La Dee-vina Comedia

The biggest problem with the rules of the game is where it requires an umpire to make a subjective call. The whole suite of rules for the game should be reviewed with this in mind. However, there will always be some subjective assessment required. I happen to think the holding the ball/incorrect disposal rule is one which will always inlcude some subjective assessment but could be made much easier for umpires to manage. To make it easier for umpires, players and supporters, I would change the rule so that a free kick is paid if a player has had a prior opportunity and does not correctly dispose of the ball in a legal manner when legally tackled. If the ball is knocked out in the tackle or dropped or misses the foot when it is dropped, so be it. Free kick to the tackler. The only subjective parts of the rule should be (1) whether the player has had prior opportunity and (2) how long the player with the ball is given to dispose of the ball correctly. I would also like to see another minor change. If the ball is dropped but kicked by the player after one bounce, make it play on, even if it's just a tap of the boot on ball. That would recognise that the drop kick is still a legitimate kick in football.

I assume you are too young to remember John Elliott as President of Carlton, although his association with pig's anatomy is more associated with it's backside than it's head.

I've noticed a couple of teams (St Kilda when we played them, for example) seem to persist with the short kick out from the goal square to the pocket. That strategy seems much more fraught these days as it doesn't make the best use of the 15 metre goal square plus 15 metre run that is available to whoever has the kick-in duties. We occasionally, but now very rarely, go to the pocket. I don't mind us doing that, though, as long as it remains infrequent, as the unpredictability makes us harder to defend against.

Biggest surprise here is the spelling by Channel 7 of chance as "CANCE". Actually, probably not such a big surprise.

Thanks. Even after 10 viewings I hadn't even noticed that box until you brought it to my attention!

You two should be fined, let's say $3,000 or $2,000 with a guilty plea. As to the incident itself, I've watched that clip 10 times and am still looking for the evidence of a crime. I assume there must be another angle that Michael Christian has seen which shows the incident more clearly.

Werridee might be able to put together a team. I'll donate Nathan Buckley's name to the list. And Nat Fyfe.

Yes. Robert Flower was definitely A+. Anyone who saw him play will agree. No question about it.

To paraphrase Ian Chappell's comment* when Tony Grieg said Steve Waugh might be the best all rounder in the southern hemisphere, I'm not sure Oliver is the best inside mid in his own team right now. Depends on whether you classify Petracca as an "inside" or an "outside" mid. Personally, I think Petracca is a bit of both but more inside than outside. *In 1991-92, when Waugh used to do a lot of bowling, Chappell was in the commentary box with his old pal, Tony Greig, who remarked, “This bloke has to be the best all-rounder in the Southern Hemisphere.” Chappell picked up the microphone and said, “Tony, he’s not even the best all-rounder in his own family.” Chappell always maintained that Mark Waugh was a superior cricketer than his twin. (Source: My memory and https://www.cricketcountry.com/articles/cricketing-rifts-9-ian-chappells-nasty-duels-with-greig-waugh-across-a-generation-12381)

Richmond's figure is astounding - almost twice as negative as the next worst (ie, -56 to Hawthorn's -30). I wonder why this is the case? After 9 rounds it's surely statistically significant, so what's the cause? Purely conjecture, but I wonder if it's a sign of a team that's struggling and giving away free kicks to compensate for its inability to "keep up". Of course, their natural talent means they are still 8th on the ladder, but I just wonder whether the free kick differential is a sign that they are about to go over the cliff?

I know you're not being serious, but to explain why we don't, the answer is quite simple: from October to March - cricket for the rest of the year - read this

6. Salem 5.Oliver 4. Lever 3. McDonald 2. Hunt 1. Jordon Surprised at Spargo getting so many votes. On the other hand, I can understand why others gave votes to ANB and Langdon

Aren't we being a bit precious? Hasn't Demonland been full of posters for years bemoaning us playing home games at Marvel/Etihad? I happen to agree with Hardwick...Richmond shouldn't play home games at Marvel and neither should we. PS: Hardwick is a shocking whinger, though.

I don't know him personally, but a shout out to Channel 7's Chief Football Reporter, Mark Stevens, who has just had surgery for bowel cancer. https://www.epworth.org.au/newsroom/tv-journalist-undergoes-cancer-surgery And just a reminder for everyone else, particularly those over 50, to get checked regularly.

"in line for selection" can be found in the AFL thesauras with same meaning as "in the mix". It's how a club says something about selection without actually saying anything.

The Hawthorn jumper already looks like Port Arthur convict clothes. (Source: https://australiandressregister.org/garment/11/)

Not that it matters, but Marty Hore is in your list twice...with the same % win. Seeing this list really makes me feel for Nathan Jones. Playing might seem "easy" for players like Jordon, Rivers and Jackson, but Jones really did it tough and the fact that he stuck with us throughout those terrible years should never be forgotten.

Not only that, we get commensurate value. We might quibble that any player is worth a bit more or a bit less (depending if we're trading in or out) but essentially there's a market rate which we get (or pay) for any player.

Really good question. Just keeping it close to home, does it happen in NRL, for example?

I know Casey is urban fringe and others have told me that Broadmeadows is apparently a long way north of the CBD, but I don't think that means we necessarily need to engage the National Farmers Warehouse.

I'm pretty sure I've seen Jackson smile once or even twice. I'm convinced he's staying.

Was that before or after people mis-spelt words like "definately"? A word about Jackson. (Takes a deep breath)...he's not that good yet. Rarely holds marks and isn't a great kick, although has reasonable ground skills. However, he shows more promise than probably any other ruckman I've seen at the same age. Certainly more than Naitanui, for example. Losing him for a week or two shouldn't be a huge problem. I would like to see Weideman play. However, the club might want to try the ridiculous Richmond approach of having a small player assist Gawn as nominal second ruck. It didn't work previously with Harmes, but I could see Melksham being given that role. In which case, a smaller player such as Sparrow or Chandler might come in. To be clear, though, my choice is Weideman for Jackson and no other changes (unless there's a Mystery Injury of the Week). [Edit: This post aged well. In the time it took to write, Goodwin has apparently confirmed Weideman to play.]

I know it's been argued that Jackson is a ruckman and midfielder and therefore two players in one. But I don't think the AFL will allow us to replace him with two other players.

I'd be in favour of the AFL awarding North Melbourne Nick Daicos. Gives North a supposed gun...and annoys Collingwood supporters at the same time. Win-win for everybody else.

I agree. But the real value is that it provides the formal mental start to the weekend's football. The fact that there is this announcement, whether people get it via TV, radio, online, social media, etc has the effect of being the starter's pistol getting the weekend of football off and running.