La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

That's where we differ. I don't think poker machines are evil. I don't play them but have no problem that other people who wish to do so can have that choice. Note: I find it ironic that it's someone called Beelzebub that is concerned about the facilitation of evil.

This seems more like a headline in "Farmers' Digest".

I find it strange that when this site discusses drugs, it's the users who are generally criticised yet when the discussion is about poker machines, it's the machines that are the problem.

I expect a Herald Sun story claiming that WorkSafe is investigating, the AFL has commissioned a secret inquiry (which Gill will deny) and that Oliver has engaged the services of Slater and Gordon.

Ernest Hemingway...is that really you? Ernest Hemingway was known for his "simple, direct, unadorned prose". (I'd love now to include the story or how Hemingway described his wife to a friend. It was certainly simple and direct, but not suitable for this site.)

And many others. I suspect someone with a bit of time and a good memory could put together a team of former Melbourne players who thrilled at the beginning only to fade quickly from thereon. Recent examples would include Gysberts, Magner, Mitch Clark and Tapscott.

I didn't know there was a park named after Ron Barassi Snr. Is there any specific reason why this park was named after him? Wikipedia tells me that he was killed at Tobruk and "was the first VFL footballer to lose his life in the conflict". (It's a bit ambiguous - unclear whether that means he was the first to be killed in WW2 or the first at Tobruk). I'm perfectly comfortable that a park be named after any of our defence force personnel killed in action, but I was wondering if there's more to it?

You mean this one?

I agree, but for the avoidance of any doubt let's also make clear that the runner up doesn't get the premiership by default. I couldn't bear the thought of Collingwood being rewarded for giving me so much enjoyment every time they came second.

Why do people keep making these sort of comments? I suspect the match committee picks the side based on players and the role they are expected to play, not the best 22 available players. If Vince goes out, someone will be picked who can replace him in defence; if ANB goes out, he'll be replaced by someone who can play forward and onball. That means the player who replaces Vince would not be the same player who might replace ANB. Hence, there is no relationship between whether ANB goes out before or after Vince, or at all (and vice versa).

At least he's wearing some protection on his head.

He didn't just learn a trade, he also learned some business strategy. In the business world they would call that vertical integration.