La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

Looophole identified. Well done.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I suspect there'll be criticism of over-officiating by umpires initially, but if this speeds up the game as intended, it may have the result of stopping flooding. Teams may well have to ensure they keep a couple of defenders well back to stop the breakaway forward movement from having a free run at goal. Nevertheless, I would prefer to see this rule change tested properly before it is introduced.

Hope all is OK, SWYL. It's appropriate to mention it in this thread but kudos for not playing the "I'm disabled card" previously. PS: I hope the above doesn't come across as condescending or inappropriate. Written with the best of intentions.

Agree. Plus I expect a seventh forward on the bench. I would imagine ANB would be the choice for his defensive pressure.

Do you mean that the scheme provides for the club that offers the invitation to train to have first priority through the AFL's process or do you mean the player has a moral responsibilty to sign with the club rather than another suitor?

Or St Kilda, now that their No 1 ruckman, Marshall, is out injured, although they still do have the aging and injury-prone Ryder and McKernan on their books.

So this means we're still in the running for Oscar McDonald?

Maybe rookies don't count.

Grass roots? I can see Gil now asking, "Who is Grass? And who is he rooting?"

For people who understand these things, is the muscle definition that Daw shows in any way linked to aerobic fitness? In other words, should his physical appearance give us confidence that he's aerobically fit?

The story suffers from a lack of comment from the AFL to explain the changes. If Foxfooty didn't ask the AFL for comment, it's shoddy work. If the AFL was asked to comment and didn't do so, that's exceedingly poor PR and gross mismanagement of the issue. I might be mistaken, but I can't help but view some of the comments from the nine clubs as thinly disguised misogyny.

Lockdown ends tonight. I expect detailed reports of Friday's training. No excuses.

I'm not sure S Burgoyne was "discarded", so: Exhibit 3: Bernie Vince

I remain unconvinced that the club would make money from a social club.