Webber

I’d sack Hinkley just for letting/instructing his players to do it. Pathetic, puerile stuff, does nothing but make you look like an [censored].

A nephew the other day said he’d help me set my art up for the NFT market. Might as well have told me he was going to build a bridge out of mashed bananas. But thanks to this thread, I now understand! 👏🏻

Yep. Like Alex Neal-Bullen, his being an exceptional endurance athlete goes under the radar. Has its advantages.

Tracc done (excuse poor resolution)….one to go….

Bannan Paxman Pearce (Lauren) Colvin Heath McNamara

Agree wholeheartedly on disappointing crowd. It’s national representative footy and deserves better. Will happen, but too slow for mine. Was a great atmosphere at the game (Warney Stand) and the footy was tough, hard-fought stuff. Frustrated me that the Lions so often waited for us to take possession, just waiting to lay tackles, then to be rewarded by some poor umpiring. Congrats to the mighty Dees, who rose above it, they were fantastic. Alyssa Bannan gets my excited anticipation going like watching Kozzie Pickett, and when she runs away from opponents it goes through the roof. She’s a gun. Fabulous stuff! Usual suspects were great - Paxxie, Daisy, Lauren Pearce, Libby Birch, Tyla Hanks, Eliza McNamara. Go Freo, and let’s get 40,000 at the G!!!!

Simply no chance Joel Smith goes out. He, May (albeit beaten by the best marking forward so far this year along with Harry McKay), Gus and Bowey have been holding the backline together ably - in fact with Bowey, like a genius little Napoleon. And what’s with Gus’ 20 marks last night?! Tomlinson and Hunt are vulnerable. We should all expect Sam W to stay in, given he produced our best forward performance this year so far, but stranger things have happened. He’s been playing the ruck-forward-mobile tall role at Casey, so can do the Tmac role, the BBB role, and the Luke Jackson role. With Tmac’s form flatline, it seems obvious that if BBB comes in, Weid replaces Tmac, no? Goody loves minimising changes though, so who knows.

Reminds me of last year’s Hawthorn draw. Essendon realise if they scrap and make it messy, we can struggle to get our rhythm. Then they get us on the turnover with quick, deep minimal handling entries. We need to dispose first option and force it forward from the contest. Less Hollywood over-handling, more composure and get it forward with minimal unnecessary handling. Keep missing set shots though and we’re done. Expecting Tracc to dominate second half.

herding cats comes to mind. I like this too, but I guarantee whatever the Tiges’ Demonland equivalent is (not gonna look, don’t care 😉) have plenty who think otherwise. See below….. Not sure I’m advocating any model of info delivery, just an understanding of the fluidity. None of which is to say it doesn’t frustrate the hell out of me, too.

And we’d be robots without either, Deeoldfart.

