La Dee-vina Comedia

Is this a football comment or a gossip piece in the Women' Weekly about Megan Gale?

Of course, upsets can go the other way, too.

Thanks BBO. I hadn't realised previously that when our players are talking about "structures" they're actually explaining the philosophical musings of Immanuel.

Wasn't it Tyson who collided with a goal post on Friday night when trying to smother a kick for goal? Whoever it was came up limping.

Gawn for Kent; Grimes for Jetta. Bail may come in instead of Grimes if Lumumba goes into defence to, in effect, take Jetta's spot. I can't see Jamar taking on Sandilands and Clark without help from someone who can actually ruck properly.

6. VandenBerg 5. Jones 4. Michie 3. McDonald 2. Hogan 1. Vince

Your point c) is a very interesting aspect I hadn't thought of previously, although whether it will ultimately make a difference to WADA's decision, I wouldn't know.

KingDA, I agree on the substance of your post but I'd change "making top sides trade for a FA" to "making top sides pay for a FA". I don't mean "pay" in a dollar sense, but they need to give up something rather than the current scheme where compensation hurts every team, other than the recipient of the compensation pick, by shifting the draft order. The other problem is that in essence, the only difference between the team that finishes last and the team that finishes first is Pick 1. After that, those two sides basically have adjacent picks (ie, pick 18 and pick 19; pick 36 and pick 37, etc) with the team finishing first ironically getting the pick before the team that finished last. Having said that, I don't believe changing the draft should occur in isolation. The whole drafting, trading and free agency system - that is the whole list management process - needs to be looked at holistically. Another thing I would do (and I've said this before) is to help teams retain players by allowing them a "loyalty discount" for salary cap purposes. For example, after say an initial three year term, clubs can shave a percentage of the actual salary from the salary cap. For example, Player X is on $200,000 per annum but in his fourth year with the club, a 20% discount is calculated for salary cap purposes, so the club pays Player X $200,000 but only has to include $160,000 of that in its salary cap. After 6 years, that discount might be 30%, so Player X is then on, say, $270,000, the amount the club includes in its salary cap would be $189,000. If Player X wants to go to another team instead, that team would have to count 100% of Player X's salary in its total player payments cap. That doesn't stop players from wanting to move - but it limits the ability of other clubs to offer them terms which are more enticing than Player X's club.

Why do you say this?

Less than three years on and only 15 remain.

And how is a missed tackle defined? Is it based on a grab that didn't stick? Or does it include bumps where tackling would have been a better option? Or is it if the player tackled still gets rid of the ball legally? I'm not really looking for answers - just pointing out that interpreting statistics is a fraught occupation.

A 2015 scarf? Otherwise...pfft

Because the players do not have a choice of who they play for. Why should a player be paid less to play for a poor team when they didn't have a say as to where they were drafted? Effectively what would happen would be more players would want to leave clubs who don't pay the full amount, making the situation for those clubs even worse.

Caught up with a mate this morning who said he saw a bit of training yesterday. Said that for the bit he saw a group of about 8 players were doing tackling training. The goal was for players to either avoid the tackle or be the tackler. He said the group included Jamar, JKH, Bail, McKenzie, Watts and three others. He said by far the best at the drill at both avoiding being tackled and then laying effective tackles was Jack Watts. JKH was good at the evasion bit, too (hardly surprising, I would have thought).

I don't understand what you mean here (bolded bit).

Can someone remind me...by what date does WADA have to lodge an appeal, should it wish to do so?

The way Carlton do things, I'm expecting they'll start their rebuild by offering us their first round draft pick for Dean Terlich, after initially asking us for Jordan Gysberts.

The forecast for Melbourne for Friday includes rain. I wonder whether the plan is for Pedersen to come in for Frost if it's dry and if it's wet, Bail to come in with Dawes giving Jamar a hand.

Hey BBP, how did you calculate 21.70? If we multiply the three games played by 7 to get to 21 games as a rough approximation for a full season, wouldn't he be kicking 35.70? Just curious as to your workings.

Dank is appealing. What an oxymoron. Or maybe just a moron.

I like that some effort is being put into the event and not just keeping it as a bog-standard Friday night game. Well done to those at Melbourne and Richmond for putting some effort into it. I find it especially pleasing that Ron Barassi is involved, not just because of his father's service to his country, but because this is a Richmond home game and it would have been understandable if it were a person linked to Richmond who was to be given this honour.

As a matter of interest, do we have a kicking coach? That is, a coach specifically working on the kicking technique of those players who need it (which is basically everyone except Watts and Salem*). *which is being a bit unfair on a few players such as Jones, Dunn and some others

If ASADA's case were weak, then I could understand WADA not proceeding to appeal. WADA isn't in the same environment that ASADA found itself in where it may have proceeded with a weak case for purely political reasons. On the other hand if the ASADA case was strong and WADA believes the "wrong" decision was made, I would expect WADA to appeal. So, if WADA does not appeal, I'll accept that the ASADA case was weak and should never have proceeded as far as it did.

The ANZAC Day Act of 1958 states that, "no sports shall be held on ANZAC Day...without the approval of the Minister" (being the Minister for Sport, I suspect). It also says no sport can start before 1.00 pm, although it doesn't prevent other non-sporting activities being held before 1.00 pm. Importantly, it also says, that the sports must give to the ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund "such portion of the net profit" as directed by the Minister. The ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund distributes proceeds to "organisations whose principal objective is to provide welfare to the ex-service community" in accordance with the recommendations of the Victorian Veterans Council. So, the proceeds don't necessarily go to the RSL, but they do go to the right place. Exactly how much the Minister requires the AFL to give to the ANZAC Day Proceeds Fund is not prescribed. And, I note that in 2003 the Act was amended so that wherever the word ANZAC is used officially (including in the term ANZAC Day), it is to be spelled out all in upper case as I have done here.

Would be good to know. I thought that they did. In fact, I have a vague feeling that any sport being played on Anzac Day must (a) start after 1.00 pm and (b) give app proceeds to the RSL. There's an Act of Parliament that covers this. I must look it up.