rumpole

Which is exactly my point. If the provocation was the element that resulted in the leniency to Headland then in the interests of justice (if that is what the AFL indeed seeks in these matters) it was crucial to determine whether what was stated by Headland to be fact was actually true and correct. Selwood should have given evidence in the Headland case.

I'm not suggesting this because I'm bitter and twisted as a result of the Headland and Carr vedicts clearing both of them to play against Melbourne however I don't understand how it's possible that:- (a) Selwood is cleared of sledging, and then (B) Headland is cleared of two offences the MRP though worthy of 6 weeks suspension basically for the reason that he was sledged. Now, IMO if you're going to excuse Headland because he was stupid enough to be taken in by a perceived sledge (it couldn't have been a real one because Selwood went unpunished) then he has to go for the second assault because that was premeditated after the original non-existent provocation. Something stinks to high heaven at the AFL.

Remember you well young Fidge. You must have been about 15 years old when you first played for the MFC Under 19's and were considered by all and sundry as a player of the future. Showed promise in your first season of senior footy at the MFC but then faded out of the picture under John Northey. I remember your brother Ted snotting someone important at Waverley but not the details or the number of weeks he got if any. The Demons also won a night premiership in 1989 but I'm not sure whether Teddy was there by then. Anyhow great memories, I wish you well and please stick with us although, if I may say, I hope that schoolteacher from McKinnon High wasn't your English teacher. Cheers, Rumpole

I have a solution for your problems, Oracle. 1. Visit your shrink more often. 2. Stop watching second rate television programmes.

I don't believe I'm reading this.

I think the point is that the Noonans and McKennas of bygone days were ready to play elite level in the '60's because suburban and bush football was so much stronger when emerging players had to play against men at a young age. Newton's grounding was with the Murray Bushies playing against other Under 18's. Since then he had a back injury that interrupted most of 2005 and last year, he spent more time in the VFL reserves than in the seniors. On top of that, the standard down there is rather ordinary. I think the kid's good but he needs to toughen up mentally in order to play full time with the men. Should he do this, it will be a bonus for the club and he'll play a lot of quality AFL games because he has the skills and is a potentially exciting player.

He won't be much use if he can't raise a gallop through lack of match practice or his hammy plays up during the game. On the other hand, if those things happen, he'll perform in a similar fashion to half the team from Friday night v St. Kilda.

WJ is right. Take it from another member of the legal profession who has seen dozens of medical reports in his time on people charged with possessing and using illicit drugs. This is exactly the place to leave the message that people who want to experiment with these substances should be in a position to make an informed choice and not be under any misapprehensionss about the course they might be taking when they light up their first joint, pop their first pill, snort or sniff something up their noses or inject some rubbish into their veins. If it's all about informed choice then John Hay's message was, in part, misleading and dangerous.

I read somewhere that Junior was under a bit of a cloud with a calf problem.

Ben Cousins was excluded because of the doubt over his playing career. Had he been sprung one week later, Brock would've missed out on making the top 50.

It's probably a good precaution by the mods anyway because, in some circumstances, even the truth can be defammatory.

Crawford was reported last week. As for Hodge, he was reported twice today. The law presumes a person innocent till proven guilty but if he is found guilty as charged on both counts, Hodge could miss our meeting in round 2. L Hodge (Haw) by umpire L Farmer for striking M Lloyd (Ess) in 2nd quarter and by umpire M James for charging D Peverill in 4th quarter.

Fair go, it's a squad of 31 players and includes a few who start on the bench in the Geelong game - big deal!

The reports in the media from yesterday's practice match are interesting. The Herald-Sun's Jesper Fjeldstad writes about "Melbourne's reliance on handball at all cost in the first quarter – earning the Demons a three-goal lead" (HERE). He then says that the Crows "heeded coach Neil Craig's demands they be competitive at all contests and move the ball swiftly." In other words, it sounds very much as if Melbourne played keepings off with handball in the first quarter and were overrun by a far more direct style of football for the remainder of the game. I'm fully aware that this was a practice game and that these games are for experimentation and we were half staffed yesterday but rather than blithely dismissing what goes on in these games I'm interested in understanding whether our experimentaton is getting us anywhere. I'd like to hear from anyone who was at the game what they think of Melbourne's experiment with this run and carry style. Surely, it's something that's only going to exercised at particular times during a game and not exclusively throughout a game? I would have thought that in windy conditions as applied yesterday, Melbourne would have been far better off playing its more direct long kicking style with the first quarter wind. To come in at quarter time with four shots at goal to two after having the benefit of a strong wind just about sums up how effective we are at "run and carry" as things stand. On that basis, it's little wonder that McDermott on 5aa was bagging us even early in the game.

Here's a turn up for the books! Adem Yze has been charged with attempting to trip Robert Campbell during the fourth quarter of the Round One NAB Cup match between Melbourne and Hawthorn, played at Telstra Dome on Sunday. Yze can accept a reprimand and 60 points towards his future record with an early plea. If I were Ooze I'd take the early plea and get on with life.

The AFL is an "authority"?

How many exceptions to a rule do you need to disprove the rule? Why did the Baby Bombers and not the mature Carlton of 1993 win the flag that year when the Blues were right on 12 midnight? Three years later, the same Carlton which should have been at 3am by then but instead they had a sensational season losing only 2 games and winning a flag. It's also arguable that the Kangaroos won the flag in 1996 and remained a power through '97 to at least '00 but were overshadowed by Adelaide who were nowhere near optimum on the clock in 97-98. How do you explain Collingwood in '02 & '03 compared to '04 & '05 with the aid of the clock?

The puntroadend site has an interesting analysis of our list as well. On the basis of the data, they're tipping us to finish in 10th spot this year which suggests we've passed our peak for the moment - read it here http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=25260.0

If the rule is 10 years minimum service then that's how it's got to be unless someone can point to some very special circumstances.

If I had an account with Betfair or Tabcorp and it's true that these agencies have divulged information about people's betting accounts, I'd be cancelling those accounts quick smart. They should be respecting people's privacy and not giving out information to the AFL or anyone else - even if that person "authorises" it by virtue of having a contract with an AFL club. This is another example of Big Brother at work in the 21st century!

I hope that he's as good a defender as another wearer of # 8 - Bob "Tassie" Johnson who played in a few premiership teams and became captain og the MFC and a hall of famer.

Shirley Booth. She was one of my favourite actresses years ago. Good on yer Shirley!

Here's the betting for the NAB Cup according to Norm Short Sportsbook. Norm thinks the Swans aren't interested in the competition and we're almost line ball against the Hawks in the first round. $ 5.5 Western Bulldogs 8 Fremantle, Geelong 9 Adelaide, Port Adelaide 10 West Coast, Melbourne 11 St. Kilda 12 Hawthorn 14 Essendon, Kangaroos 17 Enron, Richmond 31 Collingwood 41 Sydney 51 Brisbane The bookies obviously don't believe in the old adage about being as good as your last game. They were thrashed against the Eagles and now are flag favourites.

I think the stability issue is a bit overrated. As long as the footballers are not themselves personally involved in internal club politics they should be professional enough to not let it worry them. It's a job for these blokes after all.

As it turns out I can't make it myself but I hope for the players' sakes that they get a good crowd and that there's not too much rain around to spoil the fun.