La Dee-vina Comedia

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

I'll just leave this here. Personally, I don't think there should be any further comment given the seriousness of the matter.

Yes, but only because they didn't think of "Charlie out of the spa - go time!"

Which makes me wonder whether he used to have better disposal skills and, perhaps, speed, which GWS saw when they drafted him. If so, is it possible he has some form of chronic injury like the dreaded osteitis pubis (which, generally speaking, seems to have disappeared from the AFL)?