sue

Ok Sorry I didn’t see you had retracted “official” but a mild criticism of one word is enough to make you reconsider how much info you pass on? Surely not.

No need to be so narky D11. There have been lots of posts saying he is gone where the poster implies they have inside knowledge or use the word official loosely. It's unreasonable to say 'officially' until it is announced by the club or player. And it is reasonable to ask anyone posting the basis for their statement. If by 'offically' you mean you have a reliable inside source that tells you it has happened, you should simply say so.

That is an interesting idea. The trouble with 'can't play the next game' idea is that it could endanger players. For example, coaches might be encouraged to keep a player on the ground with a minor injury (which would be OK in a week), but after playing-on the injury might get much worse. I guess you could argue if the coach wants to take the risk with injuring his players, so be it .

Ha. If we started exploiting the sub after loads of other clubs have been doing it, the AFL would nail us. Tanking deja vu.

Didn’t the AFL say just this week head butting was not on AND running your head into a stationary player was not a free for high contact.

I have no doubt he is trying his best. Even the anti-Weid brigade on here don't seem to be making personal attacks on him, just on his inability to play as well as we'd hope and need. So I don't see why anyone should 'back off'. The criticism may be repetitive, but that's a natural consequence of him being in and out of the team. Just ignore it if it bugs you LH.

Pity about Brown. He was showing signs of regaining form. In Weid we trust. (gulp)

Of course 800 managers is impossible. And everything you say is true. But I still see the potential for conflicts of interest (without blurting). So in the absence of 800 managers, any professional body should have a code of ethics to manage that and minimise such conflicts. I doubt player managers do (but of course I don't know). edit to add: Since managers presumably get a percentage of the players income, there is a conflict right there if they are representing 2 players in a Brayshaw/Jackson situtation. Unless of course they have no incentive in maximising their own income..... They might push Jackson to accept less from Freo (without saying why) to enable Brashaw to get more out of MFC. No reason to assume this would be financially neutral for the manager. (For the purposes of saving DLand from litigation :)> I am not suggesting any naughty behaviour by their particular manager, just using those familiar names to make the general point.)

I don't think it can be that simple Redleg. Do they have ethical standards preventing them revealing to player A what may be a confidential matter about player B without clearing it with B first? And what if he doesn't know Jacko is leaving (say) and that he;s probably staying? Does he tell Gus to ask for more money elsewhere - that leaking out may negatively affect Jacko's negotiations. They really need independent managers in such cases.

Player managers must sometimes drown in conflicts of interest. I wonder if they have any code of ethics to cover cases like the Brayshaw/Jackson one. (rhetorical wondering I fear) It's not just a simple case of doing their best for each player independently.

I'm not a close wtacher of Grundy's form, but I have the impression he has gone downhill rapidly. Why would we want him unless the cause of his falloff can be established (eg. injury) and that it can be corrected quickly. But that seems unlikely.

Just the usual complete [censored] from the AFL

Feels like they have been already.

They've fixed one of the errors. One more to go....

Only explanation is that rather than taking a selfish set shot, he was trying to pass it to a team mate. Who unfortunately wasn't where he expected.

Yes it seemed like that to me. But maybe he was just luring his opponent into a false sense of security.

But did he say which contract?

Good win. One thing that did worry me was Gawn’s centre square hit out when Port had a run on near the end. He easily won the hit out but hit it straight onto the chest of a port player on their defensive side who was completely on his own allowing an easy clearance into ports 50. Why. Seems like a silly error for such a good player who should have been practicing what he’d do if an opponent was in danger of winning the match

Redleg you have just outed yourself as an optimist according to Diamond_Jim. I'm bewildered, so I am just going to hope they all beat the living daylights out of each other.

I hope they can visualise success in July and August. This week would be a good start.

Makes you wonder if the AFL really are concentrating of TV rights (though I'm sure they are). While they can't have known weeks ago that these games would be so significant, they sure as hell could have re-scheduled the game in Perth to start a few hours earlier, say 2pm local time.

Doesn't that give us 2 extra years to look for a Max replacement?

Some have implied Petty being out with Covid protocols means he has Covid. But does he? or do the current protocols include being a close contact of a case? Anyone know?

Swans may be a better team without him, but we might be better. (Walker has resigned with Crows)

Presumably the purpose of the rule way back when was to protect people from coat hanger tackles. But we panalise players for just touching someone on the shoulder and lots of other tackles which present no danger. What if they didn't pay frees for those minor above the shoulder incidents? Then perhaps they'd be no incentive to do a Selwood because what he and his imitators do does not result in any danger to their health and so would not draw a free.