La Dee-vina Comedia

Jetta shouldn't play precisely because of form. If he happens to need a rest because of the head knocks, that just makes it more palatable publicly. (I was going to say "softens the blow" or "lessens the impact". both of which seem inappropriate terms under the circumstances.)

I think it's well accepted that Scott is quite eccentric. (His age is irrelevant, although the age of the incident is not.)

1. Were there even salary caps in place then? 2. Would Don Scott even know what was going on, or just think that he knows? 3. How reliable would any evidence be now? 4. (If salary caps were in place), how many other clubs were breaching the cap at the same time? I safely predict this will go nowhere. Which is precisely the right direction.

Thanks for your work, Mazer. I suspect, though, that the wording of part (a) is the relavant provision with "unrealistic attempt" being short-hand for not "legitimately Marking [or] attempting to Mark". I can't even work out what part (c) means. What does "unduly pushes or bumps an opposition player" - and in particular the word "unduly" - mean? It can't mean either Prohibited Contact (which I assume is a defined term elsewhere likely to include high contact and arm chopping) or engaging in Rough Conduct (which I assume is also a defined expression) as both those forms of contact are addressed in (e) and (f). And after all that, I still don't see why players should not be allowed to make "unrealistic attempts". If they want to waste their time and energy taking a high-risk option, who cares?

I'm assuming Brayshaw isn't 100% fit. Otherwise I can't understand his reduced game time. Pickett is really struggling and I would be giving him a rest even if we had a 7 day break. I think Jetta's time has passed. I would rest those three. In addition, if it's time for Bennell to to take a break, now is the week to do so. I'm comfortable with Jackson remaining in the team as he seems to be gaining momentum. I'm assuming Jones can back up again. As to the replacements, I would bring in Tom McDonald for Pickett (!, thereby playing Jackson as a mobile forward rather than a designated KPF), Hunt for his pace to replace Bennell, Rivers for Jetta and Tomlinson for Brayshaw's vacant wing position. If Jones is also rested, I'd bring in ANB or Sparrow.

6. Oliver 5. Viney 4. May 3.Petracca 2. Gawn 1. Salem In consideration: Hibberd and Langdon

I think Jones has played 287 games. He might not get to 300, but if he gets to 292, he'll be in the top 100 of all players to have ever played VFL/AFL. That's a fantastic achievement, especially as he missed out on playing finals for all but two of his seasons. (Hopefully, that becomes three seasons before the end of his career).

No need to apologise. I had assumed it was sarcasm. I think we're both trying too hard to make sure we're not insulting the other!

The AFL should just bite the bullet and permanently relocate the Kangaroos to Cairns and change the club's name to Far North Melbourne

You may have written this post in sarcasm font, but I don't really think the umpires are to blame. The custodians of the rules who have designed a game that requires the umpire to make hundreds of judgement calls (interpretations) in every game are surely the main cause of the problem. To get better umpiring we require (1) clearer rules where there is less need for "interpretation", (2) where "interpretation" is still required, fewer changes to "interpretation" during the season; (3) coaches to have zero influence over changing the rules and (4) a more transparent process of reviewing the quality of umpiring of each game (that is, the AFL should stop defending everything the umpires do and be more willing to admit mistakes were made).

Completely irrelevantly, I wonder whether the Tas Premier Gutwein and Simon Goodwin are related? I could see how their surnames may have derived from the same original source.

Is "unrealistic attempt" actually a rule? If so, why? Why not let players fly for unrealistic attempts and penalise them only if they push an opponent in the back or if the ball is not within 5 metres while doing so? That would mean the rule being broken would not be the "unrealistic attempt" but instead a push in the back or whatever the rule is called when a player is pushed when the ball is further than 5 metres away.

If playing lists are to shrink next year as anticipated, should he retire (however it's described), it would just mean one fewer player from the remainder who also has to leave. In other words, I wouldn't expect an early departure to "open up a place on the list" for another player.

In my view, it's no contest. I would take Maroochydore over Cairns, too. But living out of a suitcase anywhere can be very mentally tiring. If I were not with my family, I suspect I'd be one who wouldn't mind the change, if, for nothing else, just for some different food options.

Everyone's different, but I wouldn't be surprised if some players in the Maroochydore hub might like the opportunity to go to Cairns for 2 to 3 weeks just for a change of scenery. It must be very limiting being in a hub, wherever it is located and however nice it is, with all the restrictions in place.

What's happened to Dunkley? Is he a rookie?

Who's in favour of the club providing Demon facemasks instead of scarves with the 2021 membership?

I'm not a fan of Smith, but I'm not surpised. The emergencies each week are usually, if not always, made up of a forward, a defender, an onballer and a ruckman. Picking Smith suggests he's the next best defender and only likely to play if one of the others is unavailable. Having said that, I don't know the Brisbane team at all. If it is going to be wet, and with Stefan Martin missing, could we possibly be contemplating not playing our Oscar because there's not an appropriate match-up for him? In that case, Smith could come in. I hope that doesn't come to pass, though. I thought Oscar was good last week and I'd like to see him get some continuity with May and Lever. My best guess is that Tomlinson will come in for vandenBerg (because a two way runner is going to be valuable in the wet and I think Tomlinson is better for the role than ANB or Jones ) and that T McDonald will replace Jackson (because I think Tom's bigger body will be better suited to the conditions than Jackson's).

Things might have changed recently because of Covid, but isn't Neitz still involved in the coterie or commercial side of the club? I seem to recall him being involved in fundraising or glad-handling sponsors in some sort of official capacity. I have no idea (if mymemory is correct) whether it was a paid or voluntary role.

Is it wrong to say that if it's really wet it might be appropriate to have Rivers floating back? (With appropriate recognition to Denis Commetti for the last three words above)

If it's going to be wet I suspect Jackson will not play. I just feel his lighter frame will not be conducive to him having much impact on a wet day. I'd rather players with lower centres of gravity, such as Tom McDonald, who are more likely to stay on their feet.

So, Goodwin's been reading Demonland again.

Fair enough. You've got a source you're happy with so I'll accept what you say.

Two animal facts I've learned from football commentators are that (1) fish rot from the head and (2) cat's apparently have hard heads.

With all due respect, Pollyanna, wouldn't any such injury payment be covered by the club's insurer and therefore not impact on the club's finances?