sue

I note in that AGE article it states: The league also reiterated to clubs that games would likely go ahead even if clubs lost several players, effectively placing the onus on clubs to keep their players COVID-free by following protocols. Following this policy, it seems to me that since Essendon effectively lost 22 players on Sunday, the game should have gone ahead, so we should have played and boosted our percentage nicely.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/afl-bans-contact-training-for-large-groups-20200622-p55501.html This is absurd. Practice in groups of 9 for tackling but be sure not to put all your defenders etc in a single group for fear they will all have to isolate. Then tackle like mad during matches. LOL

Swapping around who plays whom in rounds is not as straightforward as it might seem at first sight given the logistics (both normal and now) and the complication that some teams have already played each other.

One positive is that a practice match on a ground where actual games are played may be more meaningful to the players than running around in Casey. Seems so to me, but who knows.

The problem I have with that position is that the premierships MFC won well before I was born mean little to me, with or without war-time asterisks. Only ones which I 'participate' in mean anything. Thus I don't take any comfort from the fact that in 2085 no-one will notice that the 2020 was compromised. What would any of us rather - surprisingly learning MFC had actually won 13 premierships in the past or winning one around now? I am ambivalent on the question of whether a club should try to win it this year versus using the season as an opportunity to develop the list and tactics. I guess I'd try and take a middle way and if the stars align towards season end, start focussing on just winning.

Any idea of final scores? (Just to see goal/behind ratio)

It better be a big cup to fit all the asterisks on it.

Well they maximised it where I live to the extent there is no match on TV. Probably no loss anyway.

No thanks. Given the uncertainties that surround testing and timing, not worth the risk to our players.

As I posted earlier, teams should schedule training and testing so thaat results come back before the next training. I don't see that would put impossible pressure on testing, but maybe it might.

I hate to defend Essendon but they didnt let him hang around for 20mins after they got the result. He was there for 20 mins before the result arrived, then was told to bugger off home. So we are told, though we're not told who he is living with etc. as yet.

Looking at that timeline the only question I'd have about Essendon's actions would be what did they tell him to do on Saturday beyond not training when the result came back . Eg. did he go home to a house shared with other teammates etc? More generally, I'd think it would be wise to ensure no one comes to training until the result of their last test comes back. That would only require scheduling training and tests suitably (assuming tests results take a predictable time to be returned, as seems reasonable). And it would avoid what happened in those 20 minute son Sat morning. No, he went there to train, but was stopped when the Friday test result came back. He was then given a test. So he would have come into contact with Essendon people, even if he left before actually training. As I said above, they should schedule training after all test results have come back so they can call people and tell them not to come in.

thank you. I was about to post a timeline asking what and when and ask if anyone could actually fill in the blanks.

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.