La Dee-vina Comedia

Inanimate ?

Could be both, of course.

Worked the angles really well, too.

If you have a 10 metre exclusion zone, it has to be used all over the ground, including players deep in the pocket. The real question is whether there is a need for a 10 metre instead of 5 metre zone. I'm ambivalent. I can see that it provides the player with the ball more room to go left or right...but was it a problem that needed solving before the rule was changed?

We've been bad for so long, it's taken until now to get to the stage where we have to worry about what to do in close finishes. Now that we seem to have fixed so many of our previous problems, we can concentrate on fine tuning various aspects of the game. It's classic Pareto's Law which states that 80% of anything takes 20% of effort (or time or money) while the remaining 20% takes 80% of the effort (or time or money). Or, to put it another way, we've been concentrating on the low hanging fruit such as fitness, basic skills and learning to play.

Can someone please confirm whether Casey plays more games than it has byes in a full season?

It was another standard AFL over-reaction at the time caused partly by the tactics of Hawthorn in one game and Richmond's Joel Bowden in another. When kicking out, Bowden kept stepping back over the line after the umpire called played on thereby taking up time while allowing the opposition to score a point when they needed to score a bit more. A better solution to the Bowden problem would be to require that every kick in from a behind to be at least 15 metres. A free kick would be paid at the top of the square if the umpire deemed the kick to have been shorter than 15 metres or if the defender deliberately backed over the line without kicking the ball. (It would also stop the defender kicking the ball to himself and then playing on, but I don't see this as particularly problematic.) I would actually like the kick to be more than 15 metres, but given that number is already in use for determining whether a mark should be paid, it would be better to leave it at the same number so umpires don't have to estimate another distance.

I just read this post as "take down the tranny that is the AFL!" Very disturbing imagery.

A player's previous record should have nothing to do with whether a player is reported by an umpire or cited by the MRO. But it should, however, be relevant to any punishment if found guilty.

I've always found it strange* that the AFL chose to give the Norm Smith medal to the best player at the Grand Final rather than to the coach of the year or the coach of the premiership team. Smith was a great player, too, but given he's best remembered for being a coach it seems wrong that his name is not associated with a coaching award. There are plenty of players who's names would not be inappropriate for the best player in the Grand Final including our own Ron Barassi, but also Michael Tuck, Alex Jesaulenko, etc. Nevertheless, it's too late now. *Actually, not so strange. It is the AFL, after all.

Please complete: A priest, a rabbi, a sheik and some Buddhist monks walk into a bar...

I don't mean this flippantly, but traditionally strongly supported by Irish catholic families in the 1920s, 30s and 40s. Hence, lots of children leading to a large population to draw from. Similar for Collingwood, too.

I always like Joeboy's analysis, even if I don't always agree. I particularly like his segue from Spargo to Garlett. I'll defend ANB. He set up many goals with some surprisingly precise kicks. I thought it was one of his better games. And a three word analysis of the coaches' box: Slow to react

Never like things being "pencilled in". I much prefer something like ink that can't be erased and changed.

If I can be indulged with a fourth: The team will have an extensive review of what went wrong in the last few minutes and learn from it. The same thing happened to Richmond early in 2017 and they went alright after that.

1. The AFL will now realise the folly of the nomination rule for ruckman and abolish it...possibly even before the end of this year. 2. The AFL will now realise the folly of the way the protected zone rule is enforced and abolish it WHEN THE OFFENDING PLAYER IS BEHIND THE PLAYER WITH THE BALL AND MOVING OUT OF THE ZONE 3. AFL will now realise the folly of making untried and unnecessary changes to the rules and will not proceed with zones next year. OK, so 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

If we retain water carriers and ban runners, the water carriers will become defacto runners. I'd like to ban the water carriers, too, but I suspect that could end up endangering players' health. Although, perhaps the players could run to the boundary for a drink each time there's a break instead of the water carriers running on to the ground.

Oh, OK. I didn't realise. (I've just looked at the MFC announcement yesterday of the team which says Hannan has a jarred knee.)

Hannan? He's not on the list. I thought he was omitted. Or do you mean Hunt?

Nicely said.

Nearly had a heart attack! Please write "maximum" when that's what you mean. I thought for a moment that "max" meant Gawn and for some reason he was lining up in the VFL. I know it's a completely illogical thought, but reading social media can have that effect.

Agree. Reasons why Jones might have had a poor game: illness received a knock early in the game which affected his capabilities carrying an injury slow to recuperate from Darwin game young children at home kept him awake all the night before non-football related personal problem that distracted him was playing a specific role on coach's orders which was new to him was due for one poor game after about 200 in a row with no-one concerned about his performance. Could be any, all or none of the above. Let's wait until he has more than one bad game in a row before we start questioning his future.

I'd go one step further...if their feelings are hurt that much that it affects their performance, then they are probably not CEO material in the first place. I'm not for one moment saying that any of them feel that way. Hopefully, each has seen the opportunity to be considered to have been an honour in itself.

We don't know about that. My suspicion has always been that giving up the pokies was the price to be paid for getting State and/or Federal government support (cash and perhaps expedited planning approval) for our new admin and training base, wherever that might be. And if we can make money out of the new site as well, all the better.

We made a mistake a few weeks ago when we stated we were getting out of pokies. What we should have done was consolidate that announcement with this one by stating that we were intending to move the pokies from Oakleigh to a new social club to be built over the Jolimont railyards next to our new training oval. After an expected outcry from East Melbourne residents and Ellen Sandell we would then "back down" by withdrawing the pokies component. The East Melbourne residents and Ellen Sandell would have had a victory and may then have accepted the rest of the proposal. I'm only half-joking.