La Dee-vina Comedia

And we're all the better for it. Mind you, I've just started a sentence with a conjunction which is another no-no, so there is still room for improvement.

So close!

Ashkenazi jews are historically from Yiddish speaking areas (ie, Eastern Europe) while Sephardi jews have their heritage in Spain and the Iberian peninsula. Ziggy and Glasman are clearly Germanic-European names and consistent with an Ashkenazi background. Toledo is in Spain, hence the Sephardi comment. However, as WJ has explained, there appears to be no Sephardi linkage for Glasman Just half-Ashkenazi, like Todd Goldstein.

Ahh, memories. Could always get a good seat at the MCG in those days, whatever time you arrived.

Surely Ziggy Toledo-Glasman will be the best name in the draft. I wonder whether he's part Sephardi (Toledo) and part Ashkenazi (Ziggy and Glasman). (This comment will make total sense to some and will be meaningless to others.)

Err, what?

Is it still school holidays in Victoria? If so, some families may have chosen to go to Adelaide this week to combine Gather Round with the school holiday break.

Maybe. If SA gets sufficient revenue to compensate them for the alleged $10 million payment it made to the AFL for the privilege. I imagine most of that revenue will be from tourism although I suspect there's likely to be an increase in business revenue as well from things such as conferences and trade shows which I assume are being held in Adelaide this week to coincide with Gather Round.

You make a good point. Mind you, I suspect the SA Government would prefer less TV coverage to encourage more visitation.

I'm amused by the angst associated with the TV broadcasting arrangements. It's not that long ago we were complaining that we weren't getting enough FTA because we were rubbish. We can't have it both ways. If poorer quality teams are to be given some FTA coverage, the better teams will occasionally have to miss out.

Fair question. I'm an MCC member who also takes out MFC membership. I could afford to pay more, so probably would. However, my concern if the price goes up is not about me but about those who might struggle to pay more. What I don't want to see is the game being priced out of reach for many families so that we end up with the "theatre-goer" crowd rather than families that we see at games today. I think the loss of sports betting revenue creates a risk. The question is which risk do we prefer to take.

I was in the car last night listening to SEN who had someone from Champion Data on. He said that Champion Data have 11 people at every game recording the stats.

I think you'll find that it is not the direct revenue from the betting companies that the AFL and NRL wish to protect (as welcome as I am sure that it is). It's the revenue that the Free-to-Air broadcaster can make from betting advertising that allows the AFL and NRL to be paid massive TV rights money. If betting advertising stops the TV rights revenue will plummet. I'm curious to know whether everyone who wants betting advertising curtailed or even abolished would continue to hold that view if it meant the quality of the product was diminished (because players would have to be paid less) or the price of entry to games was significantly increased to overcome the shortfall. Or both. So, how about it Demonlanders. If you have previously said that betting advertising on TV should be banned, would you be prepared to pay more - probably much more - to go to the footy?

What does "Pelvis" mean in injury-speak?

Can't remember who it was, but someone on the radio over the weekend said "it was music to their eyes". (Now that I've written that, I suspect it was a news broadcast, not footy related at all. But it sounds like something an ex-footballer might say.)

JJC has asked an interesting question. In a related query, how accurate are GPSs? Given their name, I assume GPSs rely on satellites for their measurements. I'd find it hard to believe a satellite can measure any movement that is less than at least 5 metres at any time, but what would I know?

I agree, for the next two years. Then I'd cut it to 40 from then on. The important point, that the AFL seems to forget, is that decisions like these shouldn't be made in an ad hoc fashion between seasons, or worse, just before a new season begins. These type of decisions which are intended to change anything to do with physicality, fitness, or the way the game is played (including any rule changes) should be announced well in advance of taking effect to allow clubs to plan accordingly. It might mean clubs draft or trade for different types of players, change their gameplan or change their fitness and conditioning regimen. The clubs need time to prepare for that.

My only real objection with the Gather Round is the 23rd H&A game. I'd rather keep the season to 22 H&A games even though it would result in about half the competition losing a home game. But over the course of two years, that should even out anyway. Edit: Oh, my other objection is that the teams that play each other in the Gather Round should play each other twice in the season so at least one of the games is at "home". Under the current construction with us only playing Essendon once in 2023 it means unless you live in Adelaide or can get to Adelaide specially for this game, there is no chance of seeing these two teams play live in the H&A series in Melbourne. That seems to be bad fixturing.

Couldn't the argument be put another way, though? Would the game be safer with fewer interchanges because players would tire more readily and therefore not be subjected to so many collision injuries? If this theory is correct (and I'm not convinced it necessarily is), then if player safety were the primary concern, the game would be better with no interchanges and just substitutes.

I find this "travelling interstate" issue a distraction. Every club, bar those based in Victoria travel interstate almost every second week. Why should Victorian clubs complain?

Coaches are so predictable. Brad Scott wants to increase the interchange to five and dump the sub. No surprise there and another example of why coaches should not have control of the rules of the game. I would suggest the game would be much better off if we keep four on interchange and either dump the sub altogether or go back to last year's iteration where it was supposed to be for injury only. I would change it though, so that the player subbed off must miss the following game his team plays. No exemptions, even if the next game is the Grad Final. The moment you provide exemptions, it will be rorted. Nothing surer. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/it-just-makes-sense-essendon-coach-wants-sub-scratched-for-five-on-the-bench-20230409-p5cz4e.html

Not sure the laugh emoji is the right response, but you did make me chuckle.

Didn't I read somewhere that the SA government is paying the AFL $10m for the rights to hold this round? And did I also read that each club will get $500,000? Or am I thinking of something else? It still doesn't explain why the competition has been expanded so that each team now plays 23 home and away games, though. Personally, I think it's a stupid idea but I am sure the spinners and their media acolytes will tell us next week that it was a huge success, whatever happens.

6. Oliver 5. Grundy 4. Petracca 3. Rivers 2. Viney 1. Sparrow Fritsch and McDonald can consider themselves unlucky to miss out.

Brisbane