La Dee-vina Comedia

I don't. The Rioli incident was off the ball. I believe any incident which is not in play should cop extra weeks. I'd go with two additional weeks, although I could understand others might suggest one extra is enough. My thinking is that incidents such as this Rioli one are far more problematic for the game than offences which occur in the course of play. So, if it were up to me I would change the rules so that the Rioli incident would have resulted in 4 weeks made up of 2 weeks for the offence itself plus 2 for being off the ball.

I blame it all on the soft-on-crime government which means there are Collingwood supporters who should be in gaol but are instead roaming the streets.

By why not change the system to say you can accept the ban or take your chances with an appeal? Why go via the Tribunal?

I still don't understand why there's a three step process. I fully understand why there needs to be a second process to allow for natural justice. Why don't MRO appeals go straight to the Appeals Board. What's the point of an appeal against an MRO decision going to the Tribunal at all?

I assume this was promoted as a fungible token.

I like your thinking (although I think you'll find it's George M Cohan).

My apologies. I was wrong. It was actually 9 years ago. It was in 2014 - remember those glorious times? Viney's successful appeal was probably the highlight of the year.

Why, oh why, have the TV broadcasters gone back to using so many close-ups of live action? It becomes impossible to determine what the action is that we're supposed to be watching. I'm OK with using the close-up for replays when detail might be of interest, but the flow of the game is impossible to ascertain when the close-ups are being used of live play. For the last year or two, possibly more, they had abandoned the close-up for live play. That was so much better. Whoever the bright spark is who thought it was a good idea to re-introduce it should be given their marching orders.

Coincidentally, it's 8 years to the day since the successful Viney appeal.

I think this is an excellent point, and not just for this case. The alternative would seem to suggest a more reckless approach.

I, too, think we should stick with the modern method. I don't think the time "lost" is hugely problematic. If we're worrying about time wasting, we'd be better off abolishing the rule about nominated ruckmen and the delays that causes while the umpires wait for two lumbering ruckmen to get to the throw-in or throw-up.

The risk with the sub is that whoever it is must be ready to play a full game, just in case. Nevertheless, if Salem is fully fit, should he come into the senior team immediately, sub or not? If so, for whom? Up until the GCS game, I thought Bowey was struggling. But I thought Bowey and McVee were both very good on Saturday.

I think the converse is true. The AFL changed the system from a panel to one person to overcome concerns about inconsistency. I'm not sure having a single person eliminates inconsistency - it just removes the argument that any inconsistency was due to having multiple people involved.

Sorry to go off topic, but where does this $4 million figure come from? I thought it was widely accepted that the consultancy cost was somewhere between $1 million and $1.5 million. (For what it's worth, I don't have a problem with the AFL using a consultant to assist them. Nor do I believe it's a "waste of money" given the internal candidate was chosen. The consultants' work should have confirmed that Dillon was the best available candidate.)

If the AFL is concerned about parents and their willingness to have their children play the game, they should be more concerned about the off-the-ball incidents which occur against the best players in every game. The constant bumping, niggling, elbowing and shoving is a far greater blight on the game than a poorly executed defensive spoil.

I'm more concerned that the Tasmanian team will pinch Jason Taylor and/or Tim Lamb. They're going to have to develop a strong off-field team and I think everyone here would agree that Taylor and Lamb have proven they are of the highest quality.

Couldn't disagree more. Chris Scott is the most articulate and interesting coach out there. In fact, I think he's the only one worth listening to. The rest either say nothing of any value (Goodwin, Longmire, Simpson) or occasionally appear angry (Hardwick, Clarkson, Beveridge, Lyon). I think it would be best for Hardwick and Richmond to go their separate ways at the end of this season. I could see Hardwick moving to Port Adelaide next season with Hinkley taking charge of Gold Coast should Dew's time be up.

Neitz was from Tassie? I never knew that.

Presumably the team won't be called "Hobart" for that reason. Naming it "Tasmania" is all encompassing, although it diminishes the possibility of a second team ever being located in that State.

Could be none of the above. Brayshaw may move to the midfield and some unlucky midfielder might lose his spot.

Yes: https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1321909/narrm-football-club-returns-for-2023

This one?

And James Hird. Not a bad duo.

Autocorrect for Lukosius? If so, your device is impressively refined.

A trio of prominent ruckmen that are yet to surpass the 200 ruck contests benchmark include Darcy Cameron, Max Gawn and Luke Jackson, with the latter being the most efficient of the three. Once again, Demonland comes to the rescue of the English language. "Latter" should only be used to refer to the second of two options. The correct word to use when there are three or more would be "last". You're welcome.