sue

I fear you are right. It may end up just a season with an evolving fixture of what would then be ad hoc practice matches with a chance to try out some new players and ideas.

As I said, I mistook the Ch7 report to be about training after the Friday test result had come back. We don't have full information. If Essendon put him in isolation immediately after the 'weak +ve' test came back, then I don't think they are guilty of misbehaviour. Though it could be argued that if Essendon assumed all would be OK if the next (Sat) test was OK, Essendon was playing with fire. It would be prudent to wait another week before letting him loose given the Friday result and the uncertainty in the testing.

If this is true and he's not training entirely alone, but is with Essendon players which would imply club knowledge, Essendon should be in massive trouble. WHOOPS - sorry, forgot what day it is. Friday training is OK if test was not concluded before training.

Was Gil said otherwise apparently. If (and it is a big if) Essendrug sent him into proper isolation on Friday and didn't let him near anyone till the Sat test was concluded, then I don't think they did anything wrong (it pains me to say). On the other hand.....

The difference is the nature of the test. I agree. But we don't know that he didn't go home on Friday and isolate (who is he living with?). No clear statement as to the facts as yet.

As much as I agree with your general sentiments re Essendon, they could have taken the bet that the Friday test was wrong, knowing he could be withdrawn if Sat proved +ve. Trouble is in the latter case, we'd be where we are now. So I don't think merely naming him in the side was naughty in itself. There may be naughtiness however. We shall see (or probaby not).

The trouble with the CV19 tests is that they ar enot 100% accurate either way. ALl the AFL can do is assume the worst before the worst happens.

I agree with all that, but feeling soory for Essendon is a step too far.

It's unlikely he'd be here that long without permanent residency, But for completeness, I believe non-residents/non-citizens can apply for special exemptions, (like visiting a dying relative, which caused an issue in NZ). I trust playing AFL would not be considered for an exemption.

BTW, in response to those who asked how he could get back into the country in the first place, he is probably a permanent resident (been here 6 years I think) and thus is allowed in along with citizens.

actually 18 in some way, any of which might affect the outcome of the season.

True but what I meant (and should have been clear about) is that it is plucked out of the air whether 97% or 98% or 14 days or 15 days etc is the magic number to protect us all. I suspect whatever percentage that gave us 14 days was chosen because some ancient Sumerian decided we would have 7 day weeks.

Trying to understand Essendon's degree of culpability or otherwise: Tested on Fri with weak +ve signs, tested Sat at X o'clock and was +ve, confirmed at Y O'clock. When was he at training?

Well a lot of what goes on in the AFL is arguably criminal from a supporters point of view, but this would land someone in jail.

14 days was a numebr plucked out of the air to a large extent.

Because you don't always test positive if you have it. But if there is a +ve test, then even if it is a false +ve test, you'd be mad to asssume so. And it's still not clear exactly when you are contageous.

If that's true, heads should roll.

And do you think any selection panel in the league doesn't know rule 1? Things are sometimes not so clear as later statements might imply.

Why amazing? These things aren't that clear cut. Working out when to accept that a rest is the best idea is not clear, except perhaps in hindsight.

True- it's not the 1m further away from the player's target that matters much of the time, but the 1m less the player has to work in. But I'd prefer the umpires to enforce the rules even-handedly and not let anyone get away with breaking them.

damn, you may be right and we will only be able to enjoy the wider views for a short while. (I hate to debunk a good conspiracy, but I recall we still saw a lot of empty stands.)

agree, but they seem to have plumbed new depths now.

The website is a disgrace for such a big organization

Yes, there has been more use of shots from behind the goals. As someone who has whinged for years about the lack of wide shots and the over-use of close-ups, presumably because of the directors' fascination with how well players have shaved, I am glad about this. Maybe long continue and expand.

Of course the ground is too big to fit on a TV screen (even with HD). But we don't need to see the whole or even half ground at a time all the time. But why oh why do we get a close up of the player who has marked the ball or given a free rather than a shot of what options are ahead of him? Often the first we know of leads is a split second before the mark/spoil happens. No idea how the player managed to get there. Then there is the common close-up shot of a player running with the ball surrounded by empty green grass with no indication of any player beyond about 3 metres from him. This has been a 'feature' of broadcasting for years and makes no sense. WHY? Doubtless one of the marketing gurus on here can explain why the networks do it? Is it just to provide eye candy for those so inclined?