La Dee-vina Comedia

I wonder about this. I suspect the confidence damage of being dropped for any player would be greater than any confidence gained from playing well at Casey. In addition, having watched a few VFL games this year, it is noticeable how different the pressure and pace is compared with the seniors. I am not convinced that playing in the VFL necessarily helps any player make it in the seniors. And the longer they play there, the harder I suspect it is to acclimatise to the seniors once a promotion is achieved.

I seem to recall many more ball-ups in the past when there was a possibility of a free being awarded both ways. I suspect the powers that be would rather that a free kick be paid to avoid the ugliness that ball-ups tend to bring to the game so have instructed the umpires to pay a free whenever possible. And here's some free advice for the AFL. To get rid of some of the ugliness in the game, get rid of the ruckman being nominated. Too often the game is delayed, particularly for boundary throw-ins, while the field umpires wait for the lumbering nominated ruckmen to arrive. Another problem occurred in Saturday's game, too. Viney had to run away from a short boundary throw in rather than do the intuitively smarter play which would have been to just grab the ball and play on. If he'd done that, he would have been penalised for not being the nominated ruckman.

I think he dropped the ball before he was tripped. One of the quirks of the rules of our great game is that for some offences, the first rule breach applies; for others, a subsequent breach applies, and I don't think there's any science to it. It's just what the umpire decides on the day. For example, in this case if I'm correct and Hore had dropped the ball before he was tripped, the first rule breach was penalised. On the other hand, how many times on Saturday did we see a player caught holding the ball but receive a free for a subsequent push in the back when he collapsed from the tackle?

Maybe we should stake a claim on Victoria Park and seek to have that redeveloped as our base. Hopefully the Collingwood morons, sorry, members, would be up in arms and 'force' the Magpies to reclaim their home territory and leave the Olympic Boulevard properties for us.

Surprised that he didn't get a lifetime ban for blocking the view of people sitting behind.

6. McDonald (even though he made some horrible errors, he was the difference between the two teams) 5. Oliver 4. Viney 3. Lockhart 2. Gawn 1. Frost

A team that has gone from top 4 one year to bottom 3 halfway through the next has "significant issues". It might not be solely be due to the players being out of form or unfit/injured. Perhaps also the coaches, as a group, haven't got their act together. Changes to the coaches (whether that means to individuals, roles or just the way they coach) may be just as necessary as changing playing personnel. It's just that from the outside, we can't see what the problems with the coaches might be.

Eddie's half-right. It's not the punishment that Stephenson received that will drive players "underground"; it's the rule that says they can't bet. The rule is there for a very good reason which is why any player who bets on football, whether legally or "underground", needs to be "clobbered". In my view Stephenson got off lightly. He should have been penalised for the rest of the season, including finals. There's an article in today's Age which argues that Stratton's suspension should have been more than 2 weeks because the offence was "not a good look" for the game and then seems to suggest that Stephenson's penalty was overkill. That's missing the point - while I agree that Stratton's offence was not a good look, Stephenson's goes to the heart of the integrity of the game. That's much more serious.

"...and will sue the club"? You have inside info?

What's really troubling is when the opposition lose players during a game against us and we still can't beat them when they have reduced rotations because of it. How often does that happen!

I absolutely detest Thursday night football (other than when the following day is a public holiday). I'm not ready for it and it also diminishes the enjoyment of football on the subsequent Saturday and Sunday because there is one fewer game to follow. Having it in the same weeks as some teams have a bye and there is football on a Monday (Queen's Birthday) just makes it worse as the football product just seems sporadic rather than intense. But maybe that's just me...

Jeremy Howe did the right thing, but I wonder how he feels about that? Imagine being the person who, by not turning a blind eye, might subsequently be accused of derailing Collingwood's premiership chances. I stress that Howe's action was the correct one to take and showed real leadership, but it imposes a heavy burden on him for the rest of the year. Stephenson hasn't just been a fool and hurt Collingwood; he's also hurt Jeremy Howe.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree, but I do like the way you've explained your changes.

On this point I disagree. I think the soft penalty would have been handed out to a player of any team considered likely to be playing finals. It just so happens when Heath Shaw was suspended, he, too, was miraculously only suspended up until the finals. (Yes, I know he was at Collingwood then, too.)

I think there's a spelling mistake in your post. You meant "mucking it up..." didn't you?

One thing I don't understand is the process. The AFL's statement seems to suggest that the AFL itself made the decision. Does that mean (1) the Commission, (2) the CEO or someone who reports to him, such as Andrew Dillon or (3) something else? Surely for an offence like this the AFL's integrity department should collect the evidence and then present it to an independent third party, such as the AFL Tribunal, to make a decision on guilt as well as penalty. And the accused player should also have an opportunity to present his case to the Tribunal. I don't like the AFL taking on the combined roles of investigator, judge and jury.

That's a bit ambiguous. Do you mean that Carlton have been less successful than us? Or that until now Carlton have been a bit more successful than us?

I'm not sure whether it's better to be called the "usual troll" or the "unusual troll". Nevertheless, I'm tipping PSD had someone else in mind.

In the olden days, it used to be eunuchs that showed people the door. How times have changed.

I wonder whether the coaching re-shuffle will also see some immediate player changes? Will, for example, Rawlings seek to make a statement by changing the mix in the forward line?

Was it Rawlings' choice? He's an employee of the club. He may be happy with the change and he may have volunteered, but do we know that? Isn't it possible he would have preferred to stay at Casey but has shifted because as an employee of the club he's doing what his employer requires of him? Whether it was his choice or not, and this goes for all the coaches and support staff, I'd like to think they are all committed team members. If they're not, they should be looking elsewhere.

There could be a compromise. Ban alcohol from being consumed in the public seating areas. Leave it for corporate suites and the bars. I know that when I've been to Marvel (under an earlier name as I haven't been there for a few years) one of the reasons I didn't enjoy the experience was having people wander by slopping beer as they try to get to their seats.

It's come to this. Supporters dreaming of silver linings rather than silverware.

You mean "fair enough" SWYL?

The CEO of Marvel Stadium was just interviewed on SEN. He said the most extraordinary thing I can't recall ever being said by an AFL employee before. He said they got it wrong. To be fair, he's trying to ensure that everyone feels safe at the footy but he recognises that the security personnel behaviour was too intimidating. He said they're meant to be friendly and engaging with the crowd and if that's not happening, they've got the balance wrong. Good on him for admitting that what they're doing isn't working the way it's meant to. But also, good on him for recognising the importance of fans at the footy feeling safe and enjoying themselves.