La Dee-vina Comedia

I'd very much like to see Tarni Brown and Tarni White given the nicknames of Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney

I find it hard to believe that the bookies would have been that concerned about Oliver's prospects at Round 13.

I didn't want to start a new thread, so will post here as it seems somewhat relevant given his former club. Can anyone explain how Conor McKenna can be signed by Brisbane instead of being available to all clubs through the draft?

I'm trying to argue the alternative. It's a very, very long bow to say the Brownlow medal process might have been corrupt because Mihocek was awarded the three votes.

Reading through this thread, it's not just me. But, on the other hand, there are also many others who find gambling advertising annoying and invasive. Each to his or her own, I guess.

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.