La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

Presumably if you played Melbourne supporters would call out "Well played number 8 and a 1/2"

This is the real reason Melbourne supporters say things like "Well played number 9". It's not that they don't know the kid's name; they're just too embarrassed for the kid to say it out loud.

I recall reading that as a player he was a genuine student of the game with aspirations to coach. I have no idea what those personal reasons might be that has seen him go back to Tassie, but if he still has a passion to coach or be a football administrator, Tassie could do a lot worse than make use of his skills. The learnings he gets there may help him in the longer path that all retired footballers have to take.

There are two different processes which ultimately lead to the same result. Umpires can report on the day, with that report requiring Michael Christian to decide whether it deserves of a penalty he determines or whether it should be referred directly to the tribunal. Separately, after viewing video footage Michael Christian can make his own determination on any matter he considers worthy of his attention which was not the subject of a match day report by the umpires. In this instance, because the umpire(s) on the day chose not to report Carlisle, it was left to Christian to decide whether Carlisle's actions deserved scrutiny. A coach (Chris Scott?) has recently questioned whether there is any need for umpires to report players any more given the MRO process. I can see his point given there is this other process. However, it may be that umpires having the power to report may help them keep control of a game which might otherwise become rapidly inflamed.

The second one's a dud. Should trade him.

Slight but understandable overstatement. It's not yet the mark of the week, just a nomination. That's still a great achievement, though. As a minimum it means it was considered to be better than every other mark taken in this round except possibly two. For what it's worth, I expect Jack Darling's mark to win. A true contested mark against three defenders.

Hogan should have run in straight and kicked an ordinary drop punt. The Stevie J kick around the corner makes sense when on a sharp angle, but not this time. My suspicion is that players choose the Stevie J kick for psychological reasons. It gives them an excuse if they miss. They can argue (to themselves) that the shot was harder than it actually was and therefore excuse their poor kick. It would be much harder to justify a miss if he had run in straight as he should have.

Disappointed no-one has yet suggested you should trade your significant other out to get Hogan in to live with you.

I didn't want to start a new thread, but given it's St Kilda v Melbourne playing this week, it's an appropriate time to ask the following: Is Carl Ditterich the only player in VFL/AFL history to have played with two clubs twice? That is, Carl played with St Kilda, then Melbourne, then St Kilda again and then Melbourne again. Has anyone else done that? PS: This game should be played for the Carl Ditterich Cup, which should have a nice, white headband attached to the top.

Leigh Fisher has been umpiring for quite some time now. Without checking, I expect he's already umpired some St Kilda games. If there had been any suggestion of any bias (for or against St Kilda) by Leigh Fisher in those games he wouldn't still be umpiring games involving St Kilda (or even any games). So, no, we shouldn't be concerned about Leigh Fisher umpiring this game. And we shouldn't even be impugning his reputation by asking the question. If it were up to me, I'd close the thread.

If drop kicks come back into football it will require a rule change, or, to use AFL-speak, a fresh interpretation of a rule. Currently if a player is tackled and kicks the ball after it hits the ground first, it's considered to be incorrect disposal and a free is paid to the tackler. I don't know why that's the case. It's a drop kick, not always expertly delivered and never deliberately intended. But it's still a drop kick.

You're quite right. I should have said that the evidence before it was contaminated might have helped clear or damn the defendants.

I don't disagree with your concern about the flawed process, but it's equally possible from where we stand that without the contamination, the evidence could have damned or cleared the defendant.