binman

Interesting day. I'm playing flemington for somewhere between a leaders bunn and suit on pace and made my selections accordingly. If I get that right I'm confident of a big day. My best is she's so high. Race 3 no 7 flemington. Will be too good for a small field and good value at 2.25 fixed atm

The winning post not delivered to my newsagent this morning. Very frustrating as it means I cant do my form on the train. Will have to get one somewhere and do on way home (and at home). A reminder races at flemington start early tomorrow because of heat.

No I think you've misunderstood him on that point. The opioid crisis is literally a crisis in the states. Poor small towns and communities are being devastated. The key reason it has got to that point is that they are legal (though not in the quantity many people have and not go deal). The fact they are legal has created a huge discussion and funny contradiction - even amongst the hard right. It can't be immoral if it is legal right? But oxy and all its derivatives are no different to heroin of course. So is heroin immoral? And because they cant tackle legal opioid use though a war on drugs approach how do they do it? The only logical approach is a harm min and health insurance approach. Which is how they are now approaching it, by in l as large. Even trump sees this. So if that is the approach to legal opites it is not such a jump to illegal ones. Though they are a ways off of course. The war still rages as you suggest. Thst said marijuana is legal in 20 or states and freely available in many. Very different to here.

Jake Niall Nails it: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/some-of-you-just-don-t-get-it-on-footballers-and-drugs-20190227-p510jm.html

We should have had a bet! Which you would have lost by the way. You wrote that 'They train when its 40 degrees' I wrote 'No they don't. Ever.' It did not get over 35 when they were training. There is a very, very big difference between 35 and 40 degrees. 5 degrees to be exact. As i wrote previously if you can show me some evidence of the dees training in 40 degree heat i will be most impressed - not to mention very surprised.  I will acknowledge i'm surprised they didn't move the training earlier (though i only said if the temp is mid 30s they often - not always - make training earlier). Perhaps they were preparing them for Shep.

Of course they have rules around behaviour. But so do most jobs. If I posted so kn etching super offensive on social media I would be disciplined. And if a player got busted for drugs the afl might further discipline them for bringing the game into disrupted. As they might (or should) for a drink drive charge. But a player using recreational drugs in their own time is not bringing the game into disrepute. And the afl might only know that is the case because they choose to test for recreational drugs. Which they don't have to do.

I can't find it in this thread so perhaps it is another but lucifer's hero (I think) posted she thought the new kick in rule might result in teams flooding their backline to defend against quick transition. I disagreed, arguing flooding is too defensive and make it too hard to the team flooding to score themselves. Interesting that in the herald sun predictions thread David king suggested the rule change would actually result in lower scores (doesn't say why but I'm guessing) and mick mcgrane says it will result in teams greater defending through the midfield by which I think he might mean flooding back bbn or at least setting a deep defensive wall. Both views support that of Lucifer's hero. It will be fascinating to see how it plays out. Perhaps lower clubs will flood to prevent blow outside, much the way struggling NBA teams try slow down games and avoid fast break basketball.

They're not. If the police catch them with drugs they get charged. Simple. It is not the AFL's - or any employer for that matter - job to catch and punish players who break the law. If it is why stop at drug use. What about tax avoidance? Assault? Copyright?

Agree to an extent. He does get up the ground a bit, but I guess not often. But when he does if he doesn't clunk a mark his lack of agility becomes a liability. Also the roos funnel much of their forward entries through him which gives him more opportunity than other forwards. This reliance on brown is also a bit one dimensional. Shut him down and shut the roos down. As was the case in the latter part of last season. This highlights the fact brown can only really play forward, which really reduces the roos' flexibility. If tmac gets shut down we can throw him in the ruck, to the wing or chb. All that said as you note he is definitely a talent. One of the best marks on the lead since dunstall I reckon.

Totally agree. A 50 metre penalty is often way too harsh a penalty for some infractions, for example running into the exclusion zone. It is also random in its impact (which penalties should not be wherever possible - or at least the randomness should be minimised) in so far as some 50s give a player a shot at goal (and sometimes a certain shot at goal - eg the 50 is paid 40 metres out) whereas the same penalty paid in the backline is less of a penalty A easy solution is having both 15 and 50 metre penalties as options, each with prescribed infractions (and perhaps some wiggle room for umpires to use their common sense).

There was at least one - to here I think - and as dc suggested it was confusing as to whether he played on or not as he was sprinting forward. Presumably it wasn't as he didn't run off his line but then he did play on by kicking the ball well short of where the mark would have been (which the umpire never got to set). As I suggested I can't see why player wouldn't run quickly forward and play on. But there will be scenarios where they run quickly but don't play on and the oppo player impedes them because they think they have or are about to. Possibly resulting in a second 50.

Spot on ds. Particularly in regard to the confected moral outrage. Particularly from ex players from 80s and 90s when the prevailing culture was excessive alcohol use. II care about how players prepare, train and perform. If they can do those things well I could care less if demon players use recreational drugs. My view is the players should never have agreed to include testing for recreational drugs.l in the first place Just stuck to performance enhancing only. And the AFL made a rod for it's own back including testing for recreational drugs. Stupid. I understand their motivation (getting treatment for players) but they should have stayed well clear of something that is none of their business. That said I as applaud the hark min approach they have taken.

