La Dee-vina Comedia

I agree that the question becomes "Why?" But first I wanted to see if my interpretation is correct. One potential reason would be to slow the game down by deliberately creating the opportunity for more congestion. Having said that, I'm not sure if it would be a strategy that a team would wish to adopt.

Could a team try to grab the ball from the ruck at a centre bounce when the 666 rule is in effect to deliberately cause a secondary ball up? That would then remove the 666 rule when the second bounce occurs. Is that a correct interpretation?

And here's the sign on the road to tell you you're getting near:

Moonie, step away from the screen. And if you're at home, go and have a cold shower.

This is an outstanding photo. Similar facial expressions which show an imminent intention to act and each with muscle definition showing not just the effects of hours of training but also how they are ready to pounce like a cat that's just seen a mouse.

It's so easy to look at a single photo like this and take it out of context. Unless we know what his right hand was doing, I'm sitting on the fence and making no judgment.

The knee bone's connected to the... something. The something's connected to the red thing. The red thing's connected to my wristwatch. Uh oh.

They're Richmond supporters. They're used to roaches in their space.

The converse, of course, is that opposition defences may be able to clear the ball more quickly because what they might lack in height they may make up for in speed and ground-ball play. That's not to criticise the strategy of playing three talls. It just reminds us what we'll be up against.

The line I found interesting was the quote that says"so there would be no fencing or no structures in Yarra Park" If that is referring to the fence that quite properly protects people from falling into the railway viaduct, it would be a massive boost for the people living in East Melbourne as it would genuinely open Yarra Park up with much greater access from Wellington Parade. Conversely, though, I don't understand what he means when he says "no structures in Yarra Park". How can there be admin and training facilities without structures? Perhaps they will be built "underground", meaning with the parkland on top, but that sounds like a horribly expensive option.

Knowing the way the AFL seems to prioritise things these days, they'll probably fund a rectangular oval for us to share with AFLX.

Please sir, I want some more.

Every time I go to Adelaide I have to remind myself to put my watch back 30 minutes plus 20 years.

If Melbourne is to be typically Melbourne, it should start by using correct grammar. The club is singular, therefore the statement should be "Melbourne is entering an exciting era". Unless, of course, Pert was being deliberately ironic and making a statement about the ignorance of the average non-Melbourne supporting Melburnian.

I imagine that at some time in the not to distant future the Players' Association will say that players are being unreasonably coerced to attend the club during their supposed break. It will only take one club being unreasonable - and there will eventually be one - before the dam wall breaks.

I think this is one of the greatest posts on Demonland ever. I don't quite know what it means but " a royal commission for scum bags" just rolls off the tongue delightfully. Sounds like Paul Keating in Parliament circa 1990.

I'm not disputing this statement, but how does it fit in with the Collective Bargaining Agreement? I see no problem with players voluntarily doing extra work, but are the club's fitness and conditioning staff able to advise the players on what they should do during their break? Wouldn't that breach the agreement? Conversely, if the club's staff are not able to advise players on what they should do, how is the "extra" work monitored to ensure it fits with requirements and, more importantly, doesn't lead to players over-exerting themselves or potentially causing themselves injury?

Is that even possible? Can salmon coloured boots be beautiful? Makes me doubt the credibility of the rest of your posts (not).

For every person who thinks one year out of the game is not enough to recharge there will be another who thinks that anything longer would be too long and too hard to get back in. I admire Pert for taking on this job. Without denigrating Jackson, there was a lot of low hanging fruit when he arrived. He picked all that off and then went on to the more difficult matters and will be rightly remembered as one of the best CEOs the club has ever had. So Pert comes into a job where all the "easy fixes" have already been done and will have to suffer the inevitable comparisons with his immediate predecessor. He would be smart and experienced enough to know that, so I admire him for taking on what has become difficult job to be seen to be successful in.

I'm not sure we should own it. I expect it would be more economical for someone else to own and build it and for us to take out a long-term lease as a key tenant (say, 20 years with a 20 year option). Or we could master lease the whole thing and then sub-lease components, such as the office space and any F&B outlets. I would have thought the less capital we tie up in something like this the better. (That goes for any development, whether it's Yarra Park or elsewhere).

Unless he chooses to play cricket over football.

There's the proof that our plan is the optimal solution.

Let me be the first to ask a dumb question. Does the vertical leap test measure absolute height or height above the player's own height. In other words do the King twins, who average 203 cm have a 30 cm advantage over Chandler before they even take a leap? If so, the Chandler twins (ie, Kade and Kyle) are the second best of everyone, they must have a helluva jump.

A sparrow that walks like a swan? Doesn't even sound possible.

You seem to be channelling a former PM who is not worthy of naming who (in)famously said that Workchoices was "dead, buried and cremated".