La Dee-vina Comedia

With so few people flying, it might not even be necessary. We might end up with a plane to ourselves as the default position anyway.

It's not often that our game not having any international interest can be to our advantage. But having no teams in the competition from outside Australia helps keep the 2020 competition a possibility. With travel bans in place it is obviously much harder, or even impossible, for those competitions which have teams in different countries. While I understand the view of some that we shouldn't be playing at all, I can also see that as a society we need entertainment, particularly activities that can be consumed at home. If it is safe for the AFL to play (and I appreciate it's a big 'if' and that it's a very changeable landscape), I think they're doing the community a service by continuing to play.

If there are not enough games played to have a meaningful ladder for 2020, one option might be to use the 2019 ladder positions. Another, though, might be to take the last 5 years to smooth out the impact of a single year's results. I don't believe there is a perfect solution, whichever way it goes. And if the AFL asks clubs to draft now to boost lists to 50 players, maybe there won't be an end of year draft at all as clubs will likely have to shed about 6 players each before contemplating any new additions.

If there's no state league, no school football and no Under-18s, should make for an interesting draft. Players will be drafted based on 2019 performances.

I've been unsuccessfully trying to self-isolate from this thread but somehow I keep getting sucked back into it. My weakness, I know. Now I'm going to try again. See you all again in other threads.

Noble, but maybe best wait until you're sure he's no longer infected.

Why do you say that? I understand that it still might be cancelled or postponed if a player has the virus before Round 1 commences, but the Government (Federal, States and Territories) will want the community to be entertained while we're in semi-lockdown.

I've always been against having a pre-season competition but if it's going to be played, why don't the AFL trial 16-a-side in next season's pre-season competition? If they do, I also think they should incorporate Peter Ryan's execllent suggestion in The Sunday Age that 16-a-side be played with a mandatory 5-6-5 starting position rather than 6-4-6. And while I'm on the topic of the pre-season competition, I noticed in the scores of the pre-season's games that the 9-point goal still existed. I can't think of one good reason why that's still there.

I'm starting to get a sense of what it might have been like during 1939-45 when profucts were in short supply and all sorts of activities were stopped for part or all of the duration. I suspect as a society we will whinge a lot more than the war-time community did who just got on with life knowing there was a reason for their deprivations.

There's a gouging opportunity here. Sell 499 tickets to each game at an astonomical price.

Virus. But agree with everything else.

Reducing numbers on the field might not reduce congestion. I suspect what will happen will be just as many players will still congregate around the ball leaving fewer players upfield leading to fewer opportunities to score once a ball comes clear of the congestion. Thinking it through, I just see a congested group of players moving like a rugby scrum between the two arcs with the ball rarely getting into the forward 50.

Is it possible that the F1 component is cancelled, but the rest of the event, such as the V8s, is continuing?

Paul McCartney, actually. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Lennon was remembering the way Australian football was played in the 1960s when he wrote 'Imagine'.

I find everything about Richmond offensive. Seriously, though, I have to concede you make sense. Nevertheless, I like the idea of an "attcking first" rather than "defending first" mindset. And it's precisely because coaches' interests in "not losing" outweigh any consdieration they have for the "look" of the game, that we cannot entrust the rules of the game to the coaches.

Nice try, Fox Footy. However, it's already been reported that Fox will be calling some games off TV to cut costs.

Robbo's article, while quite reasonable in its content, is actually saying nothing other than the obvious. Round 1 might be postponed. There's nothing in it other than the obvious and it's full of ifs, buts and maybes, such as "the possibility of delay", "rapidly-developing", "preparing for the worst-case scenario", "couldn't guarantee", etc. If you boil it down, the AFL is doing what it should. It also should have developed contingency plans for circumstances such as these years ago. In theory, there should be a big folder on a bookcase somewhere to be pulled out, dusted off and opened to the right chapter which says what to do when this type of situation arises.

All it might take is an innovative coach who decides to attack first rather than defend. After all, innovation seems to generate Premierships. Every coach with a "Defence First" game plan is really just copying someone else.

I think Kevin Bartlett has been opposed to many of the rule changes introduced and I'm pretty sure he wants interchange numbers drastically reduced, possibly even reducing the number of players on the bench to two per side.

While they're at it, get rid of the ruckman nomination rule. It creates congestion while the boundary and field umpires wait for the ruckman to get to the right spot and then nominate. Ruckman lumber to position which gives the rest of the onballers plenty of time to get to the area. Alternatively, maybe there is no harm in allowing the third man up which is another way to abolish the need for the nomination rule.

I'd keep 18 a side on the ground but have only two men on the bench (plus a concussion sub). I'd also reduce the breaks after every goal kicked to 35 instead of 45 seconds. With only two on the bench there would probably be no need for an interchange cap, but I wouldn't object to a limit of 10 changes per quarter, excluding any invoilving he concussion sub.

It's a viral disease so I'm pretty sure you can only contract glandular fever once after which you get lifelong immunity. According to the NHS (UK): "Once you have had glandular fever, it is unlikely you will develop it again. This is because people develop lifelong immunity after the initial infection." https://www.nhsinform.scot/illnesses-and-conditions/infections-and-poisoning/glandular-fever

I don't think it will be Gil's or the AFL's decision. I expect the decision to play in empty stadiums will be a Government instruction. And it's not hysteria, either. The reason for closing stadiums will be to slow, rather than stop, the spread of Covid-19. The reason for that is to reduce the stress on the health and, dare I say, mortuary services, so they are not overwhelmed. For example, we do not have enough ICU space should the virus infect the numbers projected if measures such as social separation are not introduced if required.

I would have agreed with you if one of the captains had said Gary Ablett.

Makes sense. The bigger the ars*hole, the more toilet paper required.