La Dee-vina Comedia

I'll give two related reasons. Firstly, it's a mark of respect which he's earned. Secondly, and more practically, we run the risk of losing him to another club who might offer him better terms (dollars or length of contract) if we treat him poorly.

A quick check tells me that Goodwin has coached the 5th most games for Melbourne with 134. He'll move to 4th some time in 2025. He's currently the 4th most successful in terms of games won. Here's the top 5 for games: Norm Smith - 310 with a win rate of 64.35% Checker Hughes - 258 (61.24%) Neale Daniher - 223 (48.65%) John Northey - 167 (54.19) Simon Goodwin - 134 (57.46%) The leader for games won is Albert Chadwick who coached 58 games with a win rate of 73.28%. This information puts Goodwin in excellent company. All stats courtesy of Wikipedia.

I understand the rest [insert name of important player here] in the final game of the H&A series. My concern, though, is whether the bye between the last H&A game and the first final means that any rested player ends up having too much of a rest with what will become a three week gap between games.

Clearly it wasn't in 2000 that the premiership was won from 4th position, so it must be some time earlier than that. I have no idea when, though.

Retrospectively? How far back did they go? 30 years?

I'm a bit disappointed that there was no second meaning in Whispering Jack's subject heading. I opened this thinking it was some philosophical point being made by Max that his first goal is family happiness or winning another Premiership.

I can fully understand that the burnout associated with the Richmond job disappeared when offered a new job. I know that over my working life, every time I've changed jobs I have felt re-invigorated, even if I was still essentially doing the same thing. To use a cliche, a change is as good as a holiday.

I'm curious as to why you think this? It seems to me that apart from making use of Brayshaw's and Smith's versatility when necessary, the one thing that Goodwin seems intent on is that we have players with very fixed roles. Do you envisage any specific changes?

There are two different issues at play when the AFL talks about speeding up the game. The first is the style of game. The AFL seems obsessed with having a non-stop game. The second is keeping the length of the game shorter, partly to fit within TV schedules but also because of the perception that today's generation hasn't got the attention span for longer products. I'm not sure I agree that either concern is warranted. Nevertheless, we all have suggestions which can speed up play to meet both. The obvious one which has been commented on over and over is to get rid of the ruck nomination rule. Combined with that, the boundary umpires should stop waiting for ruckmen to get into position. Just throw the ball back in as soon as the umpires are ready. If we "saved" some time this way, we could then go back to the eminently sensible way the game restarted years ago after a behind was scored. That is, after the goal umpires had signalled and more importantly, after the ARC has also given the all clear for every score.

The problem might be with the rule, not the umpires. In summary, incorrect disposal is only payable (1) if the player has had no prior opportunity and does not make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball or (2) if the player has had prior opportunity and does not dispose of it correctly. The problem is generally with part (1) - if the player has not had prior opportunity, it doesn't matter how they dispose of the ball. They can drop it, throw it, etc.

Mind you, players should play to the whistle. The boundary umpires clearly erred, but Viney was assuming they wouldn't make such a mistake. He's got more confidence in the umpires than the rest of us.

Every player is different and I wouldn't know which ones are more prone to worry than others. But, Smith has had trouble locking down a position in the team and been subbed on and off many times. Building resilience in his mindset may be just as important as improving his football IQ (which still needs work).

I'm not convinced Tomlinson was subbed out because he was performing badly. Schache had to be brought on and the only logical place for him was forward, given that should he be needed for a full game it's most likely in that role. That means one of Smith, Melksham or van Rooyen had to lose their spot as a forward. If Smith had been subbed out as a direct swap, the message to Smith might have been more emotionally distressing than keeping him on the ground. So, to get Schache on and to keep Smith on, Tomlinson had to go. (of course, I'm assuming the there was no chance that van Rooyen or Melksham would be subbed out.)

I disagree with your last sentence. Part of the problem is the AFL's obsession about speeding up the game. If defenders have to wait for the goal umpire's decision for a behind to be confirmed every time (and most will take a millisecond to confirm) before kicking in, what's the problem? There is also a big difference between the Adelaide decision and the Petracca decision last week. The Adelaide decision was a "howler" - the reason that the review system was introduced in the first place. The Petracca decision was debatable and not the reason why the system was introduced.

Tough standard. If he'd been the least deserving, I could understand, but the least underserving?

6. Lever 5. Rivers 4. Brayshaw 3. Melksham 2. Viney 1. Neal-Bullen McVee unlucky.

If Grundy doesn't play, it would appear to be "game over" for the Grundy-as-a-forward experiment. There won't be enough time before finals to get the "connection" that Goodwin is always talking about if Grundy doesn't play in the seniors. I'm not as surprised as others should Hibberd not play. He looked miles off the pace when he came on last week. I think he's essentially lost his spot to McVee, with Bowey, Salem and Rivers rounding out the defensive smalls. Smith and Tomlinson are fighting for the other "tall" defender spot to help Lever and May. (Unless Smith replaces Grundy as a forward in which case Tomlinson will definitely play.)

Now do yourself a favour and watch the Ian McKellen 1995 version of Richard III set in fascist England in the 1930s. Absolutely sensational. Or, if you have the time, watch The Hollow Crown series from start to finish. It's unbelievably compelling.

Anyone growing up in the 1960s will remember this advertising slogan.

The first seven words of Richard III were certainly appropriate when Oliver started his career.

If the player has not had prior opportunity the rule seems to suggest that players can throw the ball as long as they made a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball correctly. In other words, a skilled player could make it look like it's a genuine attempt and throw the ball.

I agree. It's the job of coaches to get their players to play to the rules. If that means exploiting the rules, so be it. I think rule 18.6.3 is poorly worded, but one thing that is clear is that the rule is not. Incorrect disposal is not an automatic given every time a player is tackled and doesn't dispose of the ball correctly. The more I read this rule, the more sympathy I have for the umpires because of the number of different elements they are expected to consider before making a decision in a split second.

Rather than us all guessing, here's the Holding the Ball rule in its entirety. Have a close look at part 18.6.3, particularly the bit that says "For the avoidance of doubt..." which, in fact, causes all the doubt! In short, if a player has not had prior opportunity and makes a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball but fails to dispose of the ball correctly, it's not a free kick. Err, I think... 18.6 HOLDING THE BALL 18.6.1 Spirit and Intention - The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle. 18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled. 18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled. For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when: (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football; (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession. 18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled. 18.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

Imagine if we didn't try our hardest so we finished fourth instead of third...and we got done for tanking!

Most unlikely. If that were the case, it would have become public. There's no way the AFL could issue such an instruction, even secretly, without an umpire or former umpire having told someone in the media.