oh, and in Australia there is an average of two fatal snake bites per annum. Just something for you to think about.

I think this is essentially the same plot as a Thomas the Tank Engine story but written in a more cryptic way.

Who would you see him replacing in this squad?

Maybe your Pfizer doses are still sitting in a fridge at Windy Hill.

I'd much prefer a wine plan.

Pleased you've joined up. But I'm amused by the post which says "I never post" just above the counter that says you've made 3 posts. Don't be shy. Keep on posting.

Not sure what is a harder task. Melbourne (the team) getting to the Grand Final or Melbourne supporters getting there.

I hope your interpretation is correct. However, it's not what I've been seeing for the last decade. To clarify my previous post, I don't mean that all kicks which might collide with an opponent should be classified as dangerous. Only those where the kicker puts an opponent's health and safety at risk. In other words, where he might be at risk of kicking an opponent in the head or his hands when he's going for the ball. And I just quoted you.

Good post. But you forgot to point out that the expert and not-so-expert commentators seem to go out of their way to say that the very program they are on "probably" should not be re-showing or referring to the incident and then continue to talk about it ad nauseum.

I don't understand why people are concerned with three game memberships. The issue here is having supporters of clubs being converted into members, whether they attend matches or not. It doesn't even matter if the memberships are free or $1000 each. What matters is having 18 clubs which are successful off the field and for that to happen they have to convert supporters into signed-up members. Once signed up, the clubs are then able to offer those members as bait to potential sponsors. Mind you, if I'm a potential sponsor, I'd want to be sure that each of those members that I wish to target with my product is a human!

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.)