La Dee-vina Comedia

I thought there was an AFL rule that if you were called Archer, Archie, or Fletcher you had to play for Essendon.

Would count for salary cap purposes. [Insert pseudo-humorous comment here].

Maybe. Which shaped ball are they using to practice goal kicking? 😁

Any player who has travelled to Queensland on their break should lose the right to complain about "too much travel" during the season! (Having said that, I'm also unaware of any of our players who have complained.)

Keep in mind that the 50m penalty evolved from the 15m penalty because coaches decided that giving away a 15m penalty was worth it, similar to a "professional foul". I suspect if we went back to the 15m penalty, the same would happen again. Furthermore, I suspect about half the 50m penalties given away likely result from breaches of the "stand" rule. I'd get rid of that rule altogether which would immediately remove many 50m penalties.

To be fair, Demonland is full of criticisms of Goodwin for not trying different things. It would appear he's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't.

It's still "Bang! Bang, bang, bang." It's just that what you are hearing now are bubbles being burst.

Gawn 5. Langford 4. Fritsch 3. Pickett 2. Bowey 1. Turner PS: Langford is going to be a star.

Unlike the Collingwood game, I thought that the umpiring was pretty good yesterday, apart from a couple of dubious "insufficient intent" decisions. But that's such a silly, subjective rule that it's almost impossible to umpire.

I'd drop Viney or play him solely as a small forward. We were right in the game in the second quarter until Viney's indiscriminate kicking out of the centre, more than once, sucked the air out of our game. My concerns about Viney are not based on this game alone. His disposal has been an ongoing problem. His endeavour is not in question, which is why of the two options, I'd play him as a permanent small forward. I'd replace Viney on-ball with Langford. It's where Langford is going to end up, so let's get him in there now. Windsor can take Langford's position on the wing. For Viney to go forward, one of Sparrow, Chandler or Melksham will have to move. And if the brains trust think Sparrow, Chandler and Melksham all bring more than Viney, then Viney needs to go.

I suspect the argument about position is correct. A KPF is almost always trying to mark the ball. The KPD is often trying to stop his opponent from doing so. Consequently, the KPF should be taking more contested marks than a KPD.

Maybe because it has lighting suitable for night games to be shown on TV. The game is being broadcast on 7.

Me too. It doesn't necessarily follow that the sub should come from the five players listed on the bench, but if it does, Lindsay won't be the sub either. The five on the bench are van Rooyen, Windsor, Langdon, Howes and Rivers. I would expect Windsor or Howes to be sub from that group.

Another related question is...who is preferred in the backline: Turner or Petty? I prefer Turner.

I suspect it is relevant. So too, though, might be the amount of non-financial resources required to manage players such as stroking egos, keeping players "on the straight and narrow" and maintaining standards of professionalism.

Demonland straying into economic theory here with the Gini coefficient.

I'm not sure that Howes is the "obvious out" given Viney and Howes play very different roles. I do agree that Howes is one of the options, but I could also see Lindsay being "managed" (he looked tired last week) or Windsor being omitted on form.

It depends what you want. If you want the sugar hit of immediate wins, play Turner forward. If you want to win a Premiership, play Turner in the backline as he's going to be replacing one of May or Lever when they retire so best that he hones his defensive craft now.

Sure, Kossie might still want to "make noises about playing in WA", but Barrett seems not to realise that the longer contract gives us a stronger hand in any trade negotiations. This would result in a better deal for us if a trade does happen.

Should we list you as "managed" this week, so you won't have to watch the next game?

Damned if they do and damned if they don't. I suspect for every overrule that we supporters don't like I expect there are at least as many over-rules we are glad were made.

The Americans like Kosi's evasive skills so much they've named a training centre after him.

You can't really know who McRae and Goodwin voted for. Nevertheless, who do you think from Melbourne should have been awarded votes ahead of Pendlebury and Sidebottom?

I'm astonished that it's taken this long. I assumed he was already inducted. (I'm not being critical of any of the new inductees, but there is a fair bit of recency bias. I am sure there are many players from earlier eras - like Garry Lyon - who should be inducted before players who retired just a few years ago.)

I thought the umpiring yesterday was as poor as I have seen. But it's not entirely the fault of the umpires. A bigger problem are the rules themselves. There is too much that is subjective which imposes unreasonable pressure on umpires to make decisions in the heat of the moment. Much of the problem is caused by the AFL's consistent tinkering with the rules where they fix one problem only to create another. It's perhaps a topic worthy of its own thread but fixing the rules would be easier and more effective than improving the standard of umpiring.