La Dee-vina Comedia

Putting two and two together, I've just realised that our new full forward with the Sideshow Bob hair is a Demon-supporting, Demonland moderator with an interest in wine and who lives, or perhaps works (or both), in St Kilda.

Generally I would agree that having a "government led working party" is a recipe for constant delay. However, givem all the land we would be interested in is Government owned, giving the government leadership of this project could work in our favour. I expecy, however, that one of Pert's "jobs" will be to continue to push the government officers to make sure there is continuing progress. Government being in cahrge is another reason why Pert can't keep members updated. It's not "his"project to discuss. Any statements will be controlled by the government.

Ugh! Can't we just use names such as North, Collingwood and Essendon? (Not that it matters, but I have no idea who the Chardonnay Sippers are meant to be). Honestly, the continuing use of these so very unclever nicknames really irritates me.

You could both be right of course. Getting in a list is only half the battle. However, if Oscar does make it onto another list, I suspect he is more likely to play than not.

To be fair, you could ask that question over many things available for sale. The better question is, if someone believes there is a market for this product (and presumably there is), why can't they find a way of witing to print said calendars after the trade period concludes?

AFL is a dichotomy. On the one hand, for supporters, it's all about loyalty. It is impossible for a true supporter of any club to switch alliegances. On the other hand, for the clubs themselves and their players, it's a business. And that's OK. Supporters just have to appreciate that "club loyalty" is the domain of the supporters, not those who work in the industry. As supporters, all we should expect is that when the player is playing for us, he (or she in the AFLW) is loyal and gives his/her all.

bl**dy superpaloozer?

Of course, if you're living in Ohio, you're in the land that has alternative facts.

boozer?

The strategy might also reflect Goodwin's and/or the club's concern that unless the club does well this year, there might not be a "next year" for the current football department. Just like politics, the needs for short-term decisions might interfere with the greater good. I hope that's not the case, but it's a possibility that shouldn't be ignored.

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?