La Dee-vina Comedia

I don't know the reasons why Rioli and May ended up at Scotch and Melbourne Grammar respectively, but rather than "poaching talent" maybe those schools were giving scholarships to indigenous kids to give them a better chance of an improved education compared with what may otherwise have been their lot.

I'm impressed. I can't even understand the question, let alone answer it.

I've not been following his off season, but do we know whether his foot injury has fully and properly resolved?

As a matter of interest, do you think Harmes has become a better automon or is he one of the exceptions?

And to drill a bit deeper, I wonder if it's also a story, within those clubs, of two coaches? One who has recruited Andrew Lovett, Harley Bennell and Jesse Hogan. And one who hasn't.

Wrong Khan. Ghengis was a mongrel Mongol. I think the Khan who can be linked to "nice" was Kubla, with his "stately pleasure-dome". (From my favourite poem of all time, which, perhaps ironically given some of the content of this thread, was written following an "opium-influence dream".)

I don't understand this gratuitous comment. Are you saying Christian Salem, Jayden Hunt and (even though he's not ours) Josh Kelly have a similar mentality to Jack Watts?

ANB.? I think VandenBerg might be next. Injuries have prevented us from knowing what his true capabilities are. I'd like to say Weideman, but I'm not yet convinced. I hope by this time next year I will be.

I agree with everything you've said. But I still think he should be in the "automatics" group.

I was never a fan of Dunn when he was with us. But having heard him speak since he left, I can see why he's considered a leader. Speaks well, and has been an assistant coach for their AFLW team which shows his leadership potential. It's also a reminder that the best players don't have to be in leadership positions. I'm confident no-one thought Nick Maxwell was the best player at Collingwood throughout the time he was their captain - but he's now retired as a premiership winning captain.

I'm not quite sure why a player who played every game last year, was 36th in goal kicking, equal 24th in score involvements (equal with Brayshaw) and equal 10th in goal assists for the whole competition isn't considered to be one of the "automatics"...at least until someone better comes along (which you'd say for everyone selected as an "automatic"). Alex Neal-Bullen clearly needs a new PR agent.

For once, I'm pleased with the AFL. By amending this rule they've tinkered with our gameplan and removed what I thought was our consistent weakness last year. Sure, having the extra on the back of the square might occasionally have helped us win the centre clearance, but how often did that result in a turnover because we were a forward short? The strategy we used should have been reserved for teams anticipating losing centre clearances, not winning them.

He's hardly gone out on a limb suggesting that the 2019 Premier will come from one of the teams that finished in the top 4 the previous year. While that hasn't happened in the last few years, I would have thought it was pretty much the norm. I'm not a fan of Malthouse, but I'm actually quite surprised that he's playing it so safe. I would have expected him to choose at least one team from left field.

I'm not quite sure what you were expecting. "Wild untapped potential" would have been snapped up in the draft period. Lockhart is being selected effectively as the last rookie pick in our draft. What's there to sell? If he makes it, well and good. But the odds of him becoming some sort of star player are long. Any attempt to "sell" this recruitment would be just setting him up to fail in the eyes of supporters.

This one's obvious. It's an allegory portraying the MFC at the time as donkeys.

I seem to recall the AFL does this every year with each of the team captains. But why? What's the marketing value of this photo? I'm not having a go at the AFL (there are plenty of other more important - and unimportant - issues to do that), but I'm genuinely curious. Why is this photo taken? What's it used for?

And the other 26k are recycled members courtesy of Visy.

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 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 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.

Or Round 2, if you're May.

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.