La Dee-vina Comedia

I thought Liam Jones' game last night was diabolical. In the unlikley event the Carlton heirachy agrees, Oscar might find himself playing in the backline sooner than he might have expected.

If Vlaustin plays in Richmond's next game, we can officially declare Stephen Hocking a loser and the coaches the winners. They will have got their way with, effectively, an extended interchange bench. The concept of the injury sub only works properly if the player subbed off misses 11 days AND at least one game (to stop clubs gaming the system - which they will - when the club has a bye).

Just out of curiosity, why did you choose 2006? It's not like we dominated football in any other year from 1965 onward.

Not every player is a gun from day 1. Michael Tuck played 50 reserves games before becoming a regular senior player. Similarly, Robert Dipierdomenico (how you spell that I don't know*) played 99 reserves games. Both went on to reasonably successful careers winning 7 and 5 premierships respectively (and a Brownlow Medal). We should be patient with all our players. *With apologies to Greg Champion

My favourite part of the story on the AFL website is the line which says, "As reported first by AFL.com.au on Friday..." Great investigative reporting! My take is that the AFL wanted a "concussion sub" for legal mitigation reasons and decided that a player subbed out must not play for another 12 days. However, the AFL (quickly for them) recognised that coaches would abuse the rule and use the sub for any player with an injury likely to keep them out for 12 or more days by claiming that player also had concussion. So, to avoid the rorting - or more correctly, to accept the rorting - the AFL went with an "injury sub" instead. I like the concept, but don't like the rushed introduction.

I guess it balances with the player who gets injured immediately after the ball is bounced to start the game but before he has any stats himself or any influence over the game (other than making his team one short for the whole match).

In Alberton did Williams M A stately Telstra-dome decree: Where Sheeds, the sacred Bomber, man Through caverns measureless to man Down to a sunless sea.

I wonder how hard it is for a person who was once a Senior Coach to subsequently be an Assistant Coach? Apart from the hit to the psyche, it must take some discipline to reign in the urge to take control. Nevertheless, there are and have been plenty of them, such as Williams, Voss, Leppitsch, Rattan, Bolton and (I assume) more.

Some good points here. I particularly favour the idea that the player "subbed out" cannot play in the team's next game rather than missing a period of days. I agree that otherwise the system will be gamed prior to byes and finals. (I'm prepared to make an exception if the next game for the team is the next season.) However, I don't think you can require that the substitute player be selected for the next match as the sub himself may be injured either in the part of the game he plays or at training (or he could be ill, have a car accident, have personal problems, etc)

I know it's just a clip and therefore perhaps out of context, but was Robbo more concerned that a rule is changing a few days before the season begins than he is for the mental health of players? Reasonably poor response from McLaughlin, too, claiming it's not a rule change because it's not actually a change to the way the game is being played.

If the changeover is 2.7ish from the previous season, then the non-changeover is 5.3ish. Hence, a team in the final eight the previous year is almost twice as likely to be in the eight the next year than fall out of it. If I'm predicting for a living, as are these 'pundits', I'm picking last year's eight to all make it as the mathematical odds favour that outcome above any other option.

Do we know why he's no longer at Richmond? Problems with their soft-cap or did we poach him directly from under their noses? Or something else?

It has been suggested in the media that the re-introduced sub might be for all injuries where a player may miss the next week. Makes sense to me. Otherwise a crafty coach will say that a player who tweaked his hamstring also had a "touch of concussion" allowing the sub to be activated. That would have the impact of delegitimising concerns about concussion which is not what the AFL or the players want.

Exhibit 1: Why personal guarantees are meaningless.

"News Ltd still need to get rid of Malthouse in the Herald Sun"

I've worked out why Gawn has a beard. Doesn't want to be confused with Popeye. Here's the evidence (and note Popeye's jumper, too):

Sounds like a type of fast food

It seems like a good idea to me. Because the player subbed out of the game can't play again for 11 days (they can play again on the 12th), it can only be used as a tactical move for fresh legs if the team has a bye the following week. That means virtually all of the time the sub will be used when there's a genuine need. The real benefit is for the borderline concussed player. It will be far easier for the medical assessors to err on the side of caution knowing there's a replacement player. And that makes it a safer game. Also, the sub will actually give the carry-over emergency a genuine role.

Really? We know there will be no B Brown, Weideman, Viney. There must be doubts on May, Salem and Melksham. And probably others that I've missed.

Not sure, but I think it's safe to say that whoever he's been coaching, the demons are always on the other side.

Seriously disadvantaged.

Yeah...nah. I still remember a game at the MCG when he forgot to take his tracksuit top off when running on to the ground from the interchange bench. This would have been back in the days when interchange players waited a long time for their turn so kept jackets on to stay warm. He ran on about 20 metres, realised and returned quickly to the bench to discard the unnecessary garment.

Not sure why this ended up as a "Quote". Software glitch? Or perhaps user error.

Concussions can be caused by whiplash. Maybe the knock to the chest caused concussion that way? I'm just stirring the pot. Surely we don't have to keep reminding posters that everyone lies in the AFL? It's the second language of football (after gobbledygook).

I think I'm wrong. The 12th day after the 9th is the 20th. (Of course, irrespectivce of the number of days, he shouldn't play if he still has any symptoms, whatever the date).