La Dee-vina Comedia

I seem to recall the great John Kennedy after a game saying to the media something like, "As you know, I'm not allowed to discuss the performance of the umpires or I'll be fined. So, today, I'm REALLY not going to talk about the umpiring." Don't known whether he was fined for that or not.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Pedersen start with the role he has been successfully playing to date with Gawn playing full forward and handling rucking duties in the forward 50. That still leaves flexibility should Pedersen be needed in defence - and given the selections of Reiwoldt, Vickery, Griffith and Hampson, he may well be needed there. Pedersen going back probably releases Howe or Dunn to come forward. I have no idea who's to be sub, assuming no late changes (although Picket Fences claims Terlich won't play - whether that is fact or opinion remains to be seen). I would have thought Salem needs a whole game and is a logical replacement for Byrnes. Riley seems, from all reports, a logical tagger to go to Cotchin, so Grimes returns to his natural home in the backline. Does that mean Jetta as the sub? That doesn't seem fair, though.

I don't find it that amazing - but I nevertheless think it's a poor decision. Compared with most of their players he is quite experienced now and, obviously, on good coin - hence the argument for putting him in the leadership group. But as I've posted elsewhere, to be a leader, you need to have followers. I don't get a sense that Scully is the type to attract followers as he appears to be introverted and obsessive about his own standards of performance. Putting him in the leadership group doesn't automatically make him a leader and as a result is likely to be counter-productive for both him and the team.

Barry is reported as being 183 cm and 70kg; JKH is reported as 175 cm and 67kg. If weight was the only issue, JKH wouldn't be playing so I'm not sure Barry will remain on the primary list if he hasn't played a game by the end of the year.

This is a great service you provide, Satyr. We have to find a way to get you employed in a job that requires you to attend all Melbourne training sessions. Anyone know who mows the lawn at Gosch's paddock?

Nasher, we don't want you to die - happy or unhappy. Someone has to keep Demonland running.

If you get the chance, what's the mood of the fringe players such as Blease, Strauss, Nicho, Tapscott? Are they upbeat about their chances or have they "given up" and assumed they'll be out the door at the end of the year?

He was pick 2 in the 2001 draft which may suggest St Kilda was near the bottom when he joined. Note: I've not read any of the articles, so I have no idea whether he's the player concerned. But having heard him speak many times on radio the only question I have about him is whether he'll be a Senior Coach or the CEO of a club (or even the AFL). He's far too articulate to be playing for Collingwood.

Nutbeam, I admire you for persisting. I just don't have the patience. Interesting how often the "it's just common sense" defence is used when the facts aren't available to support a proposition.

I've been a Bail fan for a while but one of his deficiencies up until this year was a propensity to give away too many free kicks when tackling. Generally these were from over-enthusiastic grabs which became head high tackles. This year he seems to have improved his technique. (He may also be a beneficiary of umpiring generally being more lenient and not paying free kicks for innocuous 'touches' on the shoulder as was being paid in previous years).

Is there a better description of mindless violence than a "Liverpool kiss"?

About 25 years ago a newspaper (can't remember which one) had an article on 'coaching DNA' pointing out that almost every coach had been coached either directly or indirectly by one of Tom Hafey, Ron Barassi or John Kennedy. If I recall correctly, I think it was when John Cahill coached Port Adelaide and he was the only coach without experience under any of these three. Coaches such as Sheedy, Malthouse, Robert Walls, David Parkin, Leigh Matthews and so on were all coached by one or more of these three and the next generation of coaches subsequently received their DNA. Today Malthouse, Buckley, Thompson and Hardwick, and probably others have some of that Hafey DNA and the competition is the better for it.

I accept what you say, but if the body isn't right the rest won't follow, or, at least, not follow competely. Certainly it appears players in 2014 seem to have a greater appreciation of what's required and we've seen players such as Pedersen, M Jones, Jetta, Dunn and others play better than they've ever played before which is testament to what you are saying.

Chook, I respect your opinion and appreciate your argument, but I still remain unconvinced by it in the setting of professional football.

I disagree slightly. I don't think development existed much under Bailey, either. The body shapes and sizes of most of the players who had their formative years under Bailey remains a problem. Watts, Grimes, Trengove and to a lesser extent Frawley are all still physically slighter than they need to be for the roles they are expected to play. Go back and have a look at Grimes playing on Dangerfield. Grimes looks like a stick insect in comparison. There are some exceptions (N Jones, Viney and Tapscott), but most of our best physically developed specimens had their early years at other clubs (eg, Vince, Dawes, Byrnes and even Michie).

But why shouldn't the justice system (and I mean AFL justice system) have an element of compensation? Punishment is its own reward, but I see no reason why the victim could not be a beneficiary. While I support the AFL justice system having the same standards of natural justice and procedural fairness as the the civil justice system, it doesn't automatically follow that the punishment (or sentencing) regime has to follow the same principles.

A perverse consequence I hadn't thought about.

Getting a game when no-one can see why.

I know the general consensus is that some reform of the MRP/Tribunal/Appeal system is necessary. Some want wholesale changes and others just want some tweaking. I favour the latter. But there is one specific change I'd like to see. I'd like any penalties to start with the victim's team. So taking Liam Jones from this week's MRP as an example, he would be offered 2 weeks, of which one would be the next game his team (whether it's the Bulldogs or another team should he move) plays Melbourne. As the system currently stands, the primary victim, in this case the Melbourne Football Club, receives no compensation or reparation (or, if you like, revenge) for the crime perpetrated against it. This would rectify that. And there's no reason why more heinous crimes that receive, say, 4 weeks penalty might not see two of those games be the next two against the victim's club. I appreciate that players in their last season may gain an inadvertent benefit as the penalty may never apply - but that's no different to a player playing their last game in a Grand Final or in a final in which their team is eliminated. And, frankly, I don't think that matters much.

How about: "Overall, we lost our gonads"?

Gee, I hope you're wrong. isn't there a law about inducing a breach of contract?

You might even find that a couple of the boundary umpires were awarded rebound 50 and inside 50 stats

Don't read this out loud at work or in front of the children, but to paraphrase an oldie but a goodie, Damian Barrett once said to me, "I'm a country member". To which I replied, "I remember". Note: I've never actually met DB and don't have an opinion for or against him. He's just like many other footy journos trying to eke out a living by creating copy. And like those others, he knows that the best form of copy is the sort which introduces conflict and argument.

I'm not sold on Grimes as a tagger. I think we missed his work in defence on Saturday night. I like the idea of him playing on Martin, assuming Martin plays forward.

Not joking. Just stupid. (Apologies to all).