La Dee-vina Comedia

What a father-son combination! According to the Herald Sun's picture editor, one of the Bulldog players was being tackled by Todd Viney. An understandable error as the Viney in the picture in yesterday's Herald Sun was hidden behind the Bulldog so the editor had to guess which Viney it actually was.

Serious? Irrespective of Neeld's other weaknesses, the last thing we needed then, or now, is a coach being told what to do by an 18 year old who hadn't, at that stage, played a game.

I suspect the players hear but prefer to corral the player rather than attempting to attack him. If the player on the mark runs forward, momentum will take him past the player with the ball who will quite easily evade him thereby allow the player with the ball valuable metres forward. Just holding the position slows the play and allows the defender's team mates to run back to defend. If I were coach, the only time I'd allow the player on the mark to run forward when play on is called would be when the player with the ball is hemmed in on the boundary line and has much less space to evade the oncoming defender.

The competition has a huge problem with the 'advantage' rule. It's almost impossible to make it fair for both sides. The side that gives away the free kick has to stop. They can't tackle anyone for fear of giving away a 50 metre penalty; yet the team with the free paid to them is free to run away with the ball. Conversely, without the benefit of the advantage rule, teams could give away 'professional' free kicks to slow the attacking team and allow them (the offending team) to get numbers back. In other codes, such as field hockey, the referee indicates with an arm that a free will be paid should the team to whom the free would go lose the advantage of the current play. The whistle only gets blown and the free paid if the referee believes the team to whom it is being paid has lost the advantage. I don't know if it would be possible to do this in AFL (seems possible in theory, but perhaps it might be too hard in practice?) but I'd love to see it trialled.

There were so many short throw ins on Saturday night I was amazed both ruckman didn't anticipate it more and stand a little further forward. If I recall correctly, only one was re-thrown, but quite a few should have been.

With the bye after the Richmond game, I wouldn't be surprised to see Frawley miss this week to allow his toe and hamstring a three week recovery period. Terlich should probably be rested (I'm in favour of every concussed player having, in effect, a mandatory one week break. Because of the bye, his would be a two week break, but so be it). I'm sorely tempted to play Gawn in Frawley's place which also allows the luxury of moving Pedersen to the backline if needed. Terlich's role should be played by Grimes. I think our backline missed his generalship while he played his tagging role on Griffin (who I thought was quiet - but both the Age and the Herald Sun gave him votes, so what do I know?) Salem should play a full game somewhere. If he's got enough in the tank, it should be seniors - if not, Casey. I'd keep him in. So, two or three changes for mine: If it's two, Frawley and Terlich to be replaced with Gawn and either Clisby or Riley. If Salem is rested, the other of Clisby or Riley to come in.

6. Tyson 5. Viney 4. Cross 3. Howe 2. Jamar 1. Bail

Gee, I hope we haven't got our hopes up too much. I'd be surprised (pleasantly, of course) if the crowd reaches 30,000. Being the only game in Melbourne over the weekend is an irrelevancy (OK, it might pick up a few hundred) and the Bulldogs have a very small supporter base. I commend the two clubs on the Pink Lady initiative and hope that it swells the crowd. But while I'm optimistic in most things (I expect a win tomorrow), I'm not so optimistic to expect more than 30,000 at the ground tomorrow night.

I don't think it's as much about the age of Hinkley, Richardson and McCartney but their extensive apprenticeships. Clubs have seen what happened with less experienced coaches (Voss, Hird, Neeld, Watters) and have reacted accordingly. One day it will switch back to fresh young faces when the experienced assistants don't all win Premierships in their first couple of years. For what it's worth, while Clarkson's idea of a mandatory coaching accreditation scheme seems like a good idea, it shouldn't be necessary. Clubs should realise that it's in their best interests to have a formally trained person undertaking the role.

I seem to recall some other bloke was crucified and then resurrected on the third day. It's happened again.

I guess this explains why our kick outs from behinds go to the right side (at least) 5 out of 6 times.

Come off it, WJ. How could it be a "bigger and better thing" to be Premier of Tasmania than a player with the Melbourne Football Club? Get your priorities right.

My goodness. You are so fair and generous. If he asks the $5 back, let me know and I'll donate it back.

I think you're paying for a new hat.

Agree with this. Which is why I said they made the odd decision to effectively sit on the fence by suspending Viney for 2 weeks thereby inviting everyone to conclude that their decision was unreasonable. Those that considered Viney had bumped and should be suspended would find it unreasonable that he only received a two week penalty; the majority who felt it was a brace and not a bump, found the finding of guilt unreasonable.

I think we've all been a bit disrespectful of Emmet Dunne, Schimma and Henwood. They were given a hospital handpass by the MRP and asked to interpret a rule that has confused everyone for the last 5 years. In my view, they made a decision which invited the Appeals Board to find they were unreasonable by handing down a penalty that clearly didn't match with their initial finding. David Grace ran with that in a risky strategy which effectively invited the Appeals Board to double the penalty or scrap it altogether. Nevertheless, I think the AFL would be wise to change the membership of the Tribunal so it includes at least one former player who is only recently out of the game.

For the 20 guests currently reading this topic, you should read this one, too

The way things have happened this week, I now expect the Appeal Board to suspend Lynch for 3 weeks

And for some light relief: Titus O'Reily ‏@TitusOReily 3m As everyone entered the Tribunal room, Jack Viney accidentally brushed passed someone and now faces an extra eight weeks

I'm sure there's money to be made by inventing an on-line swear box.

Think of it this way...his body shape gives him a low centre of gravity which makes it really difficult to knock him over. Leigh Matthews, Peter Daicos, Dane Swan and both Gary Abletts all had or have this attribute. It's a wonderful advantage in a hard, body contact sport.

Good work, Satyr.

I doubt the media would argue that the AFL could be called "back flippers" should its independent Tribunal uphold the appeal. But even if they did so, any criticism of the AFL for "back flipping" will be milder and meeker than the coverage the AFL will get if the appeal is rejected.

If we had a cost for changing identities, I suspect Ben Hur's alter ego may pay for the site himself/herself single-handedly. Disclosure: Technically I've changed my name once to correct a spelling error.

I agree, they should be winning for a good Victorian beer, not any of that Queensland rubbish.