La Dee-vina Comedia

I agree with this. Also, the journos might have their noses out of joint because the story didn't leak.

I'm old, but not that old! I can remember football before the "out on the full" rule was introduced which preceded the "deliberate out of bounds rule". This comment really belongs in another thread, but I'll be disappointed if they change the "insufficient intent" rule next year. I think it's a terrible rule and should ultimately be abolished. But it doesn't have to be replaced with a "last kick/handpass out of bounds rule". It could be replaced with a quicker "throw the ball immediately back in" rule. This would eliminate the wait for the slow, lumbering, nominated ruckmen to arrive. Such a change would result in the need for teams to re-think their structures (one ruckman on the ground won't be enough). In short, I'd rather a comprehensive review of all the rules, but only after a review of what we want the game to look like. That would mean no rule changes for 2026, but significant changes in 2027, all introduced at once. And that would at least give teams the chance to think about how to prepare their playing lists.

With a King as coach and a CEO whose name in Italian and Spanish means "war", I'd like to think our coach's pre-game addresses will be like this, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother..." or "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more..." Both from Shakespeare's Henry V

I'm interested because we need to strengthen our back-of-house. Maybe the outsiders on the selection panel showed that they may have value beyond selecting the new coach.

Is Matty Whelan a full-time employee of the club?

It was always going to be this message. No-one is ever going to say, "We chose the second-best candidate and we're happy to make do." Realistically, every time a new coach is appointed, by definition, that person is the best choice at the time.

I voted "yes", but my answer may have been different in the unlikely event that a hypothetical new appointee happened to be coaching against his new team in a Preliminary or Grand Final

Is that because King's about a foot taller? Seriously, I'm pleased we've gone with an experienced assistant rather than a recycled senior coach. The last recycled coach who coached a team to a premiership at his second go having not succeeded first time round was Malcolm Blight at Adelaide. And that was in the last millennium. We'll never know (at least, I hope we won't because it would be a breach of confidentiality) but it would be very interesting to know what value the various members of the coaching selection panel brought to the process.

I agree. Nevertheless, I'm surprised we're not hearing about any Board challenges.

I wish they all still wore long socks on the playing field.

In addition, what message does it send to our new recruits who get given numbers in the 40s? We don't think you're going to make it, but prove us wrong?

Can't see why there's a problem naming a trophy as a "memorial" for someone who is still alive. After all, we regularly give life memberships to people who have already passed away.

I'd rather the push off/push down was unnecessary because umpires have paid a 50m penalty. It amazes me given the AFL's insistence on "speeding up the game" that it hasn't become the norm for 50m penalties to be paid for opponents hanging on or stopping players from getting up off the ground after a free kick or mark is awarded.

Hopefully lifetime membership is granted to Simon Goodwin. I appreciate he may not wish to attend, and it might be better to give him lifetime membership when he's ready, but it doesn't change my view - he deserves it.

Time to change the thread title to "Welcome to Demonland: Paul Guerra"?

I suspect there's a future where the AFL gets sued by a player who receives an off-the-ball push which results in an injury which subsequently impacts the victim's capacity to earn. For example, earlier this year Essendon's Nick Martin was unnecessarily pushed over the boundary line and tore his ACL either because he collided with the fence or twisted his knee while trying to avoid the collision. While I assume he'll continue to be paid under his current contract, if his injury restricts his capabilities and therefore the value of his next contract, an unnecessary act will have cost him money.

Ablett senior wasn't always a forward. Does anyone know whether he was an AA when he played midfield, or did he get all of his 8 AAs as a forward?

Hopefully, not his hairstyle.

You might want to move Matt Crouch (retired) from the "Ins" to the "Outs".

I keep reading on Demonland that Marty Hore has retired. Is that confirmed? I haven't seen it reported anywhere.

Up until this year I would have no argument with this statement (recognising that I don't recall Barassi and never saw Norm Smith). Now I'm starting to wonder. Are we, the spectators of the Flower era, remembering him as better than he actually was? I only say this because Flower only won the B&F once. That has never made any sense to me as he seemed head and shoulders (metaphorically, of course, as opposed to Gawn for whom that expression is both literal and metaphorical) above every other teammate in his era.

I'd go one step further. At least forwards have the Coleman Medal they can win. There's nothing equivalent for the defenders. Choose one of them for captain. Either Sam Taylor or Harris Andrews would have been an excellent choice.

I respect what you're saying, but I can't see how offenders could be dealt with without some form of public explanation. How would it work with the Rankine case? Would the AFL be suspending him for four matches without explaining why? Apart from anything else, it would make it "easier" for the AFL system to be inconsistent in its treatment of offenders. I could see a favoured player or a player from a favoured club getting a fine while a player from a less respected club might get a three-week penalty for the same offence.

I think Geelong; I hope Fremantle. And I'd love to see the word "Colliwobbles" resurrected with Collingwood losing from an unlosable position in a final.

I can't resist making a comment any longer. PF, you don't understand. You could "laugh off" being called a "white honky" precisely because that particular comment reflects that you are not part of a minority group. If, however, as well as being a white honky you were also, say, part of a religious minority or identified as gay, and you "copped plenty" about that, you might feel quite different. Before you say, "No I wouldn't", just check whether you've ever been part of a minority group before. if you haven't, then think a little further about how people in minorities might feel.