La Dee-vina Comedia

Dieter, usually when I read your posts I think your name refers to your nationality; today, it seems that I should read your name as someone who is careful about what he eats.

What is it about these black and white photos which make people look so much older than they were? Is it the clothing? Or the hairstyle? Or is it just the way we think about older photos? Norm Smith was born on 21 November 1915, which means he could not have been any older than 49 when this photo was taken.

Should we be worried?

The Herald Sun poll will be considered deficient by the AFL because it doesn't include the views of those billions who live overseas.

Were you meaning Richmond supporters? If so, there's a typo in your post as I imagine you meant to write that they are "rank and vile" supporters.

Two crimes against English here. "It's understood" is completely unnecessary and who describes people as "faces"? They don't have bodies? minds? souls? Ugh

Or "AFLXtasy"

Because of the change in the rules allowing recruitment of relatively recent retirees, you'd have to assume clubs are striking deals with their higher-quality retirees which commit those ex-players to agree to come back to the club they've just retired from, should they decide to play again. The equivalent of a "non-compete" clause as used today in business.

I don't think there's been a "mindless plethora of rule changes", but I agree there's been a mindless plethora of discussion about the potential impact of rule changes. Not on Demonland, of course.

While we debate the illicit drugs in off-season (and in season) issue within the AFL, the NRL has had a nightmare off-season.This is in today's Sydney Morning Herald. I wonder whether the AFL will soon be embroiled in something similar? I hope not, but as much as I like to think NRL and its supporters are somehow inferior to the AFL, I suspect that our code will not be immune to something similar.

Having thought about this a bit more, I'm quite keen on replacing JLT1 with the first bye round and JLT2 with the second bye round. And I'd be quite happy to keep JLT as the sponsor. So, you'd have the JLT Bye Round 1 and the JLT Bye Round 2.

Couldn't agree more. Those seats have been paid for (many times over). That no-one happens to be sitting in them is irrelevant.

"You've hit the nail...right into the lid" (A Goon Show reference, if anyone was wondering. Also one of the greatest unscripted comic lines ever. From the "Moriarty Murder Mystery")

I should probably know this as I'm an MCC member, but the MCC announcement states that the new member of the Committee, Annabel Brebner, is "Chair of the MCC Football Club". What is the MCC Football Club? (Soccer? An amateur football team separate from the MFC?)

So, you never played without one, either.

Interesting but dangerous point. If players' contracts include clauses where payment are reduced when players are injured, it puts unwanted pressure on players to return too early. That would be particularly troubling for players with concussion injuries.

Sort of. But if the AFL made rule changes before the problem was visible, supporters would complain about the AFL making unnecessary rule changes. Even if we were to say that the AFL sat on their hands too long before making changes, there would be others who believe the game should be have been given more time to "fix itself" without interference.

If a coach wants to be paid, he needs to have his team win. He doesn't get paid to make the game look pretty. That's why we need the "Gils of this world" because someone who doesn't get rewarded solely for winning can look after the aesthetics of the game. We don't yet know whether the new rules will work, but I take comfort that for the first time I can remember, the AFL has approached the rule changes strategically, rather than making piece-meal changes.

I've always liked the idea of AFL clubs being banned from playing against each other before Round 1 as I believe it would enhance the level of anticipation. Clubs would be free to have as many intra-clubs or practice matches against non-AFL teams.

The trouble is, where does one stop? True leaders would donate blood; true leaders would sleep at the G for the homeless; true leaders would pick up rubbish on Clean Up Australia Day. Nevertheless, I concede that as the drugs policy is the AFL's, I think you make a point and if I were an AFL Commissioner I would agree to being drug tested under the same scheme (ie, randomly - which means it wouldn't necessarily be done "before the players")

In the old days - and not that long ago - conservative politics was the opposite of the nanny state.

Up until recently, I would have thought your reference to a "hard conviction over illicit drugs" referred to Tony Mokbel. Witness X has changed all that. The AFL's conviction, as weak as it might be, might still now be stronger than Mokbel's.

I also wonder whether the drop-off on TV viewers is about TV generally and not just AFL. It's well known that TV viewership has dropped, particularly amongst the young, due to alternatives such as streaming, online gaming, etc. However, one would have thought that such a drop off would affect AFL and NRL somewhat equally. Unless of course, the NRL-watching audience fits my prejudice of being neanderthals.

Is the AFL taking an ethical stance? I don't think it's that. I think its a commercial decision and (perhaps, although I'm not 100% convinced), a player welfare decision. With respect to the commercial issue, AFL players caught taking recreational or performance enhancing drugs damages the AFL brand. The player welfare link is not as clear cut. Some (many? most? all?) illegal drugs can be harmful, but I'm not sure the AFL is concerned about the harmful effects of illegal drugs on individual players who voluntarily take them. I suspect that stated position is lip service to make the AFL looks like it cares for something that's arguably not its concern.