La Dee-vina Comedia

I've just seen Jay Clark's story in the Herald Sun. Usual fluffy stuff, but one thing he wrote stood out. He claimed Petracca played at CHF. Is this true?

Did Hogan spend any time in the midfield, particularly at centre bounces/ball ups? If so, how did he go?

Thanks Drunkn - a very useful explanation. I also seem to recall that the rookies category may have been introduced to assist clubs who didn't have any "veterans" on their list in the days when clubs with qualifying "veterans" had a distinct advantage with their salary cap.

So, you were the one who watched it. I knew there was someone.

Well, Dr Gonzo, you said this almost 12 months ago. Prescient.

Why do you say that? I'm not a follower of the NRL, but I thought the NRL twilight GF was considered a success...and one of the prime arguments used by those proposing a twilight AFL GF. I find it somewhat ironic and also sad that the least popular timeslot for AFL throughout the year is being proposed for its most important game.

I don't like the term "pre game entertainment". I fear something noisy and garish which will add to the cost of putting on the real game which spectators will indirectly have to pay for. I would, however, support curtain raisers, particularly if they involved our AFLW or VFL teams or even TAC cup football..

Is anyone else who renewed their membership last year still waiting for their membership package to arrive? If it's just me, I'll contact the club.

Classic. Is his personal guarantee ("you won't") supposed to be given more or less credit than a supposed fact ("you can't")?

But for what purpose? I can't imagine the Court can be used to satisfy curiosity. Doesn't the plaintiff have to show how he/she/it has suffered something for which the Court is the only remedy? In other words...so what if there was a conspiracy? How has the plaintiff been wronged because of it (if there was one)?

What would you expect? One's in Victoria and the other is in Queensland. More seriously, Hodge, while not standing alone, has very few peers. Between us all we could argue exactly where, but I suspect most would have him in the top 10 players or thereabouts for the 21st Century. Very few players will be within the same postcode and of those that are not, we would be very happy to have the best of the rest play for us. Hopefully Salem can become one of those.

Can someone summarise the cause of action that Julian Burnside is engaged for? I'm paywalled out of all News Ltd sites so I haven't been able to read the article. Without access to the article, I'm struggling to work out what the plaintiff is seeking and why. Using the usual logic doesn't generate any believable options.

I'm sympathetic to the arguments put regarding Judd, Ablett, Buckley and Franklin. But there's also been S Burgoyne, Gunston, Jolly, Josh Kennedy, Lake, Hall and Tom Boyd who have changed clubs and been part of Premierships. All good sized fish, I would have thought. It's about getting the fish you need, not just the biggest ones.

Well, I did add "if that's what they're doing" precisely because I don't know. But, I could see reasons why they might. For example, next year the AFLW will expand with 2 more teams, with further expansion in 2020. That means a longer AFLW season. They could start the AFLW earlier...or start when they do now and continue on past the start of the AFL season. If it's the latter, it might make sense to play AFLW games as curtain raisers. In addition as more clubs are going back to standalone VFL teams, perhaps VFL matches could be played as curtain raisers. By playing AFLW or VFL games before the AFL game, I expect costs would be reduced (because they are playing at a venue which is already staffed) and possibly increasing potential attendances for those games.

Bringing back curtain raisers (if that's what they are doing). Putting on AFLW or VFL games before the main AFL game would be substantially more enjoyable than watching 20 minutes of players warming up.

I think it might be the young ones, not the old ones, who seem to think change is required.

If the AFL re-introduced curtain raisers, then they will be fixing something that broke when curtain raisers were abolished. I seem to recall that the decision to abolish curtain raisers was justified as a way to protect playing surfaces. With the new high quality playing surfaces that now exist right around the country (and the way that grounds can be repaired with replacement turf) that argument no longer exists. So, it could be that the AFL is actually about to fix something that is broken rather than the other way around. (And I don't think it was the AFL's decision to abolish curtain raisers. I think it was the ground managers wanting to limit damage to the ground surface.)

I was amused by this. I read it as meaning that it's not clear what gender Mark Robinson is. Usually the debate is about what his profession or skill set is. This is something new and refreshing.

Not necessarily. Just because the Chairman doesn't like pokies, it doesn't mean all the clubs will get out of the pokies business. The ALP just lost an election in Tassie where their biggest policy idea seemed to be removing pokies from all pubs and clubs. I'm not sure the wider community agrees with the AFL Chairman or the Tassie ALP. And while there is still community support, I expect some clubs will continue to offer the product.

I know it's not on the topic de jour, but in one sentence you've identified the AFL's two greatest fears with the northern expansion.

The author of the Monash study is a well-known anti-pokies advocate, Charles Livingstone. He has linked family violence with AFL pokies venues solely on the basis that there are rates of higher family violence recorded in the same locations as there are AFL pokies venues. There is no causality in his assessment - just linking one set of numbers with another with no evidence showing there is a link between the two. (It's very poor research and I'm amazed Monash Uni has published it.) I suspect his article is an opportunistic attack through an opening made by the Chairman of the AFL Commission who has made his distaste for poker machines very public.

Point taken. But the difference with media rights over acceptance of money from sponsors, is that the media rights impact on whether people will get to see the game. I know that the only games I will see will either be live at the MCG or on free-to-air. The more there are restrictions (ie, costs) placed on my ability to watch the game, the less I'll watch. For many people that means they'll find something else to do with that time and may be lost to football altogether. The choice of sponsors may be distasteful to some, but it doesn't impact on the ability to watch the game.

And they won't get you watching their games, either. That's the Mephistophelian conundrum for the AFL. Now that they've sold their soul to the devil which is not free-to-air, they have to do the devil's bidding. I understand the AFL's desire for financial return from media rights, but the risk that people will not pay and stop watching games altogether must be highly concerning.

Salem has foot skills, courage and game sense. Lewis is the same. All we appear to be doing is swapping the two to make use of the younger player's capability to run around more (or, conversely, to extend Lewis's career). I'm not trying to be flippant - I support the plan and see it as a logical move which harnesses the strengths of both players.

Good on you Ethan. Always looking for the bigger picture.