La Dee-vina Comedia

And Hawthorn in 1988.

As a matter of interest, how many games have van Rooyen, Fritsch, Pickett and Petty (playing as a forward) played together?

Too much petty discussion and not enough Petty discussion going on here.

MFC needs to lift its game. It now seems the preferred strategy is to get two sons per father.

I think Albert Einstein wasted his time developing his theory of relativity and telling us that E=MC squared. We all would have been much better off if he'd used his talents on the mathematics of trading and drafting.

I think what will be more awkward for the AFL is if the rules are not changed to make clear that what Maynard did will no longer be considered a "football act". I have no doubt that the AFL would prefer players who do what Maynard did to be suspended. The process which has been followed gives the AFL all the evidence it needs to change the wording of the relevant rule to ensure players with the ball are properly protected.

I highly doubt May hasn't had shellfish before, so I'm curious from a scientific point of view as to how he had an allergic reaction this time. I didn't know it was possible to have an allergic reaction to something one has previously not been allergic to.

Is there any evidence that there has been a leak within the MFC? Couldn't the story have come from a player manager or someone Petty might have spoken to outside the club (if, indeed the story is true)? Or even Petty's family who may have been speaking in hope rather than trading in fact?

I agree with Oscar Wilde who said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about". All media - positive or negative - proves we're relevant. I'm happy with that.

Sucking up to the boss already. No wonder he got the job. Hopefully he will also complement Goodwin, too.

What's the alternative? With Jordon, Hibberd and Dunstan already off the list and Grundy and perhaps Harmes looking to leave, the real question to ask is whether there will be a player in something like the 4th or 5th round of the draft who is worth pursuing. And that hasn't taken into consideration whether all of the remaining listed players are kept on.

A related question...why? Why was he there? He was clearly no chance to win, wasn't in the running for mark or goal of the year, wasn't club captain or in the AA team and obviously wasn't this year's Rising Star award winner or Coleman medallist. So who invited him and why? If it was the club's decision, why wouldn't you use that spot for someone else who never gets the opportunity. For example, someone like Neal-Bullen, Salem or Langdon?

The answer to the opening post's question seems bleeding obvious to me. Every club, like every business of this size, should do an annual review. I would be in favour of having an external, independent person head the review but include on it a member of the Board and at least one member of the football department. And to go one step further, I would only allow the external independent person to be involved in a maximum of three annual reviews. Any more and they would lose their independence.

The AFL needs to make a decision. Are the Giants the team for Western Sydney or Canberra? They can't be both. It's insulting the people of both western Sydney and the ACT as it's effectively saying we don't think either of you can support an AFL team by yourselves.

It's also about access to grounds. At the same time that we were poor from 1965 to 1986, the Melbourne Cricket Club allowed children into the ground on what was then called a Ladies' Ticket, but only up to the age of 15. Because the old ground had a smaller members' area and the waiting list to join the MCC was so long, membership wasn't offered until people had been on the waiting list for about 20 years. Consequently, for those put onto the waiting list at birth there was a 5 year gap between turning 16 and when membership was offered. Sure, those people - and I was one - could have found other ways to get into the ground, but with the team performing poorly, there wasn't really the incentive to do so. For a while there, we just found other things to do where we were made more welcome and had more enjoyment.

It's an interesting suggestion for a couple of reasons: Goodwin was an assistant when Hird was senior coach. Could they work together with the roles reversed? As a player, Hird had a skill few players have had of knowing what he was going to do with the ball before he even got it. And then he executed perfectly most of the time. But just because a player has this skill can they coach it into others?

Makes me wonder...would clubs have some responsibilities (OH&S, etc) for the behaviour of players at "Mad Mondays"? I know at my workplaces over the last 20-30 years, the employer has had increased responsibility for the behaviour of its employees during events such as Christmas parties, etc.

According to this article, we have the third highest conversion rate of supporters into members. The story should come with a caveat, though. Supporter numbers are calculated by Morgan Research so must necessarily be an estimate. And thank goodness Collingwood supporters are so pathetic at converting that support into membership.

So, who does he replace in your top two...Petracca or Fritsch? (I do agree he was probably third best, though.)

That's one way of looking at it. The other way is that Laura Kane sent the matter to the tribunal as a test case to know whether the laws of the game satisfactorily addressed Maynard's action. Kane now knows they don't so can work to find a way to change the rules to make it clear that what Maynard did should be an offence which results in suspension.

It's no more odd than our best accumulator (Dunstan) not getting games in the seniors. There's more to football than a single strength. With respect to Bedford, I don't think it was Spargo keeping him out; I suspect (but obviously don't know) that the club thought Chandler had moved ahead of him in the pecking order and consequently thought Bedford was unlikely to get the game time he wanted.

Actually, the idea of giving one individual the power was intended to overcome the previous iteration called the Match Review Panel, or MRP, which had more than one person involved which resulted in massive inconsistency. The MRO, in theory, should eliminate much of that inconsistency, but I believe it's too much to expect one person to make these decisions every week for a full season. I suspect there is no "perfect" model, but I do like the suggestions made earlier in this thread that the role being undertaken by the MRO would be better filled by former field umpires. I'm not arguing for against the decisions Michael Christian has made during his time as the MRO, but I admire his willingness to accept the slings and arrows of misfortune that have come his way, week after week for doing a thankless task. For that, he deserves commendation.

Genuinely surprised that Gawn didn't get 10 votes. Every person I've spoken to who saw the game, whether on TV or live, or are supporters of Melbourne, Collingwood or neutral, have said that Gawn was clearly BOG and by a big margin.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if Noble is a late inclusion for one of the ruckmen should the predicted wet weather arrive before gametime.

All this discussion about the weather...pfft..it's just seasonal. It's Colliwobble season.