La Dee-vina Comedia

Now do yourself a favour and watch the Ian McKellen 1995 version of Richard III set in fascist England in the 1930s. Absolutely sensational. Or, if you have the time, watch The Hollow Crown series from start to finish. It's unbelievably compelling.

Anyone growing up in the 1960s will remember this advertising slogan.

The first seven words of Richard III were certainly appropriate when Oliver started his career.

If the player has not had prior opportunity the rule seems to suggest that players can throw the ball as long as they made a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball correctly. In other words, a skilled player could make it look like it's a genuine attempt and throw the ball.

I agree. It's the job of coaches to get their players to play to the rules. If that means exploiting the rules, so be it. I think rule 18.6.3 is poorly worded, but one thing that is clear is that the rule is not. Incorrect disposal is not an automatic given every time a player is tackled and doesn't dispose of the ball correctly. The more I read this rule, the more sympathy I have for the umpires because of the number of different elements they are expected to consider before making a decision in a split second.

Rather than us all guessing, here's the Holding the Ball rule in its entirety. Have a close look at part 18.6.3, particularly the bit that says "For the avoidance of doubt..." which, in fact, causes all the doubt! In short, if a player has not had prior opportunity and makes a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball but fails to dispose of the ball correctly, it's not a free kick. Err, I think... 18.6 HOLDING THE BALL 18.6.1 Spirit and Intention - The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle. 18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled. 18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled. For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when: (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football; (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession. 18.6.4 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: No Genuine Attempt Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled. 18.6.5 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Diving on Top of the Football A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.

Imagine if we didn't try our hardest so we finished fourth instead of third...and we got done for tanking!

Most unlikely. If that were the case, it would have become public. There's no way the AFL could issue such an instruction, even secretly, without an umpire or former umpire having told someone in the media.

I'm not sure that any of those were free kicks the way the rule is written. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe the rule now states that incorrect disposal is only penalised if the player has first had "prior opportunity". In other words, if in the Cripps and Dow examples neither player had prior opportunity, it would appear that it doesn't matter how they disposed of the ball. If I'm interpreting the matter correctly, perhaps the AFL could come out and make that point clear so fans of the game understand. (It's a separate question as to whether that ought to be the way the way the game should be played.)

Logic says they are not tanking. There is no material advantage to a team to do so these days. When we were accused of it, there was potential motivation caused by the fixed formula the AFL then had which provided an extra early pick. Now that the extra pick vbia a known formula has been removed, the only nominal advantage is a theoretical better position in each round of the draft. However, the evidence over 40 years of drafting is that the benefit of such positioning is so minimal, that tanking to get that opportunity is not worth it. Some examples of picks number 1 compared with players later in the draft include Scully (Martin), Tom Boyd (Bontompelli), Paddy McCartin (Petrracca) and the list goes on.

Another Mackenzie Arnold lookalike (and, Go Matildas!):

I doubt very much that umpires are persuaded by any player claiming to have touched the ball. And in a related point, blaming Carlton for this outcome is misguided. It has nothing to do with the club or Marchbank at all. It's entirely the result of a goal umpire's decision. As it should be, right or wrong.

Has been all year. I think he needs more massages around the lower back.

Viney has been in a rich vein of form. Coaches' Votes in 8 of the last 9 games.

I think the debate about the use of the ARC to be somewhat irrelevant. If there was no review mechanism, the goal umpire's call would have meant that it was point with no debate. I'm much more curious as to the explanation for van Rooyen not getting a free kick for having his legs taken out from under him on the boundary line. Does the rule suggest that if a defender is attempting a smother it's different from a player attempting to gather the ball (which is the usual reason for a "slide tackle")? If so, that makes no sense, given the reason for the rule is to protect the upright player's legs. Final comment: As has been said previously in this thread, all these issues - the standard of umpiring, the quality of the review process, etc - all highlight how deficient the Chairman of the AFL Commission has been in leaving so many positions vacant within the Commission itself and the executive team of the AFL. There is no way a Chairman of a public company would survive if the same were to happen in a company. Put frankly, the clubs should be demanding the "retirement" of Richard Goyder. He's been asleep at the wheel.

Would that $100k be needed for the MCG or all grounds?

The most interesting thing for me in this thread is the relatively small pool of players who meet the definition of 'hated but wanted'. I'm curious, though, about the reverse. Who would be the Melbourne player or players who might be 'hated but wanted' by supporters of other teams? The emphasis here has to be the 'hated' part, because it's clear any supporter would salivate at the chance of having any of Oliver, Gawn or Petracca in their team.

I think there are rumours that he's going to join AFL HQ.

To be fair, I've seen many posters on Demonland arguing that players coming back from injury should be held over for one more week to make sure they are fully fit.

Just to clarify, our percentage will only go up if our winning margins are such that our percentage in each game is higher than where we started.

Imagine if Goodwin continues to use van Rooyen as the second ruck and keeps Grundy as a KPF for the whole game. Just to confuse everyone's expectations and so he can say in his post-match media conference, "I told you so". I don't expect this, of course, and it will be fascinating to see how van Rooyen goes when he can stay forward for the whole game.

I believe we always pick a ruckman as an emergency. Usually the breakdown of the emergencies is one forward, one defender, one midfielder (non-ruckman) and one ruckman. As I see it, Schache is an emergency because he's the next ruckman in line after Gawn and Grundy.

Saturday night. But, yes, agree.

If we do this, can everyone promise not to judge Melksham just on the number of goals and disposals he has?

Due for some luck? The team that has the equal most premierships of any team and who has been rubbish for the whole of this century because of own goals such as draft cap breaching, poor recruitment and even poorer choices of coaches? Give me a break. And give the author of that post a history lesson.