La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

Just to clarify, do you hate the teams or their supporters or both? I admit I haven't been to many grounds. If I can recall correctly, I've seen matches at Moorabbin, Princes Park, Lakeside Oval, Glenferrie Oval and the SCG. Of those, I enjoyed the SCG most followed by Moorabbin.

OK, clearly I'm an outcast. I love all other 17 teams equally. Not as much as I love the Demons, of course. I love the other teams because I love Australian Football and without them I don't have a competition to love. Our enemies are not the other 17 clubs. Rather, the people to hate are those that try to take the game away from the people (media, mainly, but also marketing ideas people) and other sports and recreational activities that rather than co-exist, try to steal supporters and revenue streams from the AFL. I get that other people's hatred might sometimes just be tongue in cheek. But I cannot summon any hatred for the other 17 teams. I do, however, get the most joy whenever Collingwood is defeated.

If AFL games proceed without spectators, it will be interesting to see if the AFL negotiate with its media partners to ensure all those games are broadcast on free-to-air TV.

I'm not disputing what you say because that appears to be the way the MRO operates, but if the AFL is serious about preventing concussion, it needs to penalise for the risk associated with the act not for any injury that it causes. If it is going to make this change, it needs to make sure that the players and coaches know so they can understand the consequences of the players' actions before they choose to bump, sling tackle or punch an opponent.

Insert finger down back of throat emoji. I didn't realise corporate-speak of the meaningless variety was in Goodwin's repertoire. Maybe that's because I never listen to his (or any other coach's) press conferences.

Based on what I've read in this thread (admittedly I haven't read every post) it seems like the back 7 for Round 1 (assuming everyone fit and well) might be: May, Lever, Salem, Harmes, Jetta and Hibberd plus one of O Mac (if we need an extra tall), Hore (if we need a medium tall) or Lockhart (if we need an additional small). I'm not saying that Lockhart doesn't deserve to play round 1, but if WC play Darling, Kennedy and a resting ruckman forward, won't we need a third tall defender? And if so, where, then, would Lockhart fit in? Is he a better option than Salem, Jetta, Hibberd or Harmes?

Were you the only Melbourne supporter in your class or, perhaps, the whole school (assuming you supported the Demons in your school days)?

I don't know where high res images come from, but does this mean after about 4 years of AFLW there aren't any high res images of any of our AFLW players? Is that an indictment on the club or does the media still treat AFLW as unworthy of proper visual coverage (or both)?

I'm thinking it's time this thread was locked. It's no longer about the MFC or football generally and is diverging into the dangerous and distasteful territory of eugenics.

Could be worse. At the end of the home and away series we may have finished beneath the other team that makes the GF with the AFL cancelling the game and awarding the Premiership to the team that finished higher on the ladder.

Some recent research has identified a possible therapy which might help KK, Shaun Smith and all the other sufferers of concussion. Essentially, it's making use of "blue light" for 30 minutes in the morning. It's an interesting approach (and a very quick read in plain English). I'm ambivalent about it's value, though, as it seems to me it might provide short-term benefits but do nothing to resolve the long-term damage ie, CTE) caused by concussion. I say I'm ambivalent because while I'd like to see an effective treatment for the symptoms, I wouldn't want footballers returning to the field when they have resolved these symptoms if the underlying damage is still there.

I might me imagining it, but the muscle definition of the players seems much more obvious this year compared with previous. Not for everyone, such as the younger players, but generally speaking the playing group seems to be more muscular than before. I know this doesn't necessarily equate to fitness but it's nevertheless impressive. I remember a few years ago (probably the Bailey era) comparing our squad with some other teams and we looked positively puny. Not any more.

You write as if you know the club doesn't have some sort of termination clause in KK's contract should he not be able to play because of concussion.

I'm still more scared of the effects of being bitten by a Collingwood supporter than getting coronavirus. (Nevertheless, we would be foolish not to take the threat of the coronavirus seriously.)

I missed this in the news. How many weeks did the MRO give Melksham for biting?

My favourite way to nullify the defence attacking from the backline is to have forwards who kick goals. Nothing forces a defender to be more accountable than actually having to defend.

And presumably Salem, too? (although I don't know what a 'sonar' roles is. Did you mean 'similar'?)

If Petracca and Brayshaw are going to play more this year on ball rather than forward and wing respectively, then someone gets pushed out of the midfield group. From the limited game play we've seen (or read about on Demonland), it looks like Sparrow is expected to play midfield minutues, too. However, I seem to recall Harmes playing HBF previously when the club was trying to find his best position. It didn't seem to work then, although Harmes is a much better player now. I hope it works, but if it doesn't I'm happy knowing he can slot straight back into a midfield role.