THE BEHIND POSTS [II.05] (Miscellaneous)

This week: Hinkley to North; Frampton; Port Rising Up; Robbie, Jonas, and the Maggies; and Extra Finals Round. Bonus: Latino v Hispanic in US Law.

----

Hinkley to North

No, not Siberia. Please, I like the guy. “North” is North Melbourne FC. It is probably a good idea. There are coaches really good in putting houses back in order, and Hinkley seems to be one. He also seems to be a players’ coach, and this could help North bring in some talent. This idea could be the best for all parts involved. I mean, all but Polec and Pittard, probably. Oh, well…

----

Playing Frampton

It took to long for Frampton to be called up both this season and the last. On this, someone has said: “Last season, people were calling for Frampton to be selected as a ruck. No one called for him to be selected as a key forward.” That’s true, but it doesn’t tell the whole story. Meanwhile, Dixon, who isn't a ruck either, was getting murdered.

The problem was always the structure. It is merely an academic debate whether we would have played Billy in the ruck and Dixon forward or the other way around. The structure would have been the same.

----
Port’s Slow Healing

Since Port joined the AFL (22 seasons), we have finished on the ladder at:

1-4: 5 times
5-8: 5
9-10: 7
11-18: 5

Those numbers are much better for the first 11 seasons (1997-2007):
1-4: 4
5-8: 3
9-10: 2
11-18: 2

Eleven years have passed, and we haven't healed from the 2007 GF yet. We are getting better slowly, though. Since 2013, we have finished on the ladder at:
1-4: 1
5-8: 2
9-10: 3
11-18: 0

----
Getting Back Through the Maggies

It seems I am the only one melting over Robbie and Jonas - which is a good sign. I would prefer see them playing for the Maggies this week, but that's me. If we had the custom of getting players back through the Maggies, it would be considered normal. We would see it and think: "Great! Robbie is ready." We don't have the custom, though. So I get why his selection is fine for most people. Still, no player should be considered above the Magpies.


----
On a WildCard Round

On the idea of including an extra round of Finals after the minor round, I am not against it, to be honest. It gives 7 and 8 a home Finals (or Finals-like) match; 5 and 6 get a bye that their opponents don't; and we get rid of a footy-less weekend.

I would rather call it "playoff match" like in European/FIFA World Cup soccer or "play-in round". It would differentiate somewhat this extra round from the Finals proper. If you win it, then you would qualify for the Finals. It could be a compromise with the “Finals should be for the Top-8” brigade.

Moreover, Jonts' Wild Card concept is really interesting: “If it happens don't call it a wild card round if there is nothing wild about it. 7th and 8th vs the 2 highest percentage teams of the bottom 10 would be a wildcard round.” It might spice things up big time. I liked it.

----
Bonus: Latinos and Hispanics in the USA

As Brazilian, I am Lusitanic, not Hispanic; this means I fail to qualify as a member of a protected class under US law. I know that, but the issue is not as simple as it seems. Americans would ask me if I were “Latino” all the time. My answer was always the same: “I don’t know. You tell me.”

The problem is that the US use "Hispanic" and "Latino" interchangeably. However, Brazilians don't understand the terms as being synonymous - because they, of course, aren't. Latino should include Brazilians, Haitians, and Quebecoises; i.e., Portuguese- and French-speakers.

The issue is even more complicated in my case because I am from the border. If my family was from across the bridge, then, I would be part of “protected class.” Some cities around here don't have even a bridge. Nothing separates them, but an imaginary line. One side is protected by the US Law, while the other side is not.

Law and Politics are wonderful! People wish they were precise, but it is simply impossible.