La Dee-vina Comedia

I think it would be more unprofessional to see a problem, recognise it, have a solution and not implement it. But changing rules (or interpretation of rules, which is what we're really talking about) during a season has been going on for as long as I can remember. The only difference is that the AFL has been transparent about it this time instead of leaving it to clubs, players and spectators to work out that things have changed mid-way through the first quarter of the first game of a new round of football. For that alone, the AFL should be praised.

This is a really interesting point worthy of a PhD study. As we all know Melbourne's last Premiership was in 1964. TV only started in Australia in 1956 and it was not until the early to mid-1960s that it became commonplace. Football was only available via replay and generally limited to one or two hours per week. As such, the coverage was very limited with most of it showing the on-field successful clubs which in the mid-60s to the 70s were Collingwood, Carlton and Richmond. I rarely saw even a glimpse of a Melbourne game. Is it a reasonable assumption that the saturation coverage of those three teams through that era generated the base of support that those clubs receive today? Conversely, if TV had started a decade earlier while Melbourne was at its peak, would we have been one of the blockbuster clubs of today?

Quick. Tell Misson we've discovered the problem.

For a moment there I thought you were discussing cling wrap. Shows how the mind can interpret words before their true meaning becomes clear from the context.

Don't forget that odds are set taking into account the amount of money being held by the bookies on each club. With Gold Coast having so few supporters, there is always likely to be less cash backing them than us which would help shorten our odds.

At least the online version of The Age story has the right picture. Today's print edition of The Age includes a picture supposedly of Brayshaw but is actually of Jack Watts. Presumably, the mis-naming, if not the concussions themselves, are all Jack Watts' fault.

Not sure I agree with that. Not because Kennedy doesn't get a good write up, but I would have thought he was behind Melksham and ANB (both based on Plapp's comments) and Harmes (who didn't play as the held-over emergency).

Could it also be his anatomical or physiological self that makes him more susceptible? Just like some players are more susceptible to knee injuries (think Daniel Menzel and David Schwarz).

If the MFC strategy is an eventual stand-alone reserves team, then adopting the Melbourne team song makes sense. It's just part of a gradual transition such as changing the name to Casey Demons and the jumper to a modified Melbourne jumper which have both happened this year. I also don't see it as disrespectful to the Port Melbourne team. After all, only one of the teams will be singing it at the end of any game played between the two. Just to satisfy my curiosity, what was the Casey Scorpions song? Was it a standard derivative or something truly unique (for better or worse)?

Looks overweight to me. Which is odd, because for most of the last decade our payers have looked undersized, rather than the reverse. I wonder whether he needs to change his body shape to be less Colin Sylvia and more, say, Christian Salem?

Perhaps to make the point that the Carlton incidents should have been graded that way, too? It's much harder to keep arguing that point while then claiming Vince received "high impact". (The alternative answer is that we thought the impact was of anatomically low impact. That is, below the stomach and where a man doesn't like to be punched. Which is what it looked like to me at the ground).

Can't agree. The idea is sensible as it removes the farce of players giving evidence and it should lead to greater consistency. The AFL needs to work with whoever the MRP and Tribunal members are to ensure they have a system in place which works better and with greater consistency than the current one. If the problem is with the grading system, then fix it. For example, I can't understand how any "intentional" offence can be a fine rather than a suspension, irrespective of the impact on the victim. Also, the members of the MRP (and the AFL Tribunal) should not also work in the media. That's a problem.

There is an argument that getting rid of the bounce will increase the pool of good umpires who otherwise won't umpire because the bounce is (a) bad for their backs and shoulders and (b) too hard to do, particularly for women who generally don't have the same strength as men. I like the bounce, but I'd be prepared to get rid of it if it meant the standard of umpiring improved.

To reduce PCL injuries when ruckmen's knees collided at a greater force of impact.

One risk of having the same umpires together every week is that it increases the possibility of corruption. I'm not against what you are suggesting, just pointing out it produces another potential problem which would need to be managed.

I'm not necessarily against the concept of full time professional umpires. But what would they do during the week when they are not officiating? I wonder whether it might be more practical to have a small pool of full-time umpires, enough so that there is at least one officiating at each match. The full-time umps could spend their days training the part-timers.

