La Dee-vina Comedia

There's a lot about the draw I don't like, but in this instance I'm on the AFL's side. The AFL's job should be to ensure the most people as possible can get to each game where their team is playing. Big supported teams can't get all their supporters into the cattery, hence those games are and should be played in Melbourne.

Can Demonland please run a poll to decide whether a day where the temperature is forecast to start with a minimum of 11 degrees and rise to a maximum of 27 should be described as "hot"? I don't think it should but it seems others do. Either that, or people keep believing that it will be hot just because there's an assumption that it's always hot in the NT (which is true for the Top End but not Alice Springs).

It also means he turned the ball over 4 times out of those five kicks... that's not good.

Fitzroy definitely did it...against us. They kicked a then record score of 36.22. 236 to our paltry 6.12.48 out at Waverley in 1979.

Haven't seen it but on the radio broadcast (SEN) they thought the umpire had believed Gawn had stepped over the mark. The commentators talked about how Gawn took a couple of steps back and then came forward the same number of steps when McKay took the kick. However, they didn't confirm whether Gawn actually stepped over the mark or not. PS: The SEN early Sunday game commentary team is not bad. Gerard Whately and Peter Donegan calling the action with Adam Cooney adding interesting comments from the boundary. They also have Danny Frawley but I don't see that he adds much value. My favourite Frawley-ism of the day was when he claimed during the game that all the Melbourne forwards had kicked at least one goal. At that time Hogan, Smith and Spargo hadn't.

Irrespective of the decision, I don't understand why we have a three tier system (MRO, Tribunal, Appeals Board). Personally, I think the process for all alleged offences should see a determination by the MRO with players or the AFL able to appeal the MRO's decision to a higher authority (call it a Tribunal or Appeals Board). That higher authority's decision would then be final. That still ensures procedural fairness and resolves everything much more quickly.

The bit that I don't understand is how an umpire not indicating his (or her) way out will actually make any material difference to the time.

It depends on what a person thinks "iconic" should mean. I can understand why some think it shouldn't be #31 because RDB played and coached other clubs; I can understand the support for #2 and the argument for #9 because of the various records David Neitz holds. For me, however, it has to be 31 because Barassi was the dominant player of his era AND at the same time Melbourne was the most dominant team in the competition. Those two reasons make 31 iconic whereas the numbers 2 and 9 were worn by great players but, through no fault of their own, they didn't play in great teams.

The only number that surprises me is that someone thought that the data after only 8 rounds could be considered meaningful and worthy of analysis.

I haven't seen either incident but is it possible that the umpires will be suspended for putting an illegal block against each Curnow off the ball?

A few years ago Luke Hodge in an intentionally friendly way put his arm around an umpire. Did anything come of it at the time? I know that action was completely different to what Hawkins, and the Curnows have done but if Hodge wasn't suspended it may suggest there is room for players to touch umpires when there is no malice intended.

Worsfold learned his coaching trade from Malthouse as did Neeld. I suspect they talked the same language with respect to gameplan and player management which made Worsfold feel comfortable. My opinion is that the game has moved on from the Malthouse approach (gameplan and player management) leaving both Worsfold and Neeld behind.

I wouldn't even swap him for all of those other 4.

I have finally seen the St Kilda game for the first time. I can't understand why people think Salem should have come in for ANB. They play completely different roles. Salem replaces Hunt because Hunt is the worst performing small defender and Salem will play that role. When Viney returns, then ANB might go out of the side. But - subject to this weekend's performance - even then, I think ANB's spot in the side is safer than Hannan's.

I vaguely recall the AFL restricting the use of numbers to about 50 or below. This is relatively recent (post Sean Rehn's career). Jeff Garlett's #67 was a "special case" in recognition of the referendum held in 1967 which (I hope I've got this right) formally recognised aborigines as Australians.

Thanks, that's helpful. While media often "beat up" (or sometimes even "make up") a story like this, you'd have to assume Tim Watson knows more than most given he was part of the 1993 premiership team.

I disagree. Running straight at the goals and kicking a drop punt from that distance and that angle would be much more likely to be accurate than a round-the-corner attempt.

And in hindsight, maybe Matthew Knights was a better appointment than was realised at the time.

I'd like to see 18 on the field, and two on the bench with interchanges limited to a smaller number. Perhaps no more than 24 per game. Hopefully it would obviate the need for players being required to stay in defined zones.

That little bit of data is completely meaningless without context. For example, what's the usual number who might turn up for any other club's 25 year reunion? What were the reasons behind why the seven didn't go (illness? travel? work commitments?, etc) Frankly, without additional information the point that 7 didn't go is a fact in search of a meaning.

Didn't Balme go to Richmond as a direct result of Collingwood appointing Gubby Allan...which means that Eddie McGuire can take the credit for Balme going to Richmond...which means you want McGuire at Melbourne???

Glen Bartlett now has to make the most important decision of his presidency. Of course, for all we know, that decision has already been made, even if the next CEO doesn't know it yet. Given that succession planning is clearly a model PJ appreciates, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the choice for the next CEO has already been made. It's always a tough job to follow on from someone who has been very successful, but I hope our next CEO is up to the task and given the support he or she will need by the Board, the club employees and the members. And Demonlanders. And thankyou, PJ.

I must admit I don't quite understand the "needs a rest" idea. A game of football is less than three hours, once a week. Sure, it's intense and bodies take a beating. But if players need a rest isn't that what the other 165 hours per week is for? In other words, I would rather rest them during the week (ie, no training) rather than game day. If, however, "rest" is code for "sore", that's a different issue. If a player has some form of soreness, whether it's bruising or something else, then I can understand that player not playing.

I think Goodwin did a media interview today saying that Viney will play in the VFL this week and that Salem is every chance to be available for the seniors. http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2018-05-09/viney-to-return-this-week-in-vfl

Funnily enough, I thought the use of the word "excessive" was deliberate. Basically saying those commentators were guilty of hyperbole, that is, the commentary equivalent of staging.