sue

Maybe that is a truism. But is there any evidence that the MFC can't cop criticism?

Let me further entangle this by criticising you as the critic of those critisicing the critics. (I also agree with your last line.)

If it's incredible then I don't believe it.

Possibly because slowing things down for a few minutes is not really much of a Plan. I assume Plan A is the club's basic game plan. A real Plan B would be an entirely different game plan which I doubt any team could implement on the fly. So it seems to me that Plan B's can't amount to much more than slow things down, move player X into defence or onto opponent Y etc. Doubtless every team has a list of the latter sort of moves ready to implement during a game, either on paper or in the coaches' heads. If anyone believes there can be 2 substantive plans, I would be interesting to see a list of such A & B plans for every club. I'd be surprised if it could be produced.

Despite the on-line videos lacking the slides, kudos to the club for getting them up and distibuted so quickly, not that that is so hard. But it looks like the PR department is getting better so hopefully we'll have less groaning abotu them in future. Re the criticism of Goodwin for playing players out of their natural postiion, it seems to me that is what you do when you are heavily hit with injuries. If as is likely it doesn't work, then blame the coach. If it unearths a new superstar, the coach is a genius. (BTW I have no opinion of Goodwin's ability one way or the other.)

Does anyone think they will (or could) say anything beyond the sorts of issues we've all been discussing for the last 10 months? If not, then the only issue will be the relative weight given to each and to the perfect storm argument. Since it is hard to see any of this being quantified beyond what we already know, I expect whatever reasons are given for 2019 they won't be believed by those who think differently. But nevertheless eager to read the reports of attendees.

I'd imagine even a smallish AFL club could cover any medical bill arising from training out of its own funds. Surely he just needs to be given written instructions on what training to do elsewhere, memorise it, and then borrow the EFC shredder.

I'll concede 'mirroring' is too broad (though in my defence I did list a lot of groups who were opposed, so if I did say mirroring I was contradicting myself but not my meaning). Of course I don't think he mirrored German society ins EVERY aspect and EVERY group. But I disagree with the implication that he only defied civilized norms after he seized power (which BTW he didn't seize initially, he was handed it (in a similar way our General General can do) - the seizing came later when suddenly elections didn't seem necessary anymore. The thuggery and racism was well underweigh before. But on the other hand I do not believe that the majority German population were simply terrified into supporting his policies (though later some may have been too terrified to change their minds). It reflected what many Germans saw as necessary for their society. I would have agreed with your last sentence if you had said he exceeded what was acceptable in German society in say 1920. But what was acceptable to many Germans changed into the 1930's. It's a slippery slope and I fear we are in for it again, but that's not for this forum and I'll post no more on this.

Definitely it mirrored German society at the time. Of course not every German had those views - socialists, communists, gays, Jews and the few liberals doubtless did not. I hazard a guess that you might be the victim of your own point about judging the past by curent values, namely perhaps you think Hitler and his government were so beyond the pale that they could not have possibly reflected German society's view at the time. Anyway, as you say, off topic (though not by much).

I hope your last line doesn't indicate a closed mind. Maybe that example is not OK. Maybe it's an example of a too extreme change in what is PC now or something to debate or find a middle ground (like a plaque under the statue saying what things he did). Each case needs to be considered. For example, in my view, a statue of that 'hero' Clive of India in the UK can stand, but needs a plaque detailing his role in the famine in India and otehr horrors, though I doubt anyone in India would want to keep such a statue. On the other hand, only neo-nazis in Germany would tolerate a statue of Hitler even though he "mirrored society's view at that time " - enough of it to be elected more or less democratically. (Including the views of a lot of the then British upper classes, including the King).

Sorry, I think you are forgetting the old poitical correctness (which most of us oldies can recall) that preceded the new PC. That speech control washed over many of us as 'natural', just as a lot of modern PC probably washes over many youngsters. Of course anything can be taken to extremes - in fact I'm reading a book by that notorious left-winger Ben Elton who takes the [censored] out of such extremes, but is really satirising the rise of social media manipulation. But I believe many people who whinge most about PC are simply conservatives who at bottom either dislike or are a best uncomfortable with changing attitudes that many others see as progress to a nicer world. Calling something PC is often just an easy put-down you reactionary trogdolyte (see what I did there....?) As for Trudeau, the fact that years ago he was in 'brown face' and he now proclaims liberal views, does not make him a hypocrite. It simply shows his and society's views as to what's insulting have changed. He'd be a hypocrite if he wore 'brown face' today.

I didn't have to answer - wife barracked for C'wood before she met me. Now she shares the same misery as me (and hope).

Yes, consistency always will be a bit difficult (especially when you have favoured teams and stars), but you must at least have a kosher process in place.

Not to mention there is bugger all we can do about it anyway.

I'm surprised we ranked so high (though to be fair I don't follow other teams closely).

I was about to ask if all that data that Grapeviney mentioned being sent to the coaches during a game was encrypted. Can the opponent coaches pickup the data of the other team without hacking? I'd guess Catapult has that covered. Grapeviney?

Well, ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of others committing crimes is not. However I agree with you about the doc becuse I cannot believe he had the wool pulled over his eyes by the druggies. And if he did, he is incompetent and so should have been sacked anyway.

In any case, it always surprised me that the EFC doc survived. I don't recall he was penalised in any way.

Just heard Kevin Sheedy on ABC Radio National talking about how Hird was treated harshly in the drug scandal. He provided the ultimate example of blinkered thinking and self-justification by the EFC. He said (parapharasing because I can't recall the exact words): No one makes a fuss about diabetics injecting themselves into the stomach, but Hird gets villified for just injecting a supplement. At least the interviewer pulled him up by saying diabetics do it for life threatening reasons, not to gain an advantage. Jesus wept - these EFC apologists live in a parallel universe.

Not surprising if he is a martin. I hope our sparrow won't do the same.

I haven't followed this carefully, so I'd be grateful if anyone can tell me what 'evil' the rule is meant to prevent?

"& everything the management does gets greeted with loud applause. " I must be reading a different forum - seems to me it's the other way around. While we are all entitled to speculate and pontificate on this forum, none of us really know the factors that went into this decision. Only time will tell.

No, that's not last year's data analyst. It's just one of our relentlessly negative posters at work.

That makes a lot of sense.

That reporter on the ABC Radio National is at it again trying to excuse Essendon. According to him this morning, the ASADA response to the HS article was just a blanket denial of wrongdoing and did not address the points raised. A blatant lie. Then he adds some irrelevant scuttlebutt to pour scorn on the whole issue. The ABC should sack him.