I agree with you. Similarly, I don't think you can separate the draw from the subsequent draft order. I'd like to think the AFL would make its decisions recognising the impact each has with the other but I'm not sure they are sophisticated enough to do so.

Regarding the draw, I was referring to the issue of who each team plays, not when and whether on free-to-air TV. I agree that the scheduling (rather than the draw per se) significantly impacts on equity. I like the idea posted by someone above that all teams have a minimum number of Friday and Saturday games on free-to-air TV. But I don't see it happening. I can fully understand why Channel 7 would not have wanted us stinking up their viewer numbers if forced to broadcast us in 2012 and 2013.

I know we have an auto-censor on Demonland, but I really do think it's totally inappropriate to use this language. To call someone bald is so unfair. It's not like he has a choice.

I thought the punch was about 20 cm lower than that. I'm starting to think you're not actually Socrates. If you were, you would be asking questions, not providing answers. I'm not in favour of making substantial changes to the team that comprehensively defeated Adelaide the week before. However, I suspect Jack Watts might have a leg or groin problem. He clearly didn't want to kick the ball yesterday. He might need to be rested next week to give him a three week break with the bye. Other than that, I'd prefer one of Stretch, Harmes or ANB (whoever has been best at Casey) for Kent. And maybe Melksham for Wagner.

It's not just the AFL. The free-to-air broadcaster (and not just the current one) has no care about long-term sustainability as it only has an interest in the life of the current rights deal. It wants to extract maximum dollars with minimal risk so pressures the AFL into giving it more games on Friday and Saturday nights with highly supported teams, irrespective of their ladder position. The AFL have looked at both methods but has come to the view (correctly in my view) that clubs will do more to promote their home games to attract attendances if they have a financial benefit from doing so. The alternative of equally dividing gate receipts discourages clubs from trying. As to the idea of "fixture inequality", I have said for many years that I don't think it matters as much as people seem to think. I can't remember the last time a team won the premiership because of any advantage they may have had with the draw. The only thing I would do is ensure every team plays each other in the first 17 rounds. Consideration could also be given to determining draft order at the end of those 17 rounds. The advantages of doing so are (1) the season is still "live" for more clubs (and players who still want to prove themselves to extend their careers) than at round 22 and (2) clubs' draft positions are equally influenced by who they've played (ie, one team doesn't get an improved draft position by having played more top 4 teams than the teams around them.) The disadvantage may be that there is less interest in the last 5 rounds - but if we're worried about draft position in the last 5 rounds we're probably supporting the wrong outcome in those games anyway.

I'm more concerned that the word "skill" might be missing from the MFC coaching manual.

Only two players played four quarters, so they get the 6 (Hibberd) and 5 (Tyson), even though the best of the 4-1 votes was better than anything Tyson produced. But I want to reward effort as much as outcome. 6. Hibberd 5. Tyson 4. Jetta 3. Viney 2. Frost 1. Jones

There are three reasons why I don't support the "wildcard idea". Firstly, forget the name "wildcard". It is just another way of extending the finals series to 10 teams. In an 18 team competition it is patently ridiculous that more than half the teams can end up playing in the finals. If the team is not good enough to finish in the top half after 22 rounds it shouldn't be given that opportunity. (Disclosure: I don't even like the idea of a final 8. Six teams - one-third of the competition - in finals is enough.) Secondly, while I know last year was an aberration, the Grand Final is almost always played by teams who finished in the top four positions. It is already questionable whether there is any value in the first week of the finals with generally poor attendances because the games are effectively meaningless as the winners of the elimination final more often than not are beaten in the second week. Teams 7 to 10 would be just additional cannon fodder for the higher placed teams effectively diminishing the quality of finals football. Thirdly should a team playing the so-called "wildcard" rounds make it through to the Preliminary or even Grand Final, they are more likely to have been exhausted by the process which would increase the likelihood of those games being blowouts and poor examples of what should be the best games of the year.

I agree with your last line. Given Champion Data has a stat for everything, I'm surprised they haven't come up with a stat called something like "Percentage of team disposals". I would have thought that such a statistic would allow for better statistical comparison of players from different eras when team disposal numbers were so different. It would be interesting to see how Diesel then compared with players of today like Oliver but also with other on-ballers from different eras such as Ron Barassi, Kevin Bartlett and Dick Reynolds (if they had reliable disposal stats in those days).