La Dee-vina Comedia

I'd prefer it the other way around.

I'm still waiting for the Demonland administrators to advise that they will pin this thread momentarily.

Its more than having to pretend. Under a legislative scheme in Victoria, the AFL has to satisfy the gambling regulator that it has integrity measures in place and that they are properly enforced. Once the regulator is satisfied, all betting companies trading in Victoria have to come to an agreement with the AFL before they can take bets on any AFL activity. Of course, the AFL charges those betting companies for such agreements. I assume, as a minimum, the money the AFL gets from the betting companies covers the costs of the AFL managing its integrity processes.

I think the penalty was appropriate. Players of a sport betting on their own sport open the door for corruption. I have no doubt that Heath Shaw was stupid rather than corrupt, but the integrity of the competition has to be the priority here. Where I think we differ (and I'm happy for you to correct me if you disagree) is that you believe playing the game in a way that uses the rules to your team's advantage is cheating. I just see it as playing the game as it is designed. Whether we like the design is a separate question.

It is often claimed that the MFC and Sheffield United are two of the oldest football clubs in the world. This is a fascinating article about the origins of soccer (or football, if you prefer). Read it and in your mind replace "Sheffield" with "Melbourne".

Do you think any of these examples are cheating? 1. Two players are close to the boundary line with the ball on the ground. One deliberately flicks the ball on to the other player's boot with the intent that the ball go out of bounds on the full, thereby gaining a free kick. 2. A player with the ball is being chased down from behind. Just before he is tackled he hand-passes the ball in front of him to no-one, thereby earning a free kick. 3. When a ball is about to be bounced in the centre of the ground, one wingman pushes the other wingman into the centre square. The umpires don't see the push but see the fifth player in the square and pays a free kick to the pusher's team.

Am I the only person who doesn't believe playing for frees should be considered to be cheating? Or am I just taking the use of the word "cheating" too literally?

Excellent work. But what happened to the tautomer? Did he walk into the bar for a drink to quench his thirst?

This thread should definately be pinned.

Not necessarily. If he wants to leave and we don't want to keep him, a trade can be organised. However, I suspect the two year deal suit us better than him. We're desperately short of ruckmen and if Jackson leaves, Weideman is our only real option to support Gawn unless we recruit an experienced ruckman during the off season.

Is it? The strike rate for pick #1 being better than picks #2 or #3 is hardly that impressive. Accordingly, it probably doesn't really matter whether a team has picks 1, 2 or 3.

Thanks Kev and others who are providing training reports. I fully expect some outrage somewhere that we're not tackling at training, though!

I agree. If he shared it, we might run into trouble with WADA. More seriously, Melksham's retention suggests he did his job last week better than Bedford did his. DeeSpencer has previously said that Melksham's role last week was to keep Aliir out of the way, which he did successfully. Accordingly, I don't think we should be judging Melksham just on his stats from last week.

I think this is an important distinction between then and now. There is a lot less to gain now than there was.

Do you think Hardwick, Scott and Beveridge are perpetual whingers for no specific reason, or are they calculated comments to generate a response, whether that is from the umpires, the AFL or their own players? For example, in Hardwick's case, I think he's speaking to his own players trying to develop an "us versus them" mentality. With Beveridge, I think it's a way of telling his players that he has their backs. Scott, on the other hand, is, I think, addressing the AFL hierarchy. In other words, I think all three use "whinging" as a deliberate tactic.

There is a difference, though. We didn't telegraph in advance that we might play players in unusual positions. Having stated in advance that they are willing or intending to do so, WCE has "informed the market" (including the betting market) of the possibility. Let me stress, though, that there are two different definitions of "tanking". One is when a team doesn't try its hardest on the day to win (or, worse, deliberately tries to lose). The other is when the team tries its hardest on the day to win, but it isn't the strongest team that could have been played from the available squad. Using that latter definition, we and the WCE are quite similar.

I'm not promoting it, but you could get a 20th team by locating a team in Canberra. Personally, I think 18 teams is a better number. The tough decision is not whether Tassie gets a team, but which current team is dissolved or relocated (or which two teams merge) to get to that point. And I admire the work of the OP, but an eight team finals series is already two teams too many.

The other form of staging which is less prevalent today was when players claimed to have touched a ball on its way through the goals. Video review technology, while imperfect, has probably stopped a lot of the more egregious claims. I wouldn't reduce the number of players on the ground to 16, but I would consider reducing interchange numbers drastically either by getting rid of interchange altogether and replacing it with player exchange (like the old 19th and 20th men), or limiting it to something like four per quarter (plus additional for blood rule and potential concussions), or reducing the number of players in interchange from four plus the sub to two. or some combination of these measures.

True. Just after I posted I realised I may have missed the sarcasm. And although I could have edited or deleted my post, I decided to let my naivete stand.

Macca, I agree. The point I was making is that the AFL has to manage the game's evolution to ensure it continues to be enjoyable and safe for the players. The mantra that the AFL should not make rule changes and "leave the game alone" just doesn't make any sense to me. If it were left to the coaches, they would ruin the game as a spectacle.

Fifty years ago Kevin Bartlett perfected bouncing the ball just before being tackled and received a free kick for being held every time. That wasn't staging, but was a clever use of the rules as they were in place at the time. There is no question that KB "played for frees". The then VFL changed the rule to make clear that a player bouncing the ball was considered to be in possession of the ball at all times. What we know from history is that players and coaches will always try to find ways to use the rules to their teams' advantage, that is, to play for frees. Playing for frees with the head high tackle rule is significantly more problematic, however, because of the potential for physical, long-term harm. We will never stop players and coaches using the rules to their teams' advantage. That's one of the reasons why the AFL is forced to make regular rule changes. Only a couple of weeks ago, the AFL changed the "protected space" rule to stop teams creating 50 metre penalty opportunities because teams with the ball had found a way to cause a defender to run accidentally into the protected area. It's easy to complain about the umpires, to complain about players who play for frees and to complain about the AFL changing rules (or the "interpretation" of a rule) but the reality is that the game is always evolving, and not always for the greater good.

I suspect the Captain prefers Casey. In fact, anyone who lives on the Mornington Peninsula may feel that way. It would be a significantly shorter trip for them than travelling to Gosch's.

Not sure that view is universally shared on Demonland.

Was there no player before Selwood who dropped at the knees and/or raised the arms to get a head-high free kick? He may be the most proficient, but I find it hard to believe that Selwood was the first. Having said that, I can't think of anyone.

Big compliment given to Demonstone here. As seen by daisycutter using an upper case letter. A very rare occurrence.