deanox

So the club gets a harsher penalty than Collingwood? qwerty7, it's exactly the opposite of how the AFL apply punishments at the tribunal: outcome is more important than action. It sounds like he hasn't messed up because he was negligent (Buckley) or because he was partying (Richmond), it sounds like the problem is his headspace. It also sounds like no real harm was caused. The punishment stinks based on the info we have.

I always wonder if the turnovers are the fault of the midfielders (lack of skills or decision making) or forwards (not in position or moving). I think with us its a bit of both, but I do think if we can sort the forward line out (through cosching, player learning/improving/growth or recruitment) the mids will look like stars.

Yep, agree RE the plans. But what is the $50k fine for? No damage had been done. No risk created. Either he stopped himself from reentering (maybe he realised, maybe someone advised him) or someone else stopped him before it was too late (meaning the system is working). The hubs weren't actually breeched.

Agree but I think it's worth noting that the club definitely thinks we should be threatening top 4, so given we are reducing list sizes, imo when considering "non best 26" players, they will make a call on who can play a role next year, because it is very hard to hold onto players to develop them with smaller lists.

Did he go back in the hub?

When you look at that out of contract list, it's very hard to see Jones going on if there is a reduction in lost sizes. Viney, Hibberd, Hannan, Omac, Hunt, Spargo, Fritsch are all in the "best 26" (or close to it). Smith, Petty, Bedford, Sparrow, Hore, Jordan all seem to be promising, developing or young players who are on the fringe. Neita and Wagner are the only two obvious outs. Plus you need to upgrade Lockhart, and maybe Brown/Bennell. KK won't go on. Jetta is probably lucky to have another year. I think Preuss needs to stay as back up (if Gawn goes down we'd only have LJ). TMac and Harmes have long term deals but haven't been part of the best 22. I reckon we'll see the following gone: Jones, KK, Wagner, Neita, Bedford, Jordan, plus one of Smith, OMac or Hore (the three of them are playing for the same spot and all are out of contract). That's 7. Assume we need 2 draft picks, and have a net neutral trade/FA movement that allows a list reduction of 5, which should be more than enough. If we want to upgrade more than one of Lockhart, Brown or Bennell then we might need to lose another. In that case it might be a hard call on Sparrow (if we retain Brayshaw and Viney). I can't see any of the other rookies getting another year except for maybe Bradtke: but as a cat B, missing that year of football may have hurt his chances.

If he hasn't come back into the hub then there should be no financial penalty for the club. The problem isn't leaving the hub, anyone is free to do that any time (the first 14 days notwithstanding), they just can't come back in.

I hope so. I heard freo were up there thurs or fri?

As you can see in this photo, the two are obviously close, and comfortable with this type of action. Is it professional? No. Is it in anyway related to the Richmond incident? No. If society cannot differentiate those two incidents, then its not a surprise we are still grappling with sexual assault and harassment. It's really disappointing that the commentary and club statements miss the part about consent, because it could be a "teaching moment".

It's his defensive efforts that have won me over. He really seems to get those smothers, tackles, blocks, taps, etc in at the right time, and then to double it down his few disposals have been very clean and penetrating.

This. The only response should have been "we are disappointed the players were not fully focused on Goodwin, but have no concerns with the actions as they are fully consensual, unlike other incidents which have been highlighted." It's really important that this is differentiated, because this apllies to non-football situations too. The problem is not touching. It is the lack of consent. As a society we really struggle with understanding this difference.

Do you really think that "chase down tackles" are a good measure of his performance? A chase down tackle occurs when an opposition has the ball in space and is caught unaware without talk from his team mates. If that happens once a game it looks spectacular. "Perceived" pressure is crazy important. Rushed disposals and decisions, turnovers, creating opportunities for others to tackle and disposess.

I don't think any of my suggestions were rule changes. They were more resetting interpretation creep, and restoring the way it was umpired in earlier times. They will open up the play and make it easier to attack/ harder for defenders. So they will help from the first bounce to the final siren. My problem with bonus points is that they will always be an after thought. No coach will plan for them. It is always defence first, secure then win, bonus points if is secure. This is an older article by it says similar: extra trys do occur, but basically they only happen in blow outs. The bonus points encourage junk time rampages/floggingss, not shootouts. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274968739_Secondary_Behavioural_Incentives_Bonus_Points_and_Rugby_Professionals Further bonus points in rugby are gamed. They are over represented amongst home teams and while they have increased average tries slightly (I read 3.7 to 4.2 per game) they have actually reduced the number of high scoring games, as once teams hit the 4 try mark (and gain the bonus point) they switch back to defence first to protect their lead. https://theconversation.com/points-for-tries-the-rugby-world-cup-shows-how-bonus-schemes-can-come-unstuck-124892 In AFL BPs will overly favour teams coming off longer breaks, playing in better weather conditions, playing without in game injuries, playing against younger sides that are more easily routed. It isn't a fair measurement or performance over a season, which is why it's a perfect 2nd measure as percentage or points difference. I actually don't mind the netball system, but it doesn't necessarily incentivise scoring. A BP for each quarter and 4 for the win means 8 points up for grabs every game. This may incentivise teams who jump out of the blocks to keep attacking instead of trying to defend the lead for 3 quarters? But are we really interested in increasing both sides attack when they are already down by 6 goals and there is 3 minutes to go? Netball is always high scoring. That's because defending in netball is really hard. And personally I think instead of incentivising scoring in AFL (which will always be secondary for the coaches) we need to make changes to free the ball up, allow it to move easier/faster, and make it harder for defenders to defend. That will mean that even the most defensive coach will only be able to do so much.