Just finished the latest Demonland podcast, which was excellent as always from @Demonland, @george_on_the_outer, and @binman(presumably all Demonlanders who podcast are loyal listeners, and if not, shame on you), and wanted to put my two cents in on the subject of injury timelines. The first thing, maybe obvious but easily forgotten, is that no injury has certainty in respect to return time. It’s a highly imperfect science. As an example, take Steven May’s PF hamstring tear last year. ‘Industry rule’ is that there’s no such thing as a ‘less than 3 week hamstring’. May had a big tear… 6 cm I think was quoted, but uncomplicated. That he returned in 2 weeks is exceptional (as were the circumstances of course), and that he didn’t worsen the tear in the game (statistically a much higher risk) also exceptional. Another situation could just as easily present a 3cm uncomplicated tear that doesn’t allow a return inside 5 weeks. That would be unexpected, but not outside normal variability. Think too about what we (the world, INCLUDING Steven May) were told, which was effectively nothing other than that he would undergo a fitness test pre-GF. Was it back-related, muscular, neuropathic, who knew? Only a select few, and nobody outside the club. It served the club and Maysie very well. This speaks to two things…..the unknowns and variables contributing to full recovery, and the need to nuance expectations. In this case it was not letting the player, his teammates, the media (can you imagine the circus?), the supporters (imagine too the meltdown) and the opposition know what he was dealing with. Again, served the club brilliantly. From a rehab professional’s perspective, the path to full recovery is rarely completely linear - in obedience to expectations and thus predicted timelines. Accurate predictions happen, and we love those situations obviously, but we’re always only working from a pool of ‘like’ injuries and outcomes. On a long enough timeline, injuries/pathologies/surgical interventions fall into patterns, but their behaviours thereafter adhere only to an inevitable bell curve, regardless of expertise in treating and managing the recovery. Sad to say, but when the club says the dreaded 4-6 weeks, they really mean 3-10 (or more) to encompass the ends of the bell curve, and that’s without unexpected but possible associated complications that can arise from the initiation injuring - think a calf tear changing the weight-bearing biomechanical chain that could create a back problem. Even the most objectively definable injuries (a simple transverse fracture, let’s say mid-radius - forearm bone - which follows a 4 week bony ‘union’ and 8 week ‘consolidation’ (actually it’s not even that simple) are prone to variability and complication. That said, we love ACL reconstructions (which again are not linear) because 95% are game ready by 12 months - it’s a long timeline that allows resolution of various issues that often crop up during rehab. The biggest issues, and the ones I think where @binman is asking for improvement (on the podcast), are transparency in respect to diagnosis (read reason/injury), progress, and then ‘honest’ expectations of weeks to game ready. The last issue I’ve talked about. It’s essentially unknown, and there can only be a running prediction based on relative progress. This is why the club tell us when there’s a ‘test’…..means they’re getting very close. Diagnosis is tricky, particularly when it’s not simple. Initially, how much do you want to know, and do you promise to not consult Dr. Google or go reciting so-and-so who had the ‘same’ diagnosis and was a) out for the season, b) never played again, or c) was game ready earlier than the club is saying for player X? Helps nobody. All injuries are essentially unique at source, and subject to differences along the journey to recovery. It helps nobody when media/fans are scrutinising expectations and progress based on no knowledge of that player’s day to day changes (or morning to arvo changes!). It’s hard enough managing player expectations (‘indestructible’ twenty-somethings whose livelihood is being threatened) let alone the larger football world. Harry Petty had a calf corky. I’ve explained in another thread what the complication to this might have been. If you want the club to explain this in detail, and why his recovery is more protracted, then expect it to be a very fluid day to day process. Should the club provide daily updates, even when they can’t be more accurate about likely game readiness? Or should they give the best info they have about likely game return without delving into details that don’t change anything, not forgetting there are issues of privacy and a tactical need to keep some things close to their chest? I suspect there’s a tendency firstly to resort to feelings that sometimes the club doesn’t respect the supporters enough to offer comprehensive explanations, even when it doesn’t change the ‘4-6’ prognosis, secondly that they’re hiding some sinister weirdness about the player’s injury (wouldn’t be like supporters/media to catastrophise of course). Worse still, I’ve often read people suggesting the medicos, physios, conditioning staff must ‘not know what they’re doing’ - mostly when we’re not winning premierships 😜. In summary, there are mostly excellent, ordinary reasons for opacity around injury/return timeframes. Otherwise, put simply, you can’t please all the people all the time - even with depth and detail of information.

Your symptoms nail it. Bones separate under load, and the ankle has no push-off stability. There’s a weird thing with injuries that they sometimes come in waves of incidence across the comp. You’ll get a spate of syndesmoses, or Achilles ruptures, foot fractures, high hamstring tears, shoulder dislocations, etc, and questions always get asked. Over a longer time-line, the incidence then averages out. When they don’t, sometimes the industry alters management, and even better, gets prevention sorted. A great example is osteitis pubis, which dropped to a dribble due to running load management and lumbo-pelvic stabilising work (core strengthening). Hamstring tears are also far less than years ago, again due to training/prevention protocols. Funny you should ask about paintings Cards, just finished the time-consuming stuff today. Should be done before Easter now! Stay tuned….

I’m not sure they are increasing in frequency, @Cards13. What used to be called a “high ankle sprain”, they were viewed from the outside like standard sprains, but took longer. It’s just how they’re reported now that makes them seem more common. Essentially it’s an injury to the ligament that holds the bones together (tibia/fibula) that form the ‘mortice’ grip for the talus (articulating bone of the ankle). Sometimes need surgery, but either way take longer to accommodate to weight-bearing. Impossible to prevent in Australian footy, whereas ‘stirrup-lock’ taping is a good prevention for standard sprains (lateral ligament or talo-fibular ligament). On the Petty injury, it seems likely his calf corky lead to an acute posterior compartment syndrome (bleeding into the connective tissue ‘bag’), which puts other tissues at risk. This would have been released - the ‘bag’ is slit - and thus needs time to heal, with care not to over-work the blood-flow and re-pressure the bag. Not common, but not complicated. Just needs time. Good to see he and Lever back out there.

Hmmmmm………nuh!

