La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

That's a wildly inaccurate interpretation of what I said. I'm not even sure how best to correct you. I said judging a selection should be done, at the earliest, half-way through a player's career. But Taylor makes selections every year, so every year there will be players whose careers are starting, finishing and somewhere in between. I can't see how that morphs into a performance appraisal of Taylor every "half a dozen years or so". I should add, I'm not defending Taylor. I'm not saying he's doing a good or bad job. It's the process of assessment I'm talking about.

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

Good post. I would add that you judge the success of a pick/trade at the end of a career, or at least half-way through, before making judgement calls as to success, failure or somewhere in between.

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.

If May plays on Hogan, I expect the result of that single contest will be simplistically viewed by some as a proxy as to whether we "won" or lost on those two trades.

I wonder what the people of Sardinia think of the AFL's rather cheesy position on maggots? Here's some food for thought (although be warned...if you have a delicate stomach, this might not be for you).

If it makes you feel any better, statistics prove that most premiership players are not sons of premiership players.

I don't disagree. I only said that IF one were to be retained, I'd keep Keilty over T Smith. If it were up to me, I wouldn't keep either.

Tim Smith might be ahead of him now, but Smith is already 28 and has only played 10 games. While I think neither will be kept, if I was keeping one, I would retain Keilty because I think he has more upside than Smith.

The AFL seems to have left open the option of abusing AFL HQ.

I like the way you've nonchalantly dropped in the last line. Without explanation, as if it's so obvious nothing more needs to be said.

I can't understand why May was on De Goey at all. It wasn't just being caught in transition. He matched up on him in the 6-6-6 formation - the one time when you can truly see who is playing on whom. I should add I don't agree with the earlier assertion that the Pies went through May as an identified weakness. Rather, I thought May played well. In fact, the defence as a whole did a terrific job.

I challenge anyone to understand free kicks given away in rucking contests.

First, Salem (although Monday performance was an aberration). Second, Melksham.