Bluey's Dad

He posted a while back that he just likes to argue with people. Life is much simpler when he's relegated to being a yellow bar, although sometimes you get glimpses like this when others quote him.

I actually enjoyed that fight scene, but other than that I agree it wasn't great. Age Ultron was indeed horrible. I enjoyed the first avengers movie much more. Guardians of the Galaxy and Deadpool are my favourite Marvel movies. First Class as well (Fox I know, but Marvel characters).

Like getting workman's comp because you went to jail and were therefore unable to work? You know, when it's framed like this, it's even worse.

'AFL X'. As stupid as the name is, it might not be a bad idea to have a form of the game that can be played internationally on soccer pitches, that would require little changes of a player to migrate to full AFL. Retired players, big bash style, why the hell not. What would be really cool is if they allowed men and women to play together. Massive drawcard IMO.

Brilliant!

True, but those who replace the current lot might make even worse decisions. You never know. As an aside, someone mentioned the other day that Richmond fans once dumped chook poo outside punt rd. Is that right? I might be too young to remember because I certainly think it would have made an impact! If true, that's hilarious.

Sure, but Port can't just break the contract if they want to get rid of him. And Hartlet can reject a trade if it's for less money.

Not if he thinks it'll be his last contract. I don't blame him at all for getting the most cash for the most years he can, given his injuries he might not get another chance. The fact that Richmond will be paying is just icing

I can only assume the entire board saw we were getting our act together and felt they needed to fill the hole of 'league basket case'.

Not sure if news from Ricky Nixon makes it more or less reliable. Interesting that this is the only thing out there? Still, it's on the internet, so it must be true. Thanks ET! :D

Also: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/richmond-board-challenge-group-pushes-for-spill-at-tigers-20160904-gr8q66.html " Hiscock says that the challengers would like Damien Hardwick to stay on as coach, but changes must be made going forward. " So even when they get their [censored] together to oust the board, they're still delusional enough to want to keep Spudwick? I can only imagine it's for cost reasons. Whoever approved that contract extension needs to get the arse.

Bwahahahahahahaha! This meme will not die. I love it.

Was told yesterday that he failed a medical test at North, but can't find anything online to support that. Anyone know anything?

Not a chance DC, don't need my child being exposed to BBO's floggings.

I really loved the game. Some comments: - Blackburn, Ashmore, Hope, Brennan are brilliant. They will bring punters in to watch them. - Have loved Daisy's games so far, but I felt this one was her worst. She had something like 4 or 5 clangers in a row in the second quarter and cost us momentum. I know this happens with inside midfielders because their possessions are always under pressure, but man it was heartbreaking. - Feeling heartbroken over some clangers in an exhibition match indicates to me that I've managed to emotionally invest without knowing it. Pretty happy - Putting #21 (can't remember her name, McIntosh maybe?) on Hope for 3 quarters didn't seem smart. Hope was the dominant forward for the game and out-muscled and out-thought her every time the ball came in. Hickey seemed to do a better job for the times she was on Hope. - Was it just me or was there more 3rd [wo]man up in the ruck contests than the boys' matches? - Not sure what people are talking about in regards to the skills being high. They were good, but not great. Definitely better than some VFL matches I've seen though. Melbourne's second quarter goal kicking was some of the worst I've seen, many of them directly in front with little angle. Having said that, some of the doggies' passages were very very good. Their midfield worked a lot better than ours. My opinion might have been coloured because I was watching the Melbourne passages more closely, and a lot of the class unfortunately seemed to be on the other side. - Teams will struggle against Harris and Hope - I hope we're doing something about this now! Can't wait for the season to start. It'll be fantastic watching it all develop from day dot.

