La Dee-vina Comedia

Maybe it's me, but I don't find them any more intrusive or annoying than ads for cars, supermarkets, political parties or anything else.

It's a more complex ecosystem. The TV networks pay for the AFL TV rights using money they earn from advertising. The more advertising revenue they can earn, the more they can bid for the rights. So, in effect, the AFL is a downstream collector of betting ad revenue. There have also been separate sponsorship deals between betting companies and individual clubs, although I'm not sure there are any still in place.

I think there's a code of conduct for liquor advertising which expressly forbids advertising which promotes anything that suggests "you'll have more mates or sexy girlfriends if you drink A." There are a few other things in that code, too, such as not showing minors, etc. I suspect the betting industry (or gambling generally) also has a code which puts some limits on what the can say (eg, that you can't expect to make money by gambling). And if there's not such a code, there should be.

I know this is off-topic, but can anyone remember whether we had one of the Gasper brothers on our list at the same time as Craig Smoker? As to the difference between betting ads and tobacco ads, let's remember that every cigarette is bad for you; not every bet is. That's not to say betting is not dangerous for some people, but for most people it is safe whereas there is no safe level of tobacco use. A better analogy would be to compare betting ads with liquor ads. Both are safe in moderation but dangerous for some people.

What could possibly go wrong... https://sportshandle.com/mini-golf-wagering-approved-colorado-wyoming/

We can't have it both ways. We can't complain it's a "midfielder's medal" and then complain again when a key forward who kicks four goals outpolls a midfielder.

Would an emergency umpire be involved or otherwise know what votes were awarded for each game?

Problem is, illegal bookmaking is international. Victoria, or any Australian police force, won't be able to prevent it. I repeat: It's much safer to have legal bookmaking with the bookies monitoring for problems.

'Tis the season for dreaming.

Or Josh Schache* surprises everyone and becomes a real KPF option. *Is that spelled correctly or in the great tradition of Demonland, have I stuffed up a player's surname completely?

You won't be able to stop the betting. You might be able to stop the legal betting, but that means the illegal betting will thrive and that just increases the likelihood of an ethical breach (because it's the the legal bookies who do the heavy lifting with their algorithms to identify suspicious betting.) I agree with you that changing the voting formula from three umpires to five "independent experts" just increases the risk. I suspect that that particular argument for change has come from someone who has wanted to take the Brownlow voting away from the umpires and is just using the current situation as ammunition to support their argument.

How so?

Let's not fall for the tabloid version of the story. Ten years in gaol is the maximum penalty. He clearly won't get that. And he may not even be charged with any offences. Irrespective of any criminal process, based on what has happened to players involved in football betting, the AFL will presumably suspend him for a considerable period. What will be interesting is whether he would be given a chance at redemption (should he want to continue as an umpire) once any period of suspension is over.

Arnold Rothstein isn't still alive, is he? (Google him)

I'll take a punt and suggest there are no envelopes at all and that the votes are lodged through some online process. We'll know if that's the case next year when some Russian hackers threaten to release the votes before the Awards night unless the AFL pays a multi-million dollar ransom.

If that were to happen, the betting would still happen but just be with illegal bookmakers. The likely reason these arrests occurred was because legalised betting means the licensed betting operators have agreements with the AFL Integrity Unit (I know, an oxymoron) to share information of concern. Presumably, one or more of the bookies identified suspicious patterns and alerted the AFL to the problem. In short, banning the bet type might actually make things worse.

By the time the AFL releases the fixture, I fully expect its marketing team to have scrapped the term "magic" because it is already used by the NRL. Instead, I anticipate the AFL will reprise the term "Festival of Footy" as the official descriptor.

Channel 7 and Foxtel are covered in their own drool just at the thought of it

Essendon has lost a lot of players over the last few years - Daniher, McDonald-Tipungwuti, Fantasia, McKenna, Saad. None of them were there during the supplements scandal. That one of them now wants to come back (and McKenna might be another) confirms in my mind that the Bombers had significant cultural problems in the last few years which may now be in the past. The appointment of Brad Scott, plus other changes, suggests that Essendon just might be getting its act together. I hope so, not because I want Essendon to perform well on-field, but because every footballer deserves the chance to have a happy workplace wherever they are.

On my first reading, I thought this meant that each player would have a choice as to whether they would be available to play the game. On a second reading, I think it's meant to mean that the players as a group have given the AFL their consent to proceed with the structural change of abolishing one pre-season game and replacing it with an extra Home and Away round. No wonder Tom Browne's earlier tweet had syntax problems. He must have gone to the same school as whoever wrote the above.

I don't think the ambiguity about the $500,000 is the biggest crime against the English language in Tom Browne's tweet. By my reading, the Magic Round was played in SA yesterday afternoon. Where's the write up of the result of our game?

Whenever changes are mooted for the rules of the game, there are plenty of posters critical of the proposals. I'm generally less fussed. However, I'm much more concerned about tinkering with the fundamental structure of the game. There is no need for a "magic" round or a 23rd game per season for each team. Furthermore, if the AFL wants to see how not to run a professional sport, watch what cricket has done. By ignoring the "less is more" concept (more appropriately called "scarcity" in economic terms), cricket has devalued its product to the extent that the TV networks seem to have minimal interest in the broadcast rights any more, other than for Australia v England Test Matches. The AFL runs the risk of losing its audience if it changes the competition without good reason. (A good reason would be the introduction of a Tasmanian team, for example).

I'll add Gawn and Jurrah. Gawn, because I've never previously seen a ruckman with the ability to tap the ball to all 360 degrees of the compass with either hand and with such precision. And Jurrah because he's the most freakishly talented Melbourne player I have seen. Not the most consistent, not the best at all aspects of the game (tackling and aerobic capacity, for example) but just the most exquisite in aspects such as kicking and marking.

I'm-a gonna have to live with that, I guess.

My preference would be that my name is pronounced with true Italian purity, given it is claimed that proper Italian is based on the work of my author, Dante Alighieri. I think of him as the Christian Petracca of 14th century Italian poetry. Or not.