La Dee-vina Comedia

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

I think a mid-season trade is supported by some elements of the media as they think it will be good for the marketing of the game. I disagree with this view. Supporters, particularly children, want to identify with all the players in their team. Losing one to another club during the season will harm that relationship. As an example, it has been suggested that one of the the Big Bash's biggest problems is that player movement between teams prevents supporters from forming lasting associations with the individual teams.

Actually, I think the opposite. I suspect the gameplan requires Langdon and Hunter to stick to their half of the ground at all times whereas it may not have been a hard and fast rule for the wingmen in previous years.

After a turgid start, the article becomes quite interesting. Stick with it, folks.

Does she play for Casey or Frankston?

I find that Bowza kick mesmerising. I just keep watching it over and over.

I agree with you. However, just to clarify, is the Lewis incident with Viney directly related to vilification in that specific match?

Half! That's still about 80% more than I'll be able to identify.

Would it be OK to ask for a 191 point winning margin? It's embarrassing to have to point out that 186 is not our greatest losing margin ever. That (dis)honour belongs to the Melbourne team beaten by Fitzroy by 190 points in 1979. Final scores were Melbourne 6.12 48 to Fitzroy 36.22 238.

I think you're correct about the players using the traditional method more. But that may be as a result of where they were kicking from, rather than any change to the kicking technique. Fewer shots taken from deep in the forward pockets reduces the need for the round the corner kicks.

Not so sure I agree. Langdon and Hunter played their best games as a combination of wingmen in our last game. Was that because Jordon gave each of them a chop out? And he also played on ball and drifted forward. I'm not convinced Jordon will be the one who misses out. If it's a small forward who gives way for Pickett, it's out of Spargo and Chandler, neither of whom deserve to miss. If it's a midfielder, I would have thought Sparrow was at greater risk of losing his spot than Jordon. Either way, whoever misses out is very, very unlucky.

The Bulldogs seem to be in a world of pain. it doesn't matter how accurate you are if you aren't generating many shots on goal.

I wouldn't be shocked. Pickett has to come back in and I expect it will be "like for like". So, if Brown goes out, I expect a KPF like Tom McDonald to take his place, not Pickett. So, if it's not Chandler, who does Pickett replace?