We've got a hot premiership favourite, a huge off-field story that could get even hotter and a disturbing on-field trend putting some heat on the rule makers.
First, the competition.
After 11 rounds the AFL ladder looks like a true reflection of the rankings at the halfway mark of the season.
Geelong remains the standout team and needs only fair luck with injury to be almost unbeatable.
Collingwood and St Kilda loom as the most consistent sides among the challengers and the Saints, with the hope of a fit Nick Riewoldt to return late in the season, are still the main threat - if their skipper is fit and firing.
Fremantle has been the big improver but would be sunk without Aaron Sandilands or Matthew Pavlich so the pair's form and fitness is critical to hopes of retaining a top-four position.
The sliders from 2009 have been the Western Bulldogs, Brisbane Lions and Adelaide.
The Bulldogs have slipped from the very elite despite the inclusion of Barry Hall and have been unable to cover for the injury absence of captain and primary inspiration Brad Johnson.
And with Johnno still battling an achilles injury it would seem his return, fit and well, is more a hope than a probability.
The Lions, having dropped from sixth at the end of 2009 to 10th at mid-2010, are suffering from a troubling pattern of being a terrible first-half side and a strong, come-from-behind second-half side.
Cumulatively, they are -143 points in their first halves and +74 points in their second halves.
The Jonathan Brown-Brendan Fevola duo is on track for seasons of 70-plus goals but a long-term injury to Josh Drummond, their main attacking defender, has been a major setback.
The 15th-placed Crows are out of contention. Injuries, a loss of form and an ageing list have stymied their season, and planning for next year will be their primary task from here on.
So, in summary, Geelong still looks to be in a league of its own.
Second, the big issue in AFL is the poaching of rugby league stars Karmichael Hunt and Israel Folau by expansion teams Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney.
It is a story that has created enormous debate and I've got mixed feelings.
I agree with the objective of developing the two new teams, and I understand the marketing logic of buying a couple of poster boys to be the figureheads of the publicity push in markets traditionally dominated by rugby league.
My major concern is the possible impact on a player culture in which allegiance to club and sport is still the highest priority.
To this point AFL players have accepted a draft system which is undeniably a severe restraint of trade because it denies them a freedom of choice to move wherever they wish when out of contract.
As a group and through the AFL Players' Association they've been sold on doing it for the good of the game.
But for how long?
I'm expecting the foundations of this attitude to be shaken a little with players seeing the huge sums of money being offered to lure athletes from other sports.
The AFL Commission over the last couple of decades has done a magnificent job in guiding the sport's growth, and the principle of the ends justifying the means may be the case in this situation.
But a by-product of all this must inevitably be a more militant attitude from a playing group looking out for what is best for them. And what is good for the game in 10 or 20 years will not help feed the families of the current players.
Finally, to what I see as an issue for one of the most accepted principles of our sport - that the player who is first to the ball is encouraged and protected by the rules.
It's not happening and I find it a really disturbing trend that umpires are almost paranoid about making sure they pay holding the ball.
This change in attitude is illustrated by the fact that the first 11 rounds of 2004 saw 255 holding the ball decisions; in 2010 that figure has ballooned out to more than 700.
I don't blame umpires, so much as the umpires' coaches and the harsher interpretation of the rule.
Over the last few years we know interchange rotations have increased enormously, and as a result we see a lot more energetic players and tackle numbers have doubled.
The concept of 'prior opportunity' needs to be re-thought.
With so many players around the footy these days, and such an energetic tackling intent, what was reasonable prior opportunity a few years ago is nowhere near lenient enough given the extra pressure on players with the ball.
I can accept, in the interest of having fewer stoppages, the intent of penalising a player who falls on the football or drags it in underneath him. He is free-kicked unless he knocks the ball clear.
The problem is that in applying this rule the old 'in the back' and 'over the shoulder' rules are ignored. The reason the ball is not knocked out in many cases is because the player who was first to the ball has two or three players sitting on his back and opposition players are doing their utmost to lock the ball in.
An incident late in the Brisbane Lions-North Melbourne game on Saturday night, which could have changed the result, was a case in point.
The Roos' Scott Thompson fell on the ball before a pack of half a dozen players fell on him and he was penalised for failing to knock the ball clear.
It was a free kick which saw the Lions' Amon Buchanan put his side temporarily in front in the closing stages, but to me Thompson should have received a free kick for 'in the back' rather than the umpire ignoring that contact to pay 'holding the ball'.
The player who is first to the ball is not getting anywhere near the protection he deserves.
This is a trend which has increased in recent seasons and it is time we went back to protecting the player who has the will and determination to try to get his hands on the footy first.
It's almost like a player who falls on the footy loses all rights, but it's not all right. We must be harsher on the tackler or the player who is second to the ball, and be more lenient on the player who gets there first.
The views in this story are those of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.
