La Dee-vina Comedia

Demonland straying into economic theory here with the Gini coefficient.

I'm not sure that Howes is the "obvious out" given Viney and Howes play very different roles. I do agree that Howes is one of the options, but I could also see Lindsay being "managed" (he looked tired last week) or Windsor being omitted on form.

It depends what you want. If you want the sugar hit of immediate wins, play Turner forward. If you want to win a Premiership, play Turner in the backline as he's going to be replacing one of May or Lever when they retire so best that he hones his defensive craft now.

Sure, Kossie might still want to "make noises about playing in WA", but Barrett seems not to realise that the longer contract gives us a stronger hand in any trade negotiations. This would result in a better deal for us if a trade does happen.

Should we list you as "managed" this week, so you won't have to watch the next game?

Damned if they do and damned if they don't. I suspect for every overrule that we supporters don't like I expect there are at least as many over-rules we are glad were made.

The Americans like Kosi's evasive skills so much they've named a training centre after him.

You can't really know who McRae and Goodwin voted for. Nevertheless, who do you think from Melbourne should have been awarded votes ahead of Pendlebury and Sidebottom?

I'm astonished that it's taken this long. I assumed he was already inducted. (I'm not being critical of any of the new inductees, but there is a fair bit of recency bias. I am sure there are many players from earlier eras - like Garry Lyon - who should be inducted before players who retired just a few years ago.)

I thought the umpiring yesterday was as poor as I have seen. But it's not entirely the fault of the umpires. A bigger problem are the rules themselves. There is too much that is subjective which imposes unreasonable pressure on umpires to make decisions in the heat of the moment. Much of the problem is caused by the AFL's consistent tinkering with the rules where they fix one problem only to create another. It's perhaps a topic worthy of its own thread but fixing the rules would be easier and more effective than improving the standard of umpiring.

(deleted)

Mind you, it's not a patch on (arguably) the most famous newspaper headline ever: The genius behind ‘Headless Body in Topless Bar’ headline dies at 74

Not sure I agree.

May 5. Gawn 4. Oliver 3. Bowey 2. Pickett 1. Langdon

We lost to the top team by one point! Why all the gnashing of teeth here? The only change I would consider would be bringing in Viney if he's ready. I'm not sure who for, though. As much as I want to get games into the first and second year players, perhaps one of them needs a rest?

I think it's OK, as long as they don't get off at any of Malvern, Armadale or Toorak Stations.

I can see either Howes replaces Lever in the side or Howes, Bowey, Salem and Judd play the four "small" defender roles allowing Windsor to return to the wing. If that latter is the case, it would suggest that the "Windsor to the backline" experiment is over.

Which one? They have so many!

No need to change on my behalf. I was just curious as to its etymology in reference to our training reports.

People overlooked for the top job often move on. I don't know whether David Chippindall, our acting CEO, wanted the job or not, but if he did, I could see him now looking elsewhere for a promotion. And that's fine.

When did the expression "flush run" join the lexicon? It seems to have become all the rage on Demonland over the last few weeks. It's not a term I'd previously heard of until about 6 weeks ago.

Won't help as we don't know how to hold onto a lead. (With apologies to the caller to radio about 10 years ago who first used that line when Richmond kept losing)

Let's consider whether the rule is needed at all. The alleged purpose of the deliberate/insufficient intent rule is to keep the game moving. This is because (1) there is an expectation that the game is a better spectacle if it is kept moving and (2) a ball going over the boundary line causes play to slow. I think consensus would likely be that point (1) above is valid - the game is better when it moves quickly and we don't have rolling mauls. I'm not convinced, however, that point (2) necessarily has to follow. As the rules exist now, I suspect a ball going over the boundary line does cause play to slow. But what would happen if we got rid of the inane "ruck nomination" rule and just threw the ball back in immediately instead of waiting for the nominated ruckmen to make it into position? I think the game would continue to move quickly and we remove one of the more difficult rules for field umpires to have to interpret.

Probably a bit harsh, but I think he was closer to an undertaker than a caretaker.

He's one of very few players we have who shocks me when his shots at goal miss. I agree with others that he strikes me as a future senior coach.