sue

100%?? You must be joking. While I'm happy to concede AFLX is more relevant preparation than playing ice-hockey, soccer and even farnarkaling, since it will have elements of what happens in a footy match, by the nature of the field size etc it is far less relevant than a practice match, JLT or internal, or simulations in training which are under control of the coach to learn a game plan. So I'd say much less than 100%. And so the injury risk does not warrant the preparation for the season that AFLX offer.

The difference is that a normal pre-season match is practice at doing what teams do during the regular season. Therefore it is worth taking the risk of injuries, as it is in training. But an injury doing something else which doesn't help the players prepare for the season causes much gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair, eg Petracca's off-season basketball.

The finals issue is not relevant (except in making you a bit bitter about the players). As for sledging, if they can't handle that there is no hope for the team anyway. Think of sledging as a boot camp without the sleep deprivation. I'm also not worried about us supporters being sledged by other supporters.

In that case I don't think you need be too concerned. I assume you refer to the AFLPA as the 'higher' body. Nothing wrong with finding out what your rights are before talking to the boss - pretty sensible in fact.

That's a heavy price for you to pay for ballroom dancing being tarnished by association with the Olympics.

Sounds like a cunning scheme of the AFL marketing department to keep footy before the public as much as possible. I'd be ropeable if any player is injured playing this. We have to wear that possibility at training or in a proper practise match, but this is neither of those. The penalty for a deliberate rushed behind is interesting (leaving aside the details of 40m and 10 points). Seems to me the current home&away penalty which is basically an automatic goal is too high a penalty, especially as the decision is necessarily often uncertain and controversial. Something like the free is taken from 40-50m out (and the point also scored perhaps) might make sense.

Just hoping the whole team breaks out from the rut of recent years,

I don't think picking a team to win the flag is the point. Rather it is picking teams which are in a strong position to do so. After that random factors like run with injury (and when) etc. play a big part.

I've 'moved on', but the value of boot camps is still an interesting topic. Seems to me they may build mental resilience in the face of exhaustion etc, but I suspect there are better ways of building it in the face of taunting by opponents.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/raid-on-mark-bomber-thompsons-home-part-of-drug-trafficking-investigation-20180109-h0fgr1.html

may be true. But if so, yet again the AFL's motivation is to protect its own reputation rather than be fair to the complainant (by dragging things out) or the players involved (including those which might be the alleged perpetrator).

Another reason why these matters should be left entirely to the police. I cannot see why the AFL should have any role in this sort of thing. For a start their prime motivation will be protecting the image of the AFL. Fairness to the parties involved will be secondary. And even if they were fair, I don't see why the AFL should poke its nose in until the court process is finished. Edit to add:. And if there is no court process, what possible role has the AFL got other than getting involved in a libel action. (Of course they could threaten an 'employee' in some way but that is also objectionable. If mediation is required, once again I don't see a role for AFL house which has a major conflict of interest. )

Wasn't this the time the MFC were scheduled to do it? If so, either this guy double books or the Storm don't plan too far ahead.

Likelihood does not make a fact. In an earlier post I indicated where I thought the probabilities lay. But that is 'in general'. For this specific case we know nothing and should say as much.

Good - if that is the view of all involved it should bond the players and FD even more.

As I said, assign probabilities as you wish (and I'd lean heavily in your direction personally). But if someone is making a vexatious complaint then while what I've bolded above may well be true in the long run, the complainant may not have realised that yet. So it proves nothing about the facts.

But there is such a thing as a vexatious complaint. So it is not yet 'a fact' that she feels violated. She may well be, she may not. Assign probabilities as you wish. But we have no fact at this stage. I know in the Trump era facts can be fluid, but let's stick to using the word in its original meaning.

Also posted in the pre season Training this week thread.

Not often I agree with ProDee on these sorts of things, but I do here.

Why or why do I read Demonland etc in the off-season? When you think about it, you'll only find bad news since nothing good can happen beyond x is back in full training and the usual training the house down statements.

As you would expect or hope. He played it all down as a non-event, somewhat unconvincingly I thought, and mumbled about there being a camp in January. The word 'boot' was not mentioned in respect of that so some here will think that means the will be sitting around a camp fire singing kumbyah while toasting marshmallows.

And where exactly do we know that from? Seems to me that as usual speculation and rumour quickly become fact. In any case if they just went to the PA for information it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the players should gather as much information as they can before they discuss an issue with the coach if they feel the coach has made a very bad decision. How do we know that some players didn't tentatively raise it with the coach first, saw he was fixed in his position, still thought he was wrong and felt they had to argue again more forcefully? When we have one well-connected poster quoting a player saying how much disruption to his physical preparation last years' camp was, I think an exception to 'always do what the coast says' could be warranted. If a player lost that much conditioning by being out on the town instead of at a boot camp, posters here would be calling for blood. It is just possible the FD got it wrong and after seeing how seriously the players felt about it, the FD saw cancelling was the correct decision. An organization that works that way is far more resilient than one where such interactions are impossible and things fall apart completely after years of pent-up frustration.

Well he did address the camp situation so you would have found that exciting.

Not going to indulge in tearing my remaining hair when as usual the details as unknown to us (eg. 14 players - where did that number come from, is it relaible?), so I'll comment on boot camps themselves. As I understand it there are 2 things they are meant to achieve - team bonding and stressing players so they will be familiar with it and so perform better when under stress and mental pressure in a game. Team bonding can be done by other means which are less likely to exhaust players and interrupt their football training and getting their bodies right, so I'd focus on the latter and ask: Is there any evidence that it works for football players? (I mean evidence beyond stating "x went on a boot camp and won the flag" since there are many other variables.) For example, soldiers do have to carry on when sleep deprived, footy players don't. Apparently last year's boot camp did not help in Round 23. Was the team under mental and physical stress then (or in other matches we should have won) or was there something else at play? I suspect the latter and whatever it was, whether mental or footy specific, it needs addressing by things other than boot camps.

At the Demonland cafe.....