La Dee-vina Comedia

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).

The article says, "Under the new guidelines, the earliest that a player can return to play after a concussion is on the 12th day after the day on which the concussion was sustained." I think that means he's out until 12 days after the 9th, being the day after the concussion occurred which would mean he's out until the 21st.

Love this expression. It suggests there is a type of pace which isn't genuine.

Is that it for Declase (and Farmer)? Or can they continue to train with us hoping to be picked up at the next opportunity, which I assume is the mid-season draft?

Nonsense. All it shows is that Goodwin knows how to take the pressure off players by lowering supporter's expectations.

Daw wasn't considered good enough by any of the 18 teams until we threw him a lifeline today. Hopefully he'll never play a game for us. I say that not because I dislike him, but if he's getting a game, that means we have too many injuries and/or McDonald and Jackson aren't playing as well as they are capable.

How ironic that the phrase "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" was first expressed by the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Different spelling, so I assume no relation of Aaron Nietschke.

Not quite. He hasn't played another AFL game just yet. But at least he's given himself the opportunity to do so.