binman

Agree our approach to covid was first class. Our approach to vaccination has been anything but.

And And a national embarrassment. There was such a smugness about out response to COVID, particularly in comparison to that of the United states and the UK. Well the states has now hit 50% of the adult population vaccinated mark. Meaning only 20% more to get to herd immunity. And the UK is arounds that mark too i think. Both countries will be on the other side of this before we will. Which is just absurd We had time, the systems and vaccines. We should have hit the herd immunity mark by now for god's sake. We can blame the politicians all we like but we should collectively asking why we haven't and why there has not been a massive push from the community to have done so. I guarantee if Morrison thought failing to reach herd immunity would costs them the next election the feds would have made it priority number one - which of course it should have been anyway!.

I don't think that's the case actually. I think, but stand to be corrected, thst informed consent is a blanket statement that atm applies only to people under 50 AND eligible to get a vaccination (1a, 1b frontline workers etc). But under 50s will be able to get it here in a matter of weeks I reckon

If you fall into 1a or 1b yes. If not, the vic government is pushing to open availability to everyone. As the federal government should have done from the start. A total joke. So very, very soon you will have the opportunity to get an AZ vaccination shot.

I thought you can still get az if you are under 50. If you want to. And really I don't understand why anyone wouldn't Its just thst it is recommendation not to. But discuss with your doc

That peanut really helped thinngs with one of those 10 million announcements. Basically telling people over 50 to chill, no hurry to get the cheap, cask wine blood clot vaccine. Just wait until the top shelf, grange one is available around Xmas. Or next year. Or mid next year. Anyone would think they are quite happy to ride the whe're an island, we're ok, keep the borders closed, nationalistic sentiment all the way to the next election. All the while bagging the states about border closures (bad for business apparently - but closing the national border isn't. Strange). And doing sweet fa about sorting an effective national quarantine response. Rhyming slang comes to mind.

Except it want covid symptoms they asked you to monitor. They're concerned the game was so boring they have asked patrons to monitor for ongoing symptoms of ennui.

Lucky it wasn't a dees game. Because people actually turn up to our games!

I'll get there 3 hours before the game starts!

Too late OD - i'm fully woke.

First dose fine. Largely becuase i've only had my first one. Second one next week A letter from your doc or some other formal proof. Incentivize and reward. And I can yell and support with others who have done the right thing and had their shot(s) and not have to worry (well 72% of not worry) about all the possible covid carrying delaying dees and dogs fans cramping my style. And less young bucks who can't handle their grog and are desperate to impose themselves on the rest of us. Perfect.

They should make tickets available for people who have been vaccinated. And only for people who have been vaccinated.

There won't be a lockdown. Games will go ahead. There will be crowds.

Demonland's very own lace out (and skipper of an excellent you tube channel and podcast) is referenced in this article. Love the title: https://thewest.com.au/sport/afl/borders-on-cheating-melbourne-fail-to-win-two-crucial-free-kicks-in-shock-one-point-loss-to-adelaide-ng-b881879550z?dc_data=6594903_samsung-carnival-australia-english&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=referral&ui=d0d9279a-60d8-4e2f-b351-7f38ba6bb02a-tuct7a5dc37

A very misleading stat. Because it is easy to assume turnovers as result from an error from us. Still a horrible number but.

Ta. In that sense those three stats are better as indicators of things are teams are doing well, or symptoms of things they are doing poorly. So the crow's high score from turnover is an indicator their pressure was good and symptom of our not being as good and our poor defensive running (an other things no doubt too eg good skills). I reckon it might also point to a backline that was a bit out of kilter. They didn't replace Salem with a like for like (ie a distributor replaced by a lockdown small defender) and they played Petty in a different role (ie up the ground as opposed to the goal keeper role). So when they won the ball back from us, our zones and defensive structures were not as well organized as they usually are.

That is super high. Our average opposition score was something like 61 points prior to this game. And we conceded 76 points from turnovers alone. I'm not sure how they define a turnover (frustration #6543 with how the game us covered) but I'm assuming it is any time where we have clear possession and they win it back. So not just clangers. There must be heaps of turnovers in any given game. No doubt speaks to how fierce at the contest they were, their ability to transition the ball and getting clean entries. The first speaks to our pressure the latter two things our average defensive running and spread.

Exactly. Which is why they were able to transition so much more easily than other opponents - particularly though the corridor Add pressure levels that were not up to the required level until part way through the last quarter and you get clean entries. And the highest score kicked in against us this season. Add some accurate kicking from them, some poor defensive efforts (why was none in Walker's leading lanes x 2), some costly fumbles (eg tracc on the wing in the last) and some dubious decision that cost goals (non deliberate, deliberate against us x 2, soft in the back against lever, rubbish 50 and the non htb against keays). Ans most of all add a young team who played with spirit and fire and took risks. Put it all together and you get a one point loss. Not to mention a cracking game. At least for neutrals. When it is all said and done nothing to die in a ditch over. We should have played tempo one we got the 16 point lead. And the quick goal from the centre to walker was poor defensively. Of course you want the 4 points, but I do wonder if squeezing home in that game might have allowed some players to think the pressure and defensive running was OK. A loss takes that off the table and none one needs to tell them if the crows can beat them by applying more pressure (which accross the game they did - i reckon we only ever matched them at best and then only for 15 mins in rhe last) the dogs will destroy them.