I disagree with incentivising scoring via premiership points. It won't work. It doesn't work in rugby or netball, it won't work in an even more chaotic game, because coaches will always focus on the win. In fact, I think it will be bad for the comp as the bonus points will go against those teams who role over on occasions, regardless of opppnent. If you want to increase scoring, go hard on losing free kicks for shepparding in marking contests. It's already illegal to prevent someone from contesring a mark, unless you too are trying to mark. Penalise every screen and block, every third person body, unless they are going up realistically. That will open up key forwards. It will bring crumbers into play because the only way to be a 3rd player is a legimate attempt leaving your player open. The other option? Speed up all the stoppages. Pay htb quickly. Call for a bounce, run in and do it quick. Don't wait for teams to set up or for rucks to get there, just whistle, run in and throw up. This gets the ball moving fast and atops zones setting up leading to one on ones.

The Brown v Jackson selection this week is possibly the hardest selection call all year. I don't envy them. When we got Jackson and Weid together early this year is when it all clicked. Our forward line has function best with that line up. So it's the obvious choice. But Jackson's a first year kid, not that dangerous, not really a forward but really a ruck, coming off a long injury stint, so he's off the pace and no exposed form, while Brown played ok with 7 marks and 13 disposals last week, so leaving it unchanged is the obvious choice. But Weid has been out of firm the last 3 weeks with only 16 disposals, 4 marks and 1 goal in that time. He needs a week off, so running with Jackson and Brown is the obvious choice. Personally I think I'd roll the dice and go with Weid and Jackson because that's when it worked best, and we have struggled up forward since Jackson's injury. But I suspect no change is the safer choice.

Adding to this, there is absolutely no reason why they should have discontinued the VFL. There should be a state level competition, unrelated to the AFL clubs.

If they are fair dinkum, the new comp will have 18 teams. One aligned/ representing each of the 14 AFL teams in Qld, NSW and Vic, and 4 non alligned teams. The second tier comp can then mirror the AFL fixture, with games played in the same state as the competing AFL clubs (except for those trips to Perth and Adelaide) on the day after the corresponding AFL match, so that the emergencies can all get game time. The AFL should fund the player salaries of the 4 stand alone teams sufficiently so that it can be concentrated with the next best players and best kids who missed the draft (instead of these players spreading over diluted minor leagues). It will act as a pool for development and recruitment of mature aged players either at mid season or end of season drafts. But they won't. It will be a [censored] storm of byes, early games, weak stand alone teams etc.

They also tweeted a photo of Jackson's mullet in full flight today with the caption "marvellous isn't it?". He's in. If he passes the fitness test. https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/814091

Ah yes, the "silent majority"!

Has anyone considered that losing the captaincy might not be a driver but in fact the other way around? What is the reason he isn't captain is because he flagged his intention to explore FA? At MFC he has to be behind Gawn, Petracca and Oliver in salary, and May and Lever must be close. It's very hard for a captain to leave, and not a good look for the club, so if he was considering on a business/ financial basis, not being captain could be a win-win for both. Hey MFC, I've been approached by purge clubs RE FA next year. I don't really want to leave but the numbers they are throwing around add $100k per year for 4 years, I so need to think about it. No worries Jack, we don't want you to go but understand the financial offer might not be something we can match. At that point, both parties may manage PR together, even if there is only a 10% chance of it happening.

This was meant to be illustrative only, and I've plucked approx target figures from a cafe to use. But it serves the purpose to show that the wage cost of an extra PH is minuscule in the context of actually running a business. If the owner is concerned that the daily trade provide a gross profit (say sales minus COGS minus wages) due to decreased revenue then close, and save the penalty rates and COGS. But regardless, this should all be factored into your business plan. And if your margins are so tight that you can't afford to increase costs by 0.05% then you've got bigger problems than the public holiday. That's $500 for a business with costs of $1,000,000. FWIW I agree it should be the Monday instead.

Assuming 50% uplift for penalty rates (its probably less than that) and assuming equal staffing across 6 days per week for 50 weeks of the year operation, the cost of a single public holiday is 0.167% of your annual wage bill. For a Cafe, wages should be about 30% of your sales (assuming 30% wages, 30% COGS, 30% overheads, 10% profit). That means the cost of a public holiday is equivalent to about 0.05% of your annual turnover. 10 public holidays would be 0.5% of your annual turnover. If the cost of an additional public holiday is effecting the viability of a business, then either the business is already struggling, or the way it is analysing costs/profit is wrong (too narrow ignoring overheads, focusing only on one day, etc.).

I thought the same thing. It is ok only if it's called advantage but I didn't think they did. Wrong decision by the umpires. There was also a bizarre call against GWS early "you can't handball to a player who is crossing the mark", and I am 99.9% sure than is not a real rule (unless it's been added in recent seasons).

Working at home and the pandemic has put a lot of strain on the mental health of many people. Personally I'm really looking forward to a long weekend, even if all that means is I can sleep in a touch, and read a book in my back yard. The GF parade is just an excuse to have the day off. It used to be Show Day. But the benefits of the day off go further than the parade itself.

Rusty how does metres gained get calculated for kick outs? May took most of them, I'm assuming that if he kicks from within the goal square it doesn't count (it doesn't count as a kick either), but if he plays on for a few metres first it counts for both?