sue

Thanks for the detail that you had emailed them with a critical message and they phoned you back (amazing in itself). No, I wouldn't accuse you of making it up. Just possibly interpreting what was said to you in a gloomy way (which is sadly doubtless often the right position given our history since 1964). But I still wonder exactly what the person said on the phone. You said that person didn't deny fault (or somesuch word). I can imagine that person was instructed to not argue with any members, but instead make the sort of bland remarks our govt and corporate leaders make without committing to anything and thus allowing you to read what you liked into it. That's why I asked for a verbatim account of what they said so I could get info on whether the club thought the docs should all be sacked or otherwise. As I've said several times, the fact that the initial scans at the hospital didn't reveal a big problem, just shows how difficult it was for our docs, and tends to make me believe they were not particularly negligent. Note I said 'tends' - not proof.

No, I'm not. I was just saying that it does not logically follow that just because a parent (allegedly) believes something, that that something is true. Doesn't require an advanced degree in logic to see that. Care to share with us exactly word for word what the club said and the position of who it was. Not that I don't trust you OD, but you do have a reputation for finding the downside in almost anything. (Also 'not denied', could just mean "I'm not bothered/instructed to not argue with people who contact the club".) Look, for all I know, it was not handled well. But the evidence that the hospital with all its equipment got it wrong initially, tends to indicate to me that the MFC quacks were not particularly negligent.

Just because the family (is reported to be) not happy, does not mean it was handled badly.

All true, but I'd rther a slower game that the mess we now see. The umps are always too slow to call play on - hence my post just above stating the play-on rule should be changed to allow the player on the mark decide that play on has occurred and the umpires award a 50m if they decided he hadn't. No need to wait for the play-on call.

That is indeed the rule. I have argued for years that the rules should allow the oppo players make the decision that the player with the ball has played on. And the umpires should only pay a 50m penalty if the ump decides that they were wrong and he had moved before he played on. Good to see the AFL is implementing my suggestion! Pity they only do it when it suits the agenda.

It's not rapidly dimishing, it expands and contracts to the bewilderment of players and fans alike. But the stand rule is a mess. Players are told to stand in spots that are not near where the mark is. Players don't know when they can move 5m away and what they can do when they get there etc etc. I can't see what was wrong with the old rule. So it maybe slowed down play because the player with the ball had less of an advantage. I'd rather that than the mess we have now.

Yes I have, but I'll be blowed if I can understand why that would be relevant in a case like this. Tele-heath doc: How are you feeling - you look in pain. What are your symptoms?" Patient: It hurts a lot down there. Tele-healthh doc: I'll just hook you up to my combined virtual x-ray, MRI and UltraSound machine and diagnose you then. Hang on a jiffy....

Our docs didn't have high-tech scanning equipment but even the hospital which did have them got it wrong initially. Why should you in your hotel room know better? Does your daughter often diagnose without seeing the patient? Of course it looked very bad, but we've seen that sort of thing before, and while the player may not end up playing out the game, they don't often end up in ICU. I foolishly though the report about what initially happened at the hospital would have quietened the keyboard doctors on here. Seems I was wrong.

Apologies all round from the keyboard doctors both here and in the media would be welcome. But unlikely to be forthcoming from the latter at least. Having a high pain threshold has its dangers and when they operate sans anaethesia, its advantages. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/melbourne-demons/afl-2024-christian-petracca-speaks-for-first-time-on-internal-injury-traumatic-recovery-from-hospital-latest-news/news-story/3016f0d68f2ac8ee20c43f7f7636af91

Sure, anyone can clog any thread with irrelevant stuff. Doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. (I'm doing it now with mixed feelings). And WCW is entitled to voice her opinion as to how the forum should operate - doesn't mean she is setting herself up as a gatekeeper any more than you are.

But if he did play on then it should have been play on, not 'go back and have your kick'. 99% of the time in that situation it is either play on or 50m.

No extra technology was needed in this case. Just some old-fashioned honesty. Did the TV commentators even say anything when it was replayed?

So if I now start a discussion here about some arcane rule, you'll be happy to discuss it here. It does matter where comments are made, otherwise why not have a single thread for everything. Don't worry, with you around there is no danger of a silent free fall. (Sorry I should have posted this in the 'my club is a disaster and some people can't get enough' thread.)

How to get a 50 penalty: turn your back so the opp can’t throw the ball to you. ( and change you name to daicos)

About the only negative thing any media person has said about him.

Imagine the amount of wrist cutting on here if this was Demons vs North.

I agree it is hard for us supporters to see our players take a 'gentlemanly' attitude to Maynard. But I can't condemn them for doing so like some have done on here. For a start, we don't know what has gone on since late last year. For all we know Maynard crawled on his knees to Melbourne players and apologized sincerely and this has been accepted by the playing group. Now before your say 'yeah, as if that's likely', I'm just saying we don't know. We don't know their relationshps. So I won't condemn Petrracca for shaking his hand rather than punching him in the guts (as much as I would have enjoyed the latter).

I appreciate very much those links. And we all understand why the mods will rightly explode if you paste the entire article. There's a lot of info posted here and elsewhere on how to jump paywalls. Try a bypass paywalls add-on to your browser. You might have to try a few to find one that works for you and it may work on some sites and not others. Another trick which works sometimes is to use an AI chatbot (like llama3) and ask it to summarise an article at the URL. If they get past the paywall the summary can be as good as reading the article. Sometimes not.

If you want to keep something confidential, then why mention it at all? The only justification for doing so would be if the player had a public breakdown or something 'off' that was obvious to a spectator and you wanted to explain why he was under pressure (with the player's permission).

Certainly true in hindsight after seeing the scans etc. But we are kidding ourselves if we can be sure they made a mistake given the info they had at the time. They may have got it wrong, they may not have. We don't know. But some here and in the media claim they are sure, often with a barrow to push.

Isn't that all the more reason to do something. Doesn't have to be official cheer squadn action, surely?

Are there any special plans to honour Gus at the match, WCW?

Thanks for sparing the rest of us from watching such a shameless video LG. I don't doubt you re the bit above, but if you or someone can list each case it would be useful in dealing with the 'footy acts' aquaintenences I have unfortunately.

What drives me even madder is that when a forward is pushed, they exaggerate the result and fall to the ground or otherwise remove themselves from further involvement in the play and get a free. Whereas a pushed defender doesn't dare take themselves out of the play and gets no free for the same amount of pushing. Sorry I mean holding their position.

That is interesting. Isn't the AFL saying it's only during breaks between quarters?