Agree. His strength is incredible running capacity - as was so evident in the first half of last year. Opposition defenders could not go with him. And his footy smarts. A natural. I have to admit though that early doors i had expected him to develop into a better pack mark than he has become. One on one he is brilliant as reads the ball so well and times his body work but he doesn't clunk that many park marks and doesn't really launch at packs the way say Weeds does.

Agree on both points. The one advantage Tmac has over Hogan - and it is an important one - is that he is a much, much more reliable set shot at goal and not coincidentally has better technique, one that is more likely to hold up under pressure. I know which player i'd like to have the ball shooting for win after the siren. I also think tmac is a marginally better one on one and contested mark. Though perhaps that's bit tough on Hogan.

50m penalties The player with the ball: Must be allowed to advance the mark by 50m without the infringing player delaying the game. Will be able to play on while the 50m penalty is being measured out. Impact on competition: once players get used to this rule i expect players to play on at almost every opportunity, except when the 50 gives them a shot at goals (and even then sometimes) Why not? Will be one more factor speeding up transition. Impact on dees: no specific impact - I wonder if players with genuine speed like Hunt will really try and exploit this change Potential implementation and interpretation issues: i'm curious how the umpire will determine when a player has played on. yes the rule remains play on when running off the line but a player bolting will be almost ahead of the umpire and running to yet to be determined mark. Will it be play on once a player passes the umpire? If so that would require a rule change. Will a player bolting forward confuse the umpire and make it hard for him to work out where the mark should be? I suspect there ill be some confusion with this rule. The other issue is that it will make a 50 metre penalty potentially even more of penalty and therefore the impact of any poor 50s by umpires will be magnified. It was already often such a harsh penalty for small indiscretions - this will make that worse. Kicking for goal after the siren A player who has been awarded a mark or free kick once play has ended: Will now be able to kick across their body using a snap or check-side kick BUT must kick the ball directly in line with the man on the mark and the goal. Impact on competition: marginal i would have thought. Particularly given the second part of that rule which meaning they players still cant creep across like Franklin does with his arc. Players using the snap and checkside almost always take step off the line, effectively playing on but won't be able to d that so will have to adjust their set up (eg start their run up behind the boundary line Impact on dees: nothing in particular Potential implementation and interpretation issues: the only issues i can see are the same as the ones now - correctly adjudicating if a player has ran off his line and played on

So i guess he has had no interruptions to his interrupted preseason.

Yes to TMac winning the Coleman. Won't play in the ruck at all i wouldn't have thought (except for some forward 50 throw ins) Hogan won't take goals off him (though he will get the opposition's best defender), He uses his hands a lot to push players so that rule change will help him Any increase in one on one marking opportunities as a result of other rule changes will help him He is the best kick for goal of any forward We are the highest scoring team in the league, a trend that i have little doubt will continue this year We will win more games this year and therefore kick more goals If the rule changes do make blow outs more common (which i'm not convinced about) we could kick some big scores this year By the by currently $10 on Sportsbet so reasonable value and worth a flutter if you are that way inclined. Daniher is $12 which is ridiculously short given he practically didn't play last year and bombers will struggle this year. Kennedy and Franklin share favoritism at $5. Also way too short as that price would be fair enough if they play the whole season but a lot has to go right for that to occur. A bookies sucker punch, akin to long range bets on favorites for the Melbourne Cup.

No they don't. Ever. For a start training is almost always in the morning. And any day where the temp is even mid 30s they often make training even earlier. If you can show me some evidence of the dees training in 40 degree heat i will be most impressed - not to mention very surprised.

Could not agree more. The dees should complain. Appalling. That last one against mithen was inexplicable. I assume it was for dragging it in and not getting out. Please.

On preuss, I'm sticking by my prediction he will play around 70% of games and at least once twice be the sole rock with gawny getting a rest (perhaps after or before a bye). As another poster posited when he does play will likely spend a fair bit of time on the bench.

Brain fade. No wonder I stuffed up the tri last week!

My best bet is avilius race 8 at caulfield. Good price too and should be odds on. A class above.

Ok, thanks. Not sure we will be disadvantaged though in so far as our positive points differential is a function of the fact we are the highest scoring side. As you say it will be easier to take the ball the other way but the increase won't be enough to offset our scoring advantage. I think Wells11 (apologies to the correct poster if i got that wrong) noted that the the lead league average of scoring chains from kick outs last year was under 10% (and we led the league with 13%,) so even if there is big increase the it still might only be say 15% scoring chains (not goals by the by) from kick outs. Also helping us is whilst Maxy, Weid, Tmac and perhaps Pruess will help us offensively with marks across the centre from kick outs they will be equally effective defensively from teams kicking long from kick outs . Already last year clubs were having to go around Maxxy when transitioning such is ability to take contested marks. That was on display today with maxy taking a number of chop out marks on the wings and stopping the pies efforts to move the ball forward.

Sorry, i don't quite get your logic from that stats why the kick-in rule might be a negative for us

Do you mean flooding back into the opposition's 50? They may do but essentially if so they are allowing their opponents to march the ball up the ground with little resistance. Iwhich will gift teams inside 50s, help their opponent trap the ball in their half of the ground and make it very hard for their own team to score. Flood were phased out in favour of the press for these reasons.