La Dee-vina Comedia

So, if I understand this thread correctly, Brexit is about putting in place a hard border so the club that started the Irish experiment is the only one from hereon able to recruit players from Ireland. On the other hand, the Western Bulldogs have aligned with the Norse god Thor and can recruit whoever they want from Norway.

That information has already been published somewhere (I heard it being discussed on breakfast radio today). It might be a tie-in, but it's not the reason for the get-together.

Essendon might be the only club smart enough not to waste any of their players time with this.

Clearly the clubs think attendance is a pointless exercise. It's made even more so by those clubs - including ours - who have more than one captain. There were only 17 in the photo when there should probably have been more than 25.

Not sure why you added the "pick 4" bit. Adds nothing.

I think we may have drafted some sort of Benjamin Button. According to Knightmare (see above) on 14 June 2017 he was 183 cm tall. According to Mad As Hell on 2 October 2018 (in the Jay Lockhart thread started last year), he's 177 cm. If he keeps shrinking at this speed he'll change sports and become a jockey before the Spring Racing Carnival. Some confirmed height and weight numbers would be appreciated.

I completely agree with you. If you inferred something else from my post, I need to improve my writing skills.

While that's true for me, too, one of the major differences between now and when I was a kid is that some AFL players have shown by their acts and deeds that they are anything but superheroes. Whether it's because pervasive media means we see it more or whether there are more modern day players than old-timers who are jerks, I don't know. But my best guess is that professionalism, which has introduced more money and more spare time, might have contributed to the negative. Having said that, I still think compared with many other sports, the AFL ratio of superheroes to anti-heroes (and worse) still stacks up well.

What I'd really like to know was what McLaughlin recommended to the Commission. Did he recommend twilight? Or did he recommend the status quo? Might tell us a lot about his grip on power if it was the former and he got rolled.

I heard a wonderful story about your wife, Ernest, which you apparently told. But I can't tell it here. Suffice to say she apparently enjoyed joining you in all your favourite activities including hunting, fishing, drinking and more. (I'm not sure which of your four wives the story refers to, though.)

Please accept my condolences.

Now there's a thread topic all of its own. Of course, depends on your definition of success. However, I assume you mean as an individual (as opposed to seeing Robert Flower succeed by being a Premiership player). If that's what you meant, and with no disrespect intended, Fitzpatrick doesn't come close. I'd probably run with Jurrah, given where he'd come from.

While I understand your point, a lottery is 100% chance. With recruiting, I believe that there is a science to it, but the science isn't yet perfect. The science also can't take into account unexpected injuries. It can take into account previous history (such as ACLs prior to recruitment or a history of concussions) but impact injuries (broken bones, for example) are not possible to predict. I think our recruitment in the last few years has been significantly superior to the Bailey/Neeld era and I expect a lot of that has to do with greater skills and knowledge on the part of our recruitment team.

The AFL was always going to say publicly they were pleased with AFLX. It is an organisation which rarely admits it gets anything wrong. Behind the scenes might be different, though. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when McLaughlin provides his "official" report to the AFL Commission on AFLX.

I see a big difference between tackling or bumping a player with the ball (both which I consider to be unavoidable, as long as the tackle or bump is fair) and tackling or bumping a player who does not have the ball (generally, but not always, avoidable). It's the latter that concerns me. We should be doing everything we can to reduce the risk of concussion, particularly when players do not have the ball. I know there is an argument that the primary purpose of that bump is to stop the player who is bumped from immediately returning to that passage of play. I'm saying reducing the risk of concussion from that tactic (the bump) should be more important than stopping that player from continuing to participate in that passage of play.

I'm not sure this strategy does anything to encourage kids to PLAY sport. It might encourage them to watch more movies and play more X-box and even watch more AFL, but I think it's a long bow to say that this strategy will lead to more play.

I continue to be concerned that much of the discussion here is about whether May's bump hit him in the head or not. Concussion can also be caused by whiplash. That's why I don't think the rule should just be about making head high contact or even whether the impact was low or medium. I believe the rule should be but whether the player (in this instance May) needed to bump at all. If I was designing the rule I would say that if the player had no choice, then all clear; but if he had a choice, one week, irrespective of whether there was an injury or not and more weeks if there was an avoidable injury.

Clever strategy from your parents. I bet you got to eat all your lunch without the school bullies stealing it from you.

Or Round 2, if you're May.

Asked and answered. Are they playing under AFLX rules in this game?

Useful if we all remember this before writing off too soon draft picks or players traded in as being not worth what we paid for them. I could have written the exact same words in the current Cameron Pedersen thread, too.

This post is so good I couldn't just click on a button to "Like" it. I need to add, "Excellent. Well stated."

It's obvious to me that they are a well-managed organisation. It's no coincidence that sales are increasing under a management regime which chooses to sponsor the MFC. The above can be read flippantly...or it can be appreciated that the sales increase might reflect the possibility that the Australian organisation has a well-developed strategic plan which includes sponsoring a team that (1) plays in the most popular competition in Australia, (2) has a support base which may have a higher proportion (than other clubs) of those who are well enough off to buy their cars and (3) is a club that has a standing which suits the Jaguar brand.

I would rather the AFL and all clubs (and Demonland's posters) took a consistent line on concussion. Should May have been suspended under the current rules? I don't know. Should the rules be clear that a player should be suspended if he hits or bumps another player in an incident which is avoidable and might cause concussion (whether it did or not)? Absolutely.

If breaking a team rule gets a player suspended, then there is something wrong with the team rule.