Don't think it's a matter of applying for specific players. There were players at other Clubs who are deemed eligible but have an asterisk alongside their name to denote that their Club has ruled them unfit to play.

Agree, it's needlessly mysterious.

At least we're better off than our Rnd 1 opponents who can't send out anyone for a competitive game.

what do you mean? Don't Box Hill have a match on?

handy if so, Burgoyne and Rioli would have benefited from the chance!

Read the linked article.

Since there are no AFL fixtures this weekend it seems that special permission must be given for AFL listed players to compete for VFL affiliates.

There are a number of Clubs who have no players who satisfy the mysterious criteria for eligibility, one of them being Hawthorn.

There are a number of Clubs who have no players who satisfy the mysterious criteria for eligibility, one of them being Hawthorn.

Care to elaborate on this "mysterious criteria for eligibility" Inner Demon ?

There's no mystery about it.

Clubs determine which of their players might benefit from a practice game this weekend and then apply to the AFL for permission for those players to take part in a VFL, SANFL or WAFL game as appropriate.

If players aren't on the list, they're either unfit or they are still such a distance from senior selection that one extra game now won't make an iota of difference.

That doesn't seem quite right MikeyJ. Why would Adelaide apply for permission for a player they have declared unfit??

I also can't imagine that Brisbane, Essendon, Geelong, Hawthorn, Richmond & Sydney have absolutely no players that they think would benefit from another hit-out at VFL/AFLQ/AFL Canberra level. Particularly Richmond who are chock-full of kids and Brisbane & Geelong who both missed out on a NAB Challenge game due to weather.

High Tower I would love to be able to elaborate but I don't understand the system hence the decription of 'mysterious'.

So any news on the game?

That doesn't seem quite right MikeyJ. Why would Adelaide apply for permission for a player they have declared unfit??

In Adelaide's case, they nominated the likes of Sellar and Porplyzia just in case they came up fit this week. They were very unlikely to do so, but the Crows were covering all bases.

I can also assure you that the Swans believe that their potential squad for round one does not need another hitout. The rest of their list can get their match fitness up in the AFL Canberra comp when the season starts.

In general, clubs base their preparation around four NAB Cup/Challenge games and a weekend off before the season proper. In an ideal world, there would be no AFL listed players in action this weekend as they would be recuperating before having a red-hot go in round one. However, injuries and niggles can derail the perfect preparation and sometimes there are players on the cusp of match fitness who would benefit from a hitout at a lower intensity in a lower league.

I repeat, there is no mysterious criteria. If clubs wanted their players to be eligible for a lower-league practice match this weekend, they applied for permission. Whether those players actually play is another point entirely.

Edited March 19, 201015 yr by MikeyJ

In Adelaide's case, they nominated the likes of Sellar and Porplyzia just in case they came up fit this week. They were very unlikely to do so, but the Crows were covering all bases.

I can also assure you that the Swans believe that their potential squad for round one does not need another hitout. The rest of their list can get their match fitness up in the AFL Canberra comp when the season starts.

In general, clubs base their preparation around four NAB Cup/Challenge games and a weekend off before the season proper. In an ideal world, there would be no AFL listed players in action this weekend as they would be recuperating before having a red-hot go in round one. However, injuries and niggles can derail the perfect preparation and sometimes there are players on the cusp of match fitness who would benefit from a hitout at a lower intensity in a lower league.

I repeat, there is no mysterious criteria. If clubs wanted their players to be eligible for a lower-league practice match this weekend, they applied for permission. Whether those players actually play is another point entirely.

That makes some sense.

I'd has it a guess that is why M.Bate is playing again, he's short of a gallop and I would imagine would benefit from another hit out before next week commences.

So any news on the game?

do we not even have one person down there

However, injuries and niggles can derail the perfect preparation and sometimes there are players on the cusp of match fitness who would benefit from a hitout at a lower intensity in a lower league.

Shouldn't Burgoyne and Rioli be in this category?

do we not even have one person down there

There's usually one representative, doing the iphone thing...

The game HAS started, right?

I was on my way there, but monash was a carpark, so bailed out at East Link

The game was due to start at 4:45pm (seniors) and 7:30pm (reserves)

anyone down at Casey tonight able to tell us how the boys are going?

Injuries (shudder) etc?

Shouldn't Burgoyne and Rioli be in this category?

Both are sufficiently injured (Burgoyne with a hamstring and Rioli with ongoing groin soreness/OP) that a game now would do little to assist their round one preparations.

Rioli has been ruled out and you would think that Burgoyne, having twinged his hammy on March 3, would be touch and go for round one given that he hasn't played a single practice match.

Any more conspiracy theories I can dispel for you?

Somebody on big footy posted that Casey were up at 1/2 time by 8 goals.Watts has kicked a goal from the boundary and garland had scored a goal.

Somebody on big footy posted that Casey were up at 1/2 time by 8 goals.Watts has kicked a goal from the boundary and garland had scored a goal.

This could be BS as it was posted at 5.14 pm

Nah the clock must be an hour out because when I pressed F5 there was a new post showing 05:30 and it's 06:30.

This could be BS as it was posted at 5.14 pm

Yeah the game is quoted on the website as starting at 4.45pm... sounds like BS to me

This could be BS as it was posted at 5.14 pm

It was posted at 5.54....

This could be BS as it was posted at 5.14 pm

If you read the post carefully on bigfooty, he said they are up by 8 (not goals - you added that) which is correct as when I dropped past at half time, they were up by eight points - 42 to 34.

This could be BS as it was posted at 5.14 pm

Why would somebody bother to BS about something so innocuous ?

As it turns out I was there and left at 3/4 time. And yes, Garland and Watts both kicked a goal.

Nothing much to report I'm afraid.

Why would somebody bother to BS about something so innocuous ?

As it turns out I was there and left at 3/4 time. And yes, Garland and Watts both kicked a goal.

Nothing much to report I'm afraid.

What positions were Garland, Bate and Watts playing?

What positions were Garland, Bate and Watts playing?

Garland back.

Watts forward and around the wing.

Bate close to goal/CHF - kicked 3 in the third.

And as you'd expect Gysberts was in the midfield.

EDIT: Watts only played the first half.

Edited March 19, 201015 yr by Oliver Hill