I would have thought so too, but I saw something very interesting last week at my son's kinder. They had a father's day event and we were all invited down to play games with the kids. I noticed on the wall, there was an AFL logo for every club, and a picture of a kid under it, showing who each one barracks for. Melbourne had the equal second highest (5 kids, tied with Richmond), with Collingwood #1 with 6. We're in Berwick, so I'm not sure if the club's Casey alignment has had a larger impact here than in other parts of the state, but it was quite a welcome surprise. Not sure if I should disclose this, for the pitchforks may appear, but I noticed my own son's picture was not under the MFC logo. His picture stood alone, under the Lions. I asked him about it later and he said "I know we go for Melbourne but the Lion was lonely so I said Lions." I have failed to instruct my own child in the unrelenting harshness of football tribalism. I beg everyone's forgiveness whilst I correct this egregious oversight.

Yep, would have been absolutely amazing. Who do you send your best backman to? Clark, Watts or Hogan? There's no backline in the competition who has a '3rd best' backline player to cope with one of those 3. There's no way you could double team one of them without the other ripping you to shreds. Clark cut up backlines on his own, pre-injury. He really was something to watch.

I disagree DL, I think Brisbane's list is better than ours in 2013. We had nothing even close to the quality of Rockliff, Zorko or Hanley. They have Beams as well when he gets back from injury. Stef Martin is a much better ruckman than Jamar was in 2013.

Yep, at the time it was great a move. And he delivered on more than what we thought he was capable of when he actually did play. I loved watching him play in the red and blue, even if it was only a handful of games. Really disappointing end to story though unfortunately.

The softening up of the public has started already. I heard Barrett (I think) on the radio a few days ago saying Brisbane are now worse than Melbourne were a few years ago. Couldn't believe what I was hearing. I also remember when our PP was knocked back that the AFL would only issue one in extreme situations or something, like the death of a player. Yes they set a silly precedent when they denied our claim, as no team is likely to ever be worse than we were, but precedents only matter to those who care about consistency. The AFL does not.

....because we hate ourselves?

Fine. If there's reason to suspect a player did something negligent or dangerous due to being drug-impared, then sure, test them after the fact. I'm not saying that there is a problem - yet. And to be honest, I shouldn't know if there is one. As a member of the public I shouldn't be privy to that information if the AFL's found that x% of their players are on some illicit drug. I just really don't see a problem with the AFL: a) reducing liability via a random testing regime b) using results to better player welfare You said before that illicit drugs are none of the AFL's business. Well, for liability reasons, I think it is - again with the proviso that it's only when the player is training and playing. Welfare reasons are debatable as the AFL seem to want to take this on themselves rather than it being a requirement, but it would be consistent at least with what they say about acting in the players' best interest. So there's the divergence. We won't agree, let's move on.

Do you actually read what I post or do you just comb it looking for crazy hypotheticals to extract? Illicit drugs effect perception and judgement, even days after use. Impaired judgement and perception can cause actions (or inactions I suppose) that can lead to injuries that might otherwise not have occurred. The AFL can reduce the amount of impaired players by performing confidential tests, and therefore reduce their liability/exposure. The AFL should therefore perform tests. As for weed, it's probably not going to cause an issue. But it's an illicit drug like ice and coke so it comes under the same legislative umbrella. For now at least.

Nope. Not sure why people are extrapolating ridiculous scenarios from what I think is a pretty straight forward policy.

I don't think it's a long bow at all. People take illicit drugs to alter their perception. While under the influence of altered perception, or coming down from it, they can be a danger to others. Sticking them on a football field magnifies the danger, certainly more than would be present in most other work environments like an office. It IS the AFL's jurisdiction because the AFL are law-bound to make the sport as 'safe' as they can within the rules of the sport. Illicit drug testing is one way they can mitigate the risk that their duty of care towards players is violated. The AFL may well be found negligent if a player who has illicit drugs in their system causes damage or injury to another player that is attributable to a lapse in judgement or altered perception. The AFL should be testing for illicit drugs, but as I said, not while the players are on holiday (ie not training or playing) and the results should not be released to the public. But what the AFL should do and what the AFL do do (heh, do do) are two completely different things. Edit: any lawyers around care to weigh in on the issue? The above is just a result of my own reading on the issue.