La Dee-vina Comedia

I think you'll find that was Hunt. Except I think Rockliff tagged Hunt, not the other way around. Essentially a nil-all draw. (I know Rockliff kicked a goal, but he was not nearly as damaging as usual.)

I'd rather we focused on the possibility that it may be our Elimination Final.

As stated by Biffen above, our game style regularly leaves us with few options forward. This means once we get the ball we handball sideways a lot to allow others to stream forward. But credit should also go to the opposition. They know we want to play on at every opportunity and put pressure on the ball carrier which often requires a handpass rather than a kick because it's quicker, easier and generally safer (in that it hits a target) to do under pressure compared with kicking the ball.

One could, but one would be wrong. At least, not on his own. 19 players in the first half (Jones, Melksham and Hogan being the notable exceptions) almost lost us the game.

My first thought was: "This, if Viney's fit. If he's not, Hannan stays." However, will we need another tall defender? Should Frost come in? Will Vince be suspended? I'll do a Saty and leave it to the match committee. I understand they have more information at their disposal than I do.

Actually, I think Gawn's first 10-12 minutes of the third quarter "won us the game". I suspect the coaches gave him some "advice" at half time. He absolutely dominated the game in that period, but, unfortunately was relatively quiet for the rest of the match.

And this week the Invisible Man gets 4 votes.

6. Jones 5. Melksham 4. Pedersen 3. Hogan 2. Lewis 1. Brayshaw (Pedersen in form makes Hogan a more damaging player because he (Hogan) can play closer to goal.

Wow. 18 separate goal kickers. I don't think I've ever seen a spread like that anywhere, in any game at any level.

Strange bedfellows. Any affect they might have on the game probably cancels each other out.

And you're very humble.

Removing someone's accreditation is not the same thing as censorship. Anyone who has been accredited has been given access which most people don't receive. It's therefore a privilege. With that privilege comes responsibility, one of which is not to make stuff up. If someone wants to make stuff up and publish it there are plenty of places to do so which don't require accreditation, such as social media, like Twitter and Facebook. And just to draw a parallel, I believe Demonland's administrators will withdraw a person's privileges if that person posts stuff they've made up on Demonland. I think Gill McLachlan is just following the excellent standards set by Demonland.

What does the "bone towards his toes flared up" actually mean? I assume "flared up" refers to some form of pain or inflammation rather than the bone shifting physically upwards. It's certainly a highly generalised explanation.

I vaguely recall a change in AFL rules following on from the Essendon saga which specifically gave the doctors the final say on treatment and player availability. Am I mis-remembering?

Rhymes with...?

Except that apparently it's a different injury to Viney's foot so it would seem we haven't "screwed Viney's foot by bringing him back too early." However, I share your concern about Hogan. Presumably the only reason Weideman is in the selected 25 is for him to be a late replacement for Hogan should it be decided on Sunday that he's not actually ready.

Interestingly, there's a big key forward for the opposition in the votes for each of the games we lost.

Sorry, I was too distracted by the tight shorts, the mullets and the appalling ground surfaces to notice.

Alice Springs might be a better fit for us, but I doubt very much the NT Government which pays us to play in Darwin and the Alice would agree.

Who knows? You've made one assumption. But there could be a myriad of other reasons (for which I have no supporting evidence) including: relieving salary cap pressure personality clashes preference for one other player out of a list of about 45 to be captain need to regenerate a list in an ordered fashion which means "removing" older players a couple at a time offering a player of Lewis' calibre at a "peppercorn" as a courtesy to the player as gratitude for contributing to 4 premierships if Lewis had stayed Hawthorn may have lost someone else of greater importance to their long-term plans...

I know their season's done. But I wouldn't have thought we could pick any Collingwood players in our team. (Apologies to all. I couldn't help myself.)

Is it? It seems to me the AFL continues to be concerned about the opposite. Isn't that why we have incessant rule changes? I'm sure I've heard the AFL arguing that the rule changes are essential to "keep the game moving". Presumably that means the AFL thinks the game is being slowed down by flooding which leads to those ugly rolling mauls. I suspect the only people who keep complaining that the game is "speeding up every year" are older players who are slowing down.

Of course not. Saty is actually Garry Baker after having been put through the wash too many times.

That line of Kennedy's is the truth, but not the whole truth. He forgets to mention there are two other field umpires out there. The question he should be asked is why the umpire who undertakes the bounce is the controlling umpire? Why not make sure the umpire who bounces does that task properly and moves away safely and leave the officiating of the immediate contest to the remaining umpires?

Pity the AFL's own article didn't go a bit further and provide the wording of the specific rule. Leaves one wondering whether they were making up the straight arm "interpretation" to justify the decisions made. They wouldn't do that, would they?