daisycutter

agree with this i would have paid the goal despite the video being too fuzzy based on umpire decision stands i would pay goal if foot made contact whilst ball not completely over line i.e. ball still in play but this is just my opinion

i don't think the rules cover this situation precisely it's just a grey area and the afl should clarify it in the rules

i think the reason seems to be legal. i.e. people have a legal right to be not vaccinated (or to wait) and can't be forced or fired. seems strange to me in certain industries but that's what it seems to be

wasn't pig only on stringer when he was in fwd line. seemed to me stringer got a bit of midfield time and was more dangerous when he did

and you could add aged care workers......according to saturday age report an astonishing 2/3 are not vaccinated

he won't make that same mistake twice ?

20+% ??????

boy, didn't realise meth coast relied on the crowd that much.....dogs now 54 pts up and with bad goal kicking

but the weather forecast was well known when they bought the tickets i suspect saying it was a "sell-out" was just marketing talk

if we had kicked for goal just a little bit accurately we win by about 30 points there was a point there in 3q where we missed 3 fairly easy set shots in a row 44 i50s to their 33 back line may have won it bit fwd line had the opportunity to put it beyond question

forward delivery dumb.....sucks

that would be clarryfying?

and......no de goey oth they get back grundy and adams

i think i heard 1,000 spectators for local sporting matches.......but don't quote me

max's ruckwork has been down somewhat this year.....proof?......my eyes but that's not all bad......it just means he (and therefore the team) can still improve good times ahead?..........hopefully as for lack of talls in fwd line.......we did quite well for last part of 2018 without hogan

i've given up a bit on the details at ground zero....too much fugazi etc i now prefer the view from 20,000 ft that as a country we've done pretty well comparatively

just a guess......maybe they are expecting people will need a yearly booster (like the flu) ?

well, uncle, it seems it's not respect or sympathy.........

as long as you intended to pay by a cheque that would have bounced i see no problem

will be quite cold (10c at start time), light winds and no rain (lots of rain in morning but)

we did order 10m doses of pfizer in mid 2020, then 10m more in dec 2020, then 20m more recently we also in 2020 prior to any vaccines being certified made arrangements for novovax and uoq/csl's vaccine (later cancelled). So before any vaccines were approved we had in fact a fourfold arrangement hindsight is a wonderful thing it is also disappointing that astrazeneca has unfairly been demonised as it still represents an acceptable solution and risk

the problem with this argument is that in july 2020 there was no vaccines. there was only a few proto vaccines in early trials. no vaccines approved and no guarantee there would be tested and approved vaccines in any time frame whatsoever. there were even leading medical people saying publicly it could take many years. there were no certainties, just hopes and wishes. to now say that the government could have bet the house on pfizer and pre-ordered 40M doses enough for the whole country is disingenuous. pfizer and az weren't the only trial vaccines being developed/test but were probably just 2 of the more promising but you'd still need a crystal ball at that time to differentiate.. there we advantages/disadvantages in both (e.g. cost, refrigeration, local manufacture, availability time frame etc). The government decided on a two pronged approach. If at that time they had bet the house on just either one they would have been widely criticised. when vaccines started to become available australia had problems with supply for a number of reasons, among them that australia was in less desperate needs compared to most other countries i don't remember much criticism of the government in july 2020, in fact quite the opposite, so for some to now turn around and criticise that decision smacks of politicking and blame shifting.

pinched from elsewhere "My wife and I had a wonderful time on the French Riverina." "He's loping around the wing like a giant tarantulop." "Bartlett's, he's older than he's ever been before." “The ball's in no-man's land and the loose man's come from everywhere." “Things aren't the same now there are five teams in the four." "An Essendon supporter is a Collingwood supporter who can read and write." "Bamblett made a great debut today and an even better one last week." "He's a good ordinary footballer." (about Carlton's Peter Bosustow) "A bit of bad luck for Bob." (on the death of former Carlton champ Bob Chitty) "I won't say anything in case I say something." “Diamond Creek was a long way away once."

lol.....you are making a big assumption that there is logic involved here.....however you are probably right in your conclusion

the % varies greatly depending on age quoting an overall % can be misleading