I thought they way they set up was really strange to be honest. And made life more difficult for Petty as a result. The structure we have run with for well over two years has been Omac, then Tomo as the deep full back/goal keeper, with May and Lever playing higher. Petty replaced Tomlinson and took over that role, which is how he played against the swans and the blues. But against the crows they put Petty on Walker when he left the forward line and May played deep. It is too early for them to be playing around with roles in terms of Petty bedding down his role. May should have been on Walker the whole match and followed him whenever he left the 50 metre arc leaving Petty deep as the sweeper. Sure the crows would have tried to engineer Petty on Walker deep in that scenario. And i get that they probably were happy enough to have Walker on the wing against Petty, even if he was out marking him, as he is not kicking goals from there and they would have thought May and Gawn would then be more of weapon. But in doing so they disrupted the systems and defensive synergy and exposed Petty to being out marked to boot. And to make matters worse may had his worst game for the season, and was not an offensive threat at all, and max wasn't taking his marks. They should have just keep things simple and stuck with their go to structure.

Has to be bowey. If fit enough I can only assume they didn't think bowey was ready after his injury break. Otherwsie, surely he was the logical replacement for Salem Assuming that to be the case i understand, sort of, why they went with Nev's, becuase he is experience and is pretty accurate and reliable kick, which with Hunt and Rivers is important as both are hit and miss coming out of defence. But unfortunate Jetts look a liability when dragged out of the back 50 and is not a ditibutor like Salem. So not a like for like. I would have preferred them putting Jordon in Salem's position and bringing Captain Jack Sparrow in to play Vice Captain Jack's inside mid role. JJ is looking a bit weary and struggled to hit targets again playing an inside mid. Playing him at half back would not be as taxing, and if you look at his heat maps round 1 -8 that's essentially where he played. He is an excellent kick, makes good decisions, is good defensively, is a good tackler and can get up the ground - all key elements of Salem's game. And a fresh Captain Jack would have brought a ferocity and willingness to apply pressure we lacked.

How we are playing is completely different discussion. This thread is about the umpires getting it blatantly wrong. It is not about whether the blatant error cost us the game. Which by the by, is by no means certain it did. Lets say Spargo got the free for deliberate. He might have tried a banana and hit the wrong side of the ball and missed everything. Unlikely, but possible.

As you note Webber, that an egregious error like the one made in at least three games his season has had direct bearing on the result of a gem at the very elite level of a fully professional sport - Australia's biggest sport by some magnitude. It is important Ii think to differentiate between a basic error, that might be open to interpretation, of the sort that happened 20 times game and an egregious error like the one that cost the MFC a minimum of 2, and potentially 4 premiership points. Those points could be, say the difference between the MFC playing the Lions at the MCG in the qualifying final or playing that game at the Gabba (which would be ironic, as the Lions may miss top four, or a home QF, becuase of egregious error at Kardinia Park). So the implications for such an error are huge. I don't blame the umpires for these sort egregious errors. The blame lies with the AFL Of course the umpires don't cheat. And deliberate home town bias is baloney. But the umpires have to have the ability to make the correct calls under the most extreme pressure, like a manic finish with 50, 000 home fans going ballistic. And it is up to the AFL to ensure they have that ability. And to so the only meaningful option is to have professional umpires. Failure to do so basically is an admission the game will accept x number of such season shaping errors every year. And on sheer probability, one such egregious error will happen in the Grand Final at some point and result in an underserving winner. Is that what the AFL want? Is that what the fans want? History is clear on this question. And the answer is no. On the back of the goals that was awarded to hawkins after the ball hit the post in the 2009 Grand Final, and arguably changed the result of the game (though wasn't in the last minute) the score review system was brought in. Leaving aside that 12 years later it is still a mess, no one really argues we should not continue using the technology to prevent howlers. Because as they said at the time - do we really want a grand final decided by an error from a goal umpire? Why is the scenario in the dees and cat v lions games any different. Blatant errors determined the result. Which actually suggests a short term fix. In the last say 60 or 90 seconds of the game (becuase ieven though all really bad errors might impact a result, we can only be certain they will in the last 60 or 90 seconds of a game - and it would take too long if applied throughout a match,) , where possible, any such gregarious errors should be reversed by the video umpire. We have the system in place already. Realistically it could only happen when there is there is stoppage immediately or soon after the contentious decision - or non decision. (as when the ball is motion it would not be fair to stop the play). So wouldn't happen that often. Bu in the two examples this season there has been a stoppage. The video umpire tells the field umpires to stop play and that a piece of play will be reviewed. They review the play and if they believe an obvious error has been made, reverse, or apply the free. As would have occurred in the dees game. Such an approach is wholly consistent wit the use of technology to review goals to make sure the game is as fair as possible. In an ideal world we would have a panel of full time professional umpiring our game, who receive the under the right training (eg making correct decision under extreme pressure - training that no doubt exists) supported by judicious use of video technology.

For me it is not about accountability. It is about being a full time professional. Training all week. Doing mutiple matches. Coaching young umpires at lowe level. Practising decision making under pressure. Going to the clubs and umpiring at training sessions. Full bloody time.

As I say the afl love all the hysteria the rubbish umpiring creates. Any news is good news

Of course it does. If only for blatant throws that happen all game because the umpires operate in the corridor and can't see what happens boundary side And the players take full advantage.