La Dee-vina Comedia

Australian nicknames at their very best. Made all the more amusing by the likelihood that if Frawley didn't actually have a real nickname, his '-ey' ending would be removed and he'd become 'Frawls'. I'm disappointed in the amount of negative comments about him on this thread. Whatever happened to the "if you can't say anything nice, say nothing" axiom? I think any player who chooses to leave a club is perfectly entitled to do so. It's not like clubs are any more loyal to their players. Just ask Adam Treloar or Jack Watts. And while Frawley played with us, I always thought he gave it his best.

Thoroughly deserved. And it allows me to restate that I believe all the clubs Neale Daniher has been involved with (Melbourne, Essendon, Freo, WCE?) should annually play for the Neale Daniher Cup. It's simply determined by compiling the results of the first game each plays against each other into its own mini-ladder with the top team winning the cup. It would add extra interest in each of those games and continue to remind all AFL supporters of Daniher's extensive contribution to the game.

I wonder about the value of that. What's the success rate of Category B rookies across the AFL? (Of course, it depends a bit on the definition of "success".) I wonder whether the resources used to identify and then develop a category B rookie might be better spent elsewhere. I appreciate the concept of "high risk, high reward", but if the evidence to date suggests the rewards aren't there, maybe we are wasting our time with Cat Bs.

I'm trying to understand how this works from a player's perspective for someone told he is being delisted but will be rookied. Before this, those players could put themselves into the draft for anyone else to take, thereby getting another chance on a senior list, knowing the worst case scenario is ending up on the rookie list of the club that just delisted them. Does this change mean that those players won't have the chance of being picked up by another club?

I'm not convinced there is universal agreement on what the game should be like. Until there is a clear understanding of the desired end product, there's not a lot of point in tinkering with the rules. What I recommend the AFL does is to clearly articulate the desired game style it is looking for. High scoring? Close matches? One-on-one contests? A game for all shapes and sizes? 100 minutes? 120 minutes? Same game for men and women? Same game at the top level as at state leagues, amateurs and under-age? An exportable product? Best for TV? Or best seen in person? Then we can debate what rules should be in place to try to meet those aims. Otherwise the AFL is just going to be fiddling around and we won't know what they're trying to achieve.

It's all Jesse Hogan's fault. Or maybe Jack Watts. If they were still on the list, they'd continue to be the focus of this nonsense freeing us up to debate more important things like whether Petracca needs to lose weight.

The incorrect disposal rule would be easier to adjudicate if a ball being knocked out in a tackle was also considered to be an incorrect disposal. Why it is not judged to be so astounds me.

But is that the net effect? It's also possible that having a second team in Qld makes money for the AFL from broadcast rights and national sponsorship deals. Reducing Qld to a single team might end up costing the AFL more than the cost of keeping the Suns afloat.

Most people like to keep their health private. Perhaps that's what KK wants.

If there is general agreement that the coaches are the problem, maybe we should look at limiting the influence of coaches, rather than worrying so much about the actions of players. For example, why not ban runners altogether? (I suspect the answer, by the way, is it wouldn't work because coaches would use the water carriers to carry messages.)

Otherwise known as the modern Aussie translation of Deuteronomy 18:15... "The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him."

With respect to Sheedy's - or anyone else's - proposals, we should try to minimise the different distances umpires have to determine or measure out. Whether it is a penalty (50m, or anything else), the distance a kick has to travel to be called a mark, etc, the fewer different measurements there are, the easier it will be for the umpires to govern the game. It's already tough to umpire. Keeping distances consistent as much as possible is one way to help the umpires. I accept they can't all be the same, but let's try to avoid having separate distance of 50m, 25m, 15m, 10m, 5m, etc as much as possible

I'm sure there's someone smarter and funnier than me who can turn this into a gag about Mason Cox and his 2nd amendment rights.

Think of the thread title being about dietary advice for Petracca. Makes as much sense.

One of my ongoing concerns with the tinkering of the rules is that I'm not sure what the purpose is. I keep hearing about "congestion", but is that actually the problem or the cause of the problem? Without a clear explanation of what the end-game is, I don't know whether rule changes will fix the "problem". Without becoming political, one of the great strengths of Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan was that it didn't define or try to explain when America was great. The slogan just appeals to differentypeople with differnt views as to when America was great. Some might believe it was in the 60s or the 70s or the 80s or any other era. AFL is similar. Different people have different views as to when the game was at its greatest. If we don't know what we're aiming for, how do we know what will work?

I've always believed buying a membership is not just for attending games. But, for many that's what it's all about and I agree if it becomes too hard to attend, people will transfer their habit to a screen. I'm dead against football on Monday to Thursday nights, other than special occasions. I would, however, favour Sunday night football as a regular thing.

Is that good for the game? It means we wouldn't have the best players playing every week (or, subject to injury, as often as possible).

I wasn't a great fan of the frenzy this year, let alone having one next year. However, I can see an argument as to why the AFL might want to have another one in 2021. At the moment, the only hard evidence they've got is that in 2020, it was a success. Before disposing of it, perhaps they need to find out whether it remains as popular in a more normal season. We can all make a prediction about what we think will happen. I predict it will be unpopular but TV ratings will be good, but not as good as 2020. But unless there is empirical evidence, what we think is not particularly helpful. After the 2021 season the AFL will have evidence about the frenzy model in two years under (hopefully) completely different circumstances. It would then be appropriate to make future decisions based on that evidence.

This is an internet forum. So, yes, there always has to be a conspiracy theory.

I suspect 18 is the new 20. In other words, the true length of the quarter including time on will be about 30 minutes made up of 18 minutes of playing time and 12 minutes of time on. (That's way too much "time on", by the way.)

I think this might be a more appropriate beast for the great Max Walker.

The inference from your post is that Taylor has had to do his job with one hand tied behind his back. Isn't the alternative possible? Wouldn't Taylor be consulted on list management decisions and if he believes he can do better with the rookie draft and a "good deep haul of picks" than the trading strategy we've used, wouldn't his opinion carry some weight? Do we know he's not consulted, or, if he is, that he's ignored as you seem to imply?

But by definition, any criticism of a person must be personal.

Your own words, I know, but that doesn't seem like "pretending" to me. But I accept that perhaps it might be "over-stating". I truly hope that they make good on the promise in the description. We should all be aware by now that mental health of professional sports people and the community at large has been misunderstood and under-resourced for years. A facility like this used for that purpose can only do good.

I'm neither here nor there with this decision. However, with the draft this year being a bigger gamble at the bottom end than usual, re-signing him might have been seen as the less risky option. In other words, if 2020 had been a normal year with junior footy played all around the country, I could see how he might not have been offered another contract.