La Dee-vina Comedia

I know it's a subjective hypothetical exercise, but for those who saw the game, do you think the Casey 2016 team (meaning personnel and game plan) would beat the Melbourne 2013 team (personnel and game plan). And it's just hypothetical, so I don't need anyone pointing out that players like Terlich, Grimes and Dawes would be playing in both teams. I'm just trying to get a feel for how far we have come in 3 years.

Pity you weren't quite correct. It would have been post of the year for mine. (I initially read it the same way as you, too.) If the umpires are continually paying a free kick it's more likely a problem with the rules, not the umpiring. And that can be easily fixed. Frees against don't need to be paid automatically. It should be considered a legitimate tackle. If the player disposes of the ball correctly, play on. If he disposes incorrectly or not at all, a free should be paid against him. Yes, but does your wife know?

OK - thanks for the clarification.

What "record" are we talking about here? Do you mean youngest Melbourne side ever? Youngest AFL/VFL side ever? Youngest Paul Roos coached side ever? I'm not damning your post, just seeking clarification.

On the other hand, he wasn't listless - in fact he listed heavily to one side for most of the game.

Late, but... 6. N Jones 5. Hogan 4. Stretch 3. T McDonald 2. Watts 1. Oliver And a little commentary: Bugg and Harmes turned the ball over so many times I couldn't reward them with votes. Perhaps that's harsh, but it's nice to know there were other options to choose. Watts was handy for the first three quarters but outstanding in the last. What makes this better is that even though he was a part-time ruckman, he was still powering on in the last quarter. Oliver on one leg was outstanding and showed mental toughness to play through what was obvious pain. Petracca's physical size reminds me of Leigh Matthews. His tree-trunk thighs make him almost impossible to knock over.

Cutting a deal takes two to tango. Essendon might have managed an outcome you don't agree with. But they still had to plead guilty. What more could they do? Ask the court to impose a higher penalty?

According to Demonland statistics at the time of writing this post there are 1,110,105 posts on the Melbourne Demons forum. That means 33,303 are not guesses. I find that number hard to believe.

I haven't been following this story for a while because not much new is happening but is it correct to say that Essendon (meaning the current club administration) "say they still did nothing wrong"? I appreciate Beelzebub's point that they haven't sufficiently admitted to some matters (what exactly happened, for example) but I thought Essendon had accepted that they did do something wrong. For example (and I know this doesn't cover everything) they pleaded guilty in the Worksafe case. If Essendon has admitted they were wrong I think it is churlish to criticise the current administration for matters they were not a part of. You might as well argue that Paul Roos be blamed for Melbourne "tanking".

Now that there's wifi at the MCG surely it can't be too hard for the doctors to access Demonland during games and get instant crowd-sourced diagnoses of injuries and treatment options. Should improve performance substantially.

Exactly. Everything you need to know is in the second sentence of the article. The rest is dross - apart from the repetition of the point made in the second sentence repeated two-thirds of the way down, just in case a reader missed the key point the first time.

I suspect the longer term plan was for Salem to play HBF in 2016 and then move to a permanent midfield role in 2017. However, with the recent success of Wagner and Hunt on the HBF, Salem's move into the midfield may happen as soon as this week.

That's a complex zoological species.

Grammar: The difference between knowing your sh!t and knowing you're sh!t

Would payment and quantum of 'damages' even be Essendon's decision or would it be up to the club's insurer? In other words, could Essendon distance itself from any 'damages' payments?

How dare you use facts to dispute my theory. And so promptly. I am wounded...

Even if those three don't pass their tests (and I hope they do, of course), it's still an injury list to be grateful for. Although I have no evidence to support this theory, I'm convinced there is a correlation between onfield performance and injuries - and I mean in that order, not the other way around (ie, better onfield performances leads to fewer injuries). My theory is that when a team plays well, the ball goes where it's expected to more often so players don't have to over-stretch to reach it (which could lead to muscle strains) or twist unexpectedly (ligament sprains or ruptures) or be more subject to collision injuries as they contest for a ball in dispute (concussions, dislocations and fractures).

You might want to buy a keyboard that comes with a hyphen.

I trust this was intentionally ironic? (If it wasn't you can claim that it was and we'll all believe you.)

I used to play the Tarax Polly Farmer Footy Game in the 1960s. Does that count? (This is it, if you're interested.)

I'm just delighted that neutral supporters will look at the fixture and recognise that this game may be a great one to watch with two of the most exciting teams in the competition. After the rubbish we've served up over most of the last decade, whether we win or lose, it's nice to know that most games we are in have become enjoyable to watch. Hopefully Channel 7 is coming to a similar view so we get better prime time/free to air games in 2017.

Also improves tonsorial balance with three blondes, three brunettes* and, um, Jonesy. *Note: Is "brunette" the correct term for a male with dark coloured hair? The word looks like its derived from a French feminine word. I am in no way implying anything about the manliness or otherwise of Hogan, Viney and Brayshaw.

Not sure about the logic of this. It suggests that there is a 63% chance that a team other than Melbourne or Footscray will win a game of football played between Melbourne and Footscray. Ergo, I think there's a flaw in this particular argument.

That's a very specific statement and timeline. What's the evidence? And if he's a better coach prospect than footballer, I'm all for shifting him from the on-field to the off-field role (if that's what he wants).

I've always been troubled by the blocking/shepherding out rule in marking and rucking contests when the player who supposedly has infringed has not moved. I didn't see the one in question in the St Kilda v North game, but in my view, any player who does not move but happens to get in the way of another player has, by design or luck, managed to be in the right spot - that is, being the spot the opposition player is trying to get to - and should not be penalised. If, however, he has moved to a position and has done so to block another player, then I see no problem with a free kick being paid.