redandbluemakepurple

I spent many minutes wrestling with the finals format. I concluded that if we play Port in the first round, we get the interstate final out of the way. We would play Collingwood in a PF or another team that finished lower than us. I would be content.

The Port doc was wrong again IMO. He did not need to perform a test then. He needed to immediately rule both players out of the game. The guidelines state that players must be removed if - the player took No protective action in fall to ground i.e. Aliir - the player has Dazed, blank/vacant stare or player not his/her normal self i.e. Jones There are other criteria such as loss of consciousness but these are not as patently obvious from the replay. The Guidelines (link at bottom) state that there is an external concussion spotter in the AFL Review Centre (ARC) who will flag incidents with the match-day club doctor by approved means. Furthermore, The AFL provides all available broadcast video feeds via the HawkEye system to the club bench at match venues. This link enables the club to utilize real-time video feeds, with variable playback speeds, and multiple camera views. And Sideline video review is mandatory in the assessment of a suspected concussion. On the face of it, this is a good system. It needs also to be investigated if the parts of the system other than the Club Doctor failed. Usually any ineffectiveness of the AFL creates good copy but this will also ruin people's lives. https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2023/03/12/134a48f5-9206-4dd4-b88b-426dd1ea7b31/AFL-and-AFLW-Concussion-Guidelines-March-2023-FINAL-.pdf

Alliir was unconscious and lying motionless for some seconds. That is criteria #1 and #10 respectively on page six of AFL/AFLW guidelines. #1 prohibits return to play. #10 requires first an assessment before return but is trumped by #1. Jones had #5 Dazed, blank/vacant stare and #9. Player reports significant, new or progressive concussion symptoms, i.e. migraine. These both require immediate removal and no return to play. And out for two weeks. This excessive detail is to indicate that is quite cut and dried rather than to annoy you.

Goodwin has become a good coach overall. Loved that he said that they had Grundy working on his leads, at Casey. Love a solution for a problem. Interesting that he was second choice for understudy after Dew?? said no.

Strong coaches but I disagree that they got the absolute maximum out of their lists. Strawbs O'Dwyer was rubbed out in the Prelim in 1988. He should have been rubbed out the previously week, caught wonderfully on the replay. Swooper put 6' 0" David Williams at FF. He, tallest on the FF line, was 3" shorter than Ayres, the shortest HFC on the FB line. Too short up forward! I have been stopping people in the street and telling them this but I see that Wikipedia says he was HFF and Wight was FF. I wait with interest and trepidation to be corrected. This "Little Bigman" theory as the paper called it in the early 70's did not work and has its echo in Melksham playing as the second tall forward. This didn't seem to work at the end of last year when I suggested to some derision that Mitch Brown just for his size. Could be a podcast topic. The 2003 list was much the same as 2002 but crashed. Daniher had his non-performing favourites (e.g. Yze post 2002) and non-favourites (e.g. Lamb), and gave the dead horse a tickle-up. The President, Szondy, noted this at the time but recanted within the week. We lost Steven Powell and Farmer (gammy hammy) because the club wanted to put them on one year contracts. Wilson went. G. Healy left. We had the stars but they went. Now I think depth is unimportant, considering the number of fringe players who left and got a premiership medal. It is the Dusty's, Petracca's, Bont's that matter.

Yep, that is probably the team. Personally, I would pick Hibbo for Charlie Cameron, Rozee and Rankine. McVee was slow to get up on the far wing and the ball stayed in for an Adelaide forward thrust. He trailed his man in for one of their late goals; should have lit the afterburners; (yet still a player most teams would love have). Bowey let Rozee run past him into the 50 for an easy mark (but again a player most teams would cherish) . Both are drawn to the pack leaving their man to goal. I would pick JVR for BBrown. He is more of a marking threat than BBrown when he doesn't have a long run-up. Based on how foot injuries have gone this year, Fritsch will probably miss. So Melksham should stay with a greater scope to run not minding the CHB/3rd tall.

If Brisvegas paints themselves into a corner with the salary cap, how about Payne. A big lump of a lad to take over after May.

Hilarious!!

I think Daniher was given some easy goals by Petty being to crook to go with him. I would have subbed him earlier.

Very much so. I would use Boland.

His dad was one of my favourites. I loved that he took the effort to weigh everything that he ate. Sure he will make us proud too!

As a youngster in the 70's, I stood in front of the grandstand and women who looked my mum would use language that even me and my mates would think too filthy and strong. I went home dazed and confused. And I was there for the goal.

Not to mention David Cordner and Weidemann last year.

Instruct him not to kick around the corner. Instruct him to line up the leg, ball and boot straight at the target. JMac kicked like a backman until went forward and lined it all up. The guys approach the goals like a dancer with an empty garter. So this applies to them all. If he does not do that drop him until he agrees. Take the drop-off of hardball gets on the chin. If he has been instructed to do so but is not doing so, we are screwed and there is always next year. We know how that works.

Then it must be him.

Gee they need to bring back runners. Lyon looked like he was going to pass out. On one hand, you could abuse it by using a "whippet". On the other, there is chance of three taking off with comic mix-ups.

It is not suggested to ban the vice of (problem?) gambling but rather to stop encouraging the audience to take it up.

It comforts me to draw out these points from the discussion above. The air-time and general promotional opportunities would be taken up by other products albeit for perhaps lesser revenue, mitigating the shortfall. As many posters have pointed out, tobacco and alcohol promtion were previously banned. One could still smoke and drink but smoking at least tapered off. Hopefully, gambling would similarly decrease or at least people would not be cajoled into starting. They could if they wanted but would not be cajoled by ads.

I seem to recall that free-agency came about so that the courts would not see the AFL rules as an undue restraint of trade.

He is too light. We need a strong body to block for BBrown and draw a second- defender-up to free up one of our forwards.

Here is a clue. 5 out of 50 is 10% Yet 5 out of 100 is 0.05%

If May pulled another hammy , big Oscar would be a fixture.

I was going with half of the 46% quoted here - https://aifs.gov.au/research/research-snapshots/gambling-participation-and-experience-harm-australia#:~:text=Survey findings show that around,some risk of gambling harm. And my recollection of a report (possibly even from Crown itself) that twenty-something percent of their clientele had a problem. What figure you got? However, what is the acceptable wastage level for human lives, 10%, 5%? Including of course the suffering relatives and friends.

Whatever the shortfall of the replacing advertising revenue, it is a lesser evil than 20% of users having their lives trashed. Just say no.

A bonus.