Agree with everything you say, deespicable me. I’ve bored myself silly complaining about the standard of umpiring in our great game. There is no question it’s the biggest blight, and it’s just frankly bizarre that umps aren’t full time pros. The simple truth is that too many games every season are ruined by poor umpiring. Win-loss results plainly changed. Our loss to Adelaide last year a perfect case in point. And Geelong vs Swans twice! Acknowledged as such by the AFL observer crowd, admitted to by the AFL, then……..nothing. And what do we get this year? Not an effort to improve standards, just an effort to limit dissent. The question is, why aren’t they trying to improve it? It’s naive I think to just blame the pace of the game as an obstacle. At least try. Maybe figure out what natural skills (decision making, reaction times) the best umps have, and screen for those qualities. Like the players with biometric testing. Make them full time and bump salaries massively to make it attractive for those with the requisite skills. Something’s gotta change, cos it’s a woeful scar on Australian Football.

It was for ‘front on contact’? As you say, we presume that rule has never been exercised without the ‘contact’, which in this case the umpire anticipated wrongly. What about this hypothetical….Smith sees ‘flopper’ Weightman running out to take the mark, whereupon Smith stands dead still in front of him, back to the ball, no eyes on it (ball is within 5 metres), and Flopper runs straight into him, both falling to ground, no mark. What’s the decision? Front on contact, free kick Flopper? Blocking, free kick Flopper?, or Charging, free kick Smith?

Seems unequivocal, but there’s also this. ‘Blocking’ means contact obstruction, no? 17.5 MARKING CONTESTS 17.5.1 Spirit and Intention The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so. 17.5.2 Free Kicks - Marking Contests A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player where the Player: (a) pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to the Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football; (b) holds or blocks an opposition Player; (c) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player; (d) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player; (e) makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player; or (f) engages in Rough Conduct against an opposition Player.

I’m (almost) certain the shepherding/blocking/interference rule only actually becomes a ‘law’ if there’s physical contact, but would have to scour the fine print. Instinct and sense also suggests that if a player is going for the ball, in this case a mark, anybody in his way who isn’t going for the ball can do whatever they want as long as they don’t physically obstruct, and by that I mean contact. Go for the ball, and if the ump’s paying attention, you’ll get a free kick if you’re obstructed by contact. Think about a scenario where 3 defenders stand in an arc 3 metres in front of a leading player, thus ‘obstructing’ that leading player’s run forward. Until you make contact, it’s just occupying space. As a physiotherapist, I’m not sure I’d care about any player applying ‘implied’ pressure or presence, this guarding or occupying space (as above), if it wasn’t contact. The game is nothing if not about space, possession and evasion. In respect to injuries, contact is wholly different. Interesting topic I reckon.

Yes. Dancing around a player, waving your arms, shouting “BOO!”, making faces, intimating contact, all allowed if you don’t physically contact them. The umpire simply jumped the gun, assuming contact had or would have been made. It was a mistake, but it’s easy to see why he was anticipating contact.

This too I prefer.

Two things. If it was a meniscus injury, I’m confident that would have used the term. The other being that you don’t ‘chip’ a meniscus.

I’m assuming, and pretty confidently that they’re talking about the ‘articular cartilage’ rather than his meniscus, which is commonly termed ‘the cartilage’. Confusing, I know. The articular cartilage is the super-smooth surfacing we all have on the end of our bones to act as a joint surface. This can be subject to cracks, fissures, softening, chips, and ultimately, degradation over time that ends in bone exposure and likely joint replacement to resurface those bones (with titanium and nylon). It sounds like Christian Salem has had a bit of that artic. cartilage ‘chipped off’. What they’ll invariably do is surgically (keyhole) smooth the edges, and either ‘puncture’ the bone beneath to create a scar tissue ‘surfacing plug’, or lay down a matrix of organic material in the defect to have it function as original surface. Both take time to become weight-bearing and solid to increased stressors. I’d be surprised if he’s back within 8-10 weeks. (All the above based on the opening assumption).

Yep. Muscle ‘fibre-typing’ is unique to us all, in respect to relative proportion of slow-twitch and fast-twitch (broadly aligned with endurance and power respectively….Gary Ablett senior was high % fast-twitch, our own Robbie Flower slow twitch). JJ will never be a muscly unit, but probably somewhere in the middle, in the AFL physique Goldilocks zone. I suspect a couple more years (50-80 game region) and nobody will be talking about his lack of strength, or physicality. He’s a hard nut, and smart, as you say. A nuts and bolts natural footballer for mine. On Salem’s knee, I’m interested to hear the outcome. The ‘incident’ seemed pretty innocuous, and his knee was already strapped to protect the medial ligament (it doesn’t really, but ‘feels good’). I couldn’t see a significant rotational component, or hyperextension, or even a lateral force (knee pushed inward). His knee looked very ‘un-swollen’ on the bench, which is always a good sign. I’d be very surprised if it’s his ACL (but never shocked), but unsurprised if it’s an aggravation of a niggly MCL (medial ligament) or a medial meniscal tear (relates to the MCL). Fingers crossed.

Except that Danny I can feel sorry for….

Kinda.