La Dee-vina Comedia

I agree, but not with the choice of players. I don't think Salem is under-rated any more. But I agree if it's Langdon and Neal-Bullen.

Geelong were also significantly advantaged by some incredibly good father-son picks (G and N Ablett, Scarlett, Hawkins, Blake) with some (all?) acquired when they didn't have to pay full price in the drafting process.

Generally speaking, you've come to the right place.

While the concept of full-time professional umpires has some attraction, I struggle to see what umpires would do every day during the week and during the off-season. There's only a certain amount of fitness required (and they already seem to have that). Perhaps if being full-time involved a secondary role, such as mentoring junior umpires or working with clubs so everyone fully understands the rules, might help. There might not be enough work for all the field umpires to become full-time, but perhaps we can end up with a mix of full- and part-time umpires with every match having at least one full-time field umpire. I still think, by the way, that the low hanging fruit which would improve umpiring more than making them full-time, is an overhaul of the rules to eliminate as much as possible the subjective assessments wherever possible.

I also like the idea that he plays on the southern wing for the whole match. I've seen it stated somewhere that he does so to make it easier for the wingmen on the northern side to interchange. I have no idea if that's the real reason, but it makes for a good story whether it's true or not.

That's a fair point, but hard to see how the news of that wouldn't have already leaked.

I really hope the author of the article was raised in the US. Otherwise there's no excuse for having used the word "acclimated" instead of "acclimatised". The signing of King and possibly Andrew is why I believe Dew will be coaching Gold Coast in 2023. He's gradually putting the building blocks together. (I expect Clarkson will be made a Godfather offer to bring Tasmania's AFL team into the competition. It's perfect for him - big dollars, he's well known in Tassie already and he doesn't have to fear failure. He doesn't have to win another Premiership. All he has to do is make them a competitive team in quick time.)

When considering selections, keep in mind that Tomlinson played 100% game time last week (as did Langdon, but no-one else). That, in itself, has some value as it allows other defenders more rest time. I don't know if that would be enough to keep him in the side, but I imagine it's something the Match Committee will take into consideration when balancing all factors.

A quick bit of spreadsheet analysis shows in the last column how many Premierships should have been won if in proportion to the number of weeks on top of the ladder. Geelong right on target. Saints the worst offenders mathematically.

If we can arise from the depths of despair in 2013 to Premiers in 2021, anyone can do it in 9 years. We were worse in 2013 than Hawthorn today. In fact, I think our 2013 was probably the worst VFL/AFL team I've seen. And, yet, we still managed to climb out of the abyss to the summit in 9 "short" years.

If you mean both first name and surname are unique, I have a feeling Taj Woewodin won't be on the list. And not because of his first name.

A bit of trivia discovered when preparing the Brainteaser. In our entire history we have only had one player whose surname started with the letter U. Ray Usher played 82 games and kicked 2 goals in his career which was in the period 1928 to 1933. source: demonwiki.org/players

Firstly, there was no intention of sarcasm on my part. My apologies if it read that way. I think the addition of any technology that stops the flow of the game is detrimental to the end product. I'm not even sure that the use of technology to assist with goal umpiring decisions is worth the delays that they engender. Generally speaking, I think the umpiring standard is pretty good but not perfect. I expect perfection in a 360 degree, fast game with rules subject to interpretation is expecting too much. I think the AFL could help the umpires more by trying to eliminate the subjectivity in decision making. The best example, and I think the rule that bugs people perhaps more than any other, is the "insufficient intent" rule. I'm not in favour of a "last touch" free kick as it would discourage players going for the ball. Perhaps we eliminate that rule altogether and live with the consequences or we make it a free kick if t goes out of bounds without being touched and has travelled less than 30 metres for a kick and 15 metres for a handball. The umpire then doesn't have to consider the subjective question of intention, although there would still be the assessment of distance required (and sometimes whether it was touched, although that's no different from decisions made now regarding whether a mark should be paid). The most important point I want to add is that I do not believe in any way that umpires are biased for or against any team. It is stated far too often on this forum.

Interesting definition of "a lock"

I don't get this. How do we know last week wasn't the 50/50 call and the club acted conservatively then?

I'm interested in the idea of making better use of technology to enhance the umpiring of Australian Football. It's now used to assist goal umpiring decisions, although whether it is as good as it needs to be is a lingering question. We also have umpires able to communicate with each other on the field and off the field (as we saw in the Melb v WCE game when the game was suspended because of lightning). Could you see how else technology could help with umpiring? For example, do you think the game should be stopped while the umpires review a replay of an incident to determine whether a free kick should be paid? By the way, I don't buy your propaganda argument. I don't see how a Twitter account that criticises umpiring decisions is propaganda for the umpires.

It's possible to have friends that don't support Melbourne? Who knew?

Whose propaganda?

Thanks for bringing this Twitter account to my attention. Assuming he's an AFL accredited umpire as he says he is, it makes interesting reading. I'm also amused by his pinned tweet given the name of this thread: https://twitter.com/hasumpstuffedup/status/1430342160897949699?s=20&t=gTWPMlty-GE7wUygvE_DTg

We'll just have to take your word for it as I've not received a PM with the correct answer...which is the first letter of each surname spells out "Melbourne Demons Premiers"

Why would TV want three different start times? I accept that TV is probably the answer, but to me that suggests wholesale mis-management of the TV rights by the TV network. Surely there is a "right time" and that "right time" shouldn't chop and change because of the day of the week. I agree that different start times might impact on attendances, but how does it affect viewing audiences on TV?

Does anyone know why the first three games of the season, all night games in the same city, started at three different times? Wednesday was 7.10pm, Thursday 7.25pm and Friday 7.50pm. Seems a crazy way to run a business to me. Whether its an AFL or a Channel 7 decision, I would have thought consistency makes it easier for supporters who attend and TV viewers to commit to going or watching.

The difference between your excellent team and mine is that yours makes sense at any time; mine only since late September last year. And that's a hint for anyone still interested.

Irrespective of the wording of the marking rule, it frustrates me when a player who doesn't move and is attempting to mark the ball is penalised for blocking because a player from behind or coming in from the side can't get to the ball.

Made me laugh, but you raise a serious point. If coaches criticise umpires, or show dissent in the coaches' box, should they be penalised? If so, how? The issue is the same. The AFL wants umpires to better respected to encourage more people to take on the role. Surely coaches being disrespectful is also a problem.