La Dee-vina Comedia

Demonland exclusive! Photo of Angus Brayshaw warming up:

lol

That doesn't look like Petracca in the #5. He's lost a lot more weight. And what's with his legs? The results of cupping, perhaps? What's that meant to do?

Wouldn't marketing/digital spend be part of the "soft cap"? I realise within the soft cap clubs will prioritise where they choose to spend their money but because of this cap I wouldn't have thought any club would be able to spend massively more on marketing and digital than any other club. If it's not part of the soft cap, then I agree with you.

It's all the fault of the players. In years gone by, the big off-season stories were about player misbehaviour. That line of storymaking has virtually disappeared (for AFL, not so much NRL) so the footy journos - and supporter bulletin boards - have to find something else to discuss.

Don't just take my word for it. Stephen Hocking on SEN this morning said, “They’re finely tuned athletes and they’ll adapt. We think with the kicking change with the guy standing the mark, the return to 20-minute quarters and this, all of it working together is about finding a better balance between attack and defence.” Here's the full story.

I also think that the AFL wants it to happen this way, but I'm not so sure it's "unfortunate". The AFL has had to find ways to overcome the "defence first" mantra of the coaches. It wasn't prepared to wait for a natural evolution which may never happen, so this is a rule change that deliberately swings the pendulum towards attack. Let's wait and see how it pans out.

Unless we're also happy for Larkin to go. (I have no idea if that's the case. I've never heard of the guy.)

We know the answer to this. What we don't know is whether this rule change will fix it. The AFL has been quite clear that it is concerned with the low level of scoring in games. Whether that concern is for the aesthetic of the product or because fewer goals means fewer advertisments on TV (leading to less valuable TV rights) is less clear.

I feel for the umpires. How can they be expected to intepret two contradictory statements? How does "minimal lateral movement" not contradict the next line which (in effect) says a defending player moving off the mark in any direction will lead to a 50-metre penalty?

Yes, awarded in 2015. Full list here

How do we know you're not a disinformation bot coming out of somewhere like Russia or China?

Congratulations to Max and Tom. However, I notice two other former players were also granted L"ife Membership". Given that both played for us in the 19th century how can "Life Membership" be awarded to people who have passed away? What does "Life Membership" mean?

What do you think they were smoking?

Tom McDonald might be either, but not both.

Am I the only one that had a schoolboy humour visual moment when reading this?

Pic #14...I refuse to believe Fraser Rosman is not yet 19 years old. That upper body definition!

Not everyone buys a membership to attend games. Some (many, perhaps?) become members for a sense of belonging to their club and also as a tangible way of showing their support.

Can't believe the auto-censor didn't "remove" this.

Hi Deespicable. An entertaining read but couldn't you at least have made something up? You know the drill...players training the house down, Daw's a big unit and seems to be fitting in well, good to see players using their wrong foot in kicking drills, Oliver is turning into a lobster in the sun. That sort of stuff. None of us would have known the difference and we would have had our need for training news fulfilled.

I will be interested to see how this rule works in practice. In particular, players supposedly "on the mark" regularly position themselves a few metres inboard to encourage (or force) the player with the ball to play along the boundary rather than going more centrally. If it is not now possible for the player on the mark to choose to be anywhere along the lateral line, but solely to a single spot, I expect a lot more attacking football through the middle. I think that's going to be a good thing for the game.

I can't recall ever seeing Petracca kick with his left foot.

I want to defend the 50 metre penalty. I'm not defending any specific rule to which a 50 m penalty might apply, just the 50 metre penalty itself. If the penalty is any less than this (say, 25 metres), players will be encouraged to take more chances in defending illegally knowing that the penalty is not likely to be so dangerous. Those of us old enough to remember when the penalty was only 15 metres can remember how it was used as a "professional foul" to hold up play. While there is an argument to have both 50 metre and 25 metre penalties, I think that puts too much pressure on umpires who already have to be able to measure 50 metres, 15 metres, 5 metres and (maybe, if I remember correctly) 9 metres. I would maintain the 50 metre penalty and players should be taught to defend properly and not infringe in a way that brings the penalty into play. The rules to which the 50 metre penalty applies? That's a different debate.

Not true. Also allowed in cricket for Muttiah Muralitharan's arm in his bowling action.

I think if he's to be added to the list, a decision has to be made by 9 March, which is just under three weeks away.