La Dee-vina Comedia

Makes you wonder about the level of professionalism among the 18 recruitment and list management teams at the 18 clubs. Same with Langdon at Collingwood, Michael Barlow and our own Matt Jones. I suspect there's a lot of groupthink going on and not a lot of risk taking by looking outside the box.

We probably shouldn't talk about it though. It just might happen. I seem to remember Tony Lockett being charged for an incident involving one of his team-mates in a St Kilda intra-club match.

Footy Classified also compared stats for Tyson's first 20 games with the first 20 for others including Judd, Ablett, Deledio and a couple of other stars of the game. He appears to have had an average of more disposals and tackles (and something else...was it goals?) per game than all of them. Admittedly, possession numbers today are much greater per team than just a few years ago, so if those stars were starting out today I'm sure their figures would be higher too. But let's not let the facts get too much in the way of a good story.

I don't believe Lynch ever had possession of the ball...which raises a different issue. Why is it considered that Viney bumped Lynch and not the other way around? Just because Lynch got injured (and possibly from a secondary incident with Georgiou)? If Lynch had been uninjured and Viney hurt, would Lynch have been charged? The logic of Viney being charged because Lynch got injured should mean that Viney should also be charged with causing a concussion to Georgiou. I've changed my mind from yesterday. I'm not now convinced that Viney "bumped" Lynch. Instead two players were equally trying to gain possession with a third player involved. The three collided, two came out of it injured and the other with the ball. Play on.

Deledio out for Richmond is a bigger loss for them than Viney out for us (should he be suspended). That's more because of the lack of depth at Richmond than anything else. (Can't believe I just wrote that. Implies Melbourne has more depth than Richmond. On second thoughts...yep, I still agree with my first thought.)

The AFL has tweeted a link to the explanation. Hope this works: "Some information from the Tribunal Booklet on the various reasons cases can be referred directly to the Tribunal: pic.twitter.com/lVF0IJM7LK"

That's my point. Trengove's penalty should have been exactly the same as every other sling tackler's. Either he should have got no weeks or every other sling tackler should have received the same penalty Trengove received.

I think he did choose to bump. But the better point worth arguing is whether the end result should dictate the outcome. I'd argue that it should not. Not just for this matter, but any matter. The reporting and punishment regime should be about risk. The purpose is to stop dangerous acts. An act that causes an injury should be penalised no more than the same act which might cause an injury.

So Viney wasn't reported by umpires and, based on media commentary, may well get votes for the Brownlow, an award for the fairest and best player. On the other hand, he's referred directly to the Tribunal. There's a bit of inconsistency in the system here.

I've now looked at this a number of times. Viney has problem and two possible outs. The problem is that it looks like he always intended to bump. The first out is that Lynch gets pushed by Georgiou into Viney which changes the angle of contact. The second out (which may not be an out if there's other information I'm not aware of) is that the broken jaw might be from the head clash with Georgiou. Because it looks like Viney always intended to bump Lynch, he has the problem of having taken the risk. But the two outs might be sufficient reason to argue that the outcome was both improbable and unlucky. Given the onus is on the player not to take the risk, I think Viney will be having an enforced break.

Even better

I can see the point of the rule. Otherwise players won't make an attempt to dispose of the ball when tackled . They'd rather cause a stoppage as making an attempt under such pressure will likely result in a less than 50-50 chance to the team with the player being tackled whereas a stoppage will bring it back to a 50-50 contest.

Didn't Ray Groom primarily play in the ruck? (Mind you, I'm pleased to be able to say I'm too young to remember anything from the 1964 season).

Not quite. If you've been caught with no prior opportunity the player must still make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. And this is where the major problem lies. I have no problem with a player who drags the ball in under him being pinged. But I don't understand how a player in any other circumstance and without prior opportunity can have a free paid against him for holding the ball when he can't even move his arms to make an attempt to dispose of the ball.

Nice to see 10 of 22 considered worthy of votes, particularly when N Jones isn't one of them.

I wonder how Damian Barrett would have responded to the old Hawthorn line of moving Peter Hudson to CHF if Jesus Christ had come to Hawthorn in the 1970s? Would probably have taken it seriously and argued that Hudson was the better option.

The best time to complain is after a win. Otherwise it looks like either whingeing or an excuse for losing, or both. And that sends the wrong message to the players who can find something other than their own performances to blame.

Anyone know how this compares with last year?

Is it the venting or the celebrating that causes the biggest problems? If it's the latter, the optimist in me proposes that we encourage more donations and memberships.

The stats I like show that in the last 5 games are: we've won 40% we have a percentage of 87.5% we've scored the same number of goals as our opponents. I have no idea why the opposition has scored so many more behinds than it has goals, but I think it is statistically significant and therefore not just "bad luck" for the opposition.

Ricciuto's probably worried that the AFL will make the MRP act retrospectively. If so, he'll be suspended for about 2 years. (Note: I have great admiration for Ricciuto. It's just the way the game was played not that long ago).

I think you'll find this has been discussed at depth in various other Demonland threads with the majority view being that Tom was the set of steak knives thrown in at the last minute to get the Phil Scully deal over the line.

Is Nutbean just a vegetarian version of Pigdog? (and therefore kosher)?

I think it maybe even more sophisticated than that. I remember a game when Mark Williams coached PA and Simon Godfrey was on our list. Godfrey kept getting free and as such, we kept sending the ball to him. After the game someone from the PA camp (possibly Wiiliams, but I can't remember) admitted that they had deliberately allowed Godfrey to run free hoping we would use him because they knew his disposal was poor. So, not only could a gun player not bother about defending against a tagger such as McKenzie who can't hurt you, the instructions may be deliberate not to do so to encourage that tagger's team to get the ball to the tagger as the free man. It's another reason why a tagger has to have some offensive capability and reasonable ball use skills. I guess that's a reason - amongst others - why Geelong's use of Cameron Ling as a tagger was so effective. Why would an opponent let Ling free knowing he could create damage when he had the ball.

I love what they are saying about the fringe players. Maybe I remember incorrectly, but in previous years when you'd read a summary of our VFL players performances it was full of platitudes and you'd wonder why they weren't playing in the seniors. Now each seems to be given a message in that public forum about a particular weakness which tells the player, and us, why they are still in the VFL and what they'll have to do if they want to be promoted.