La Dee-vina Comedia

The AFL, and professional sport in general, is not like most workplaces. That's why the AFL has an enforceable rule that allows action to be taken against a player or official who may not have even broken a law but "brings the game into disrepute". Not many businesses (or vocations) have the ability to take action for bringing that particular industry (vocation) into "disrepute". Though recent findings of some Royal Commissions perhaps suggest it would be a good idea.

Racists have recently been emboldened by nationalists who happen to have been able to climb the greasy pole to the top (or at least to have a level of influence they don't deserve) in a number of jurisdictions. Not every nationalist is a racist and vice versa, but those that are happen to have very large mouths. I happen to prefer loud mouths who shout in support of their football team, even if it's our opponents. That's a healthy way of expressing one's self and does not offend (I mean in its true meaning, rather than in the playful world of being "offended" by someone supporting another club.)

I think including PEDs in the discussion is unavoidable. There's a fine line between "recreational" and "performance enhancing" at the best of times which becomes even more blurred when you include masking agents.

Tried...and failed. Mind you, it's not that I don't want to believe you, I'm just following Ronald Reagan's policy of "Trust but verify".

Where does the one or two tests per year figure come from? To answer your question, I don't know whether the AFL's efforts are "token" or otherwise. What I do know is that I find any use of performance enhancing drugs or masking agents abhorrent and any use of recreational drugs by professional athletes to be bizarrely stupid behaviour.

Ignoring the moral arguments, I'm amazed that professional athletes who seem to have to pursue highly specific diets and exercise regimens would then participate in taking substances that wouldn't be on any list approved by the club's dietitians or sports scientists.

For a person whose interests are listed as "Apathy", this is one helluva posting!

The AFL conducts the urine tests? I thought it was ASADA that did that.

Agree. While I'd actually like to make it 25 and 50 metre penalties, given 15 metres is a measurement already used by umpires (distance for a kick to travel before a mark can be awarded, maximum distance running with the ball), it's probably better not to introduce an additional measure.

Do you subscribe to the "3 stickers and you're out" rule?

I see you've extended the concept of 2 byes per year to eliminate two full weeks from the calendar.

Of course. Upon re-reading your post, that's now obvious. My mistake.

This just in:

Just commenting on your last few questions, and not specific to this particular case: Yes, offending content should be removed. It's not "protecting the poster" to do so; rather, it's protecting the person who has been vilified. Whether comments are derogatory, racist or defamatory, they should always be removed. As has been stated here many times on Demonland, there is no such thing as unqualified free speech. There are laws against vilification, racism, hate speech and defamation.

I don't think ruckmen have been a constant size. John Nicholls, arguably one of the best ruckman of all time was shorter than Patrick Cripps.

What I hope to see with the 50m rule is a crackdown on obvious delaying tactics by the opposition. Tactics such as holding on to the player with the ball for too long after a mark or free kick has been granted or not returning the ball promptly have been allowed to creep into the game far too much.

I love Demonland for the educational diversions.

Can anyone with young children in their family who watched AFLX report on their level of enthusiasm? In particular did the new format increase or decrease the level of excitement for those who also watched last year? It's clearly a product not aimed at rusted on AFL followers. But if it can't generate interest in the young...surely the AFL will have to start thinking about whether it's worth persevering with.

Goldstein, Xerri, Brown and Daw. With caps on list numbers a team can't hold on to too many "talls". Whether Preuss was the right one to let go, though, is a good question.

I thought I saw one play where the player nominally kicking out after a behind ran outside the square (as now allowed) but handpassed instead of kicking the ball. If that's correct (and assuming it was umpired correctly), does that also mean a player can handpass a ball from inside the square to get the game moving after a behind?

So, what's the difference between this "scratch match" and the JLT games, other than the fact that the JLT games have the name JLT? (Dear AFL, I've referenced JLT a number of times in this post because I assume that accepting money from JLT for the exposure they get is the sole reason why the JLT games are called JLT games)

It's where they belong.

Have just dipped in and out of the Live Stream intermittently. Four players seem to be involved whenever I take a quick look - JKH, VDB, ANB and Hunt. However, primarily because of the low angle of the cameras, it's almost impossible to work out whether their disposals are productive.

I'll just leave this here: Robin Williams

I think management saw how I was distracted from working and pulled the plug.