Lucifers Hero

No from me. I like to see the team rock up in club colours when representing the club. Arrival at games is part of that. And I would rather players focus on the game than their wardrobe and reactions to it. Talk about giving the 'social media' more fodder to work with. Trolls will have a field day. Not surprised Dangerfield said 'Yes'. He would say it is all about drawing a younger audience to the game ala the fan-fare of AFLX. For mine, there is enough fanfare in AFL already: after goals, half time etc. But then I'm not in their 'target market' group.

We scored well in the Coaches votes again: https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2019-02-26/aflw-four-demons-poll-aflca-votes 6 – Emma King (NMFC) 5 – Kate Hore (MELB) 5 – Jess Duffin (NMFC) 5 – Lily Mithen (MELB) 5 – Emma Kearney (NMFC) 3 – Tyla Hanks (MELB) 1 – Karen Paxman (MELB) Interestingly, very different views among the coaches as to who the best/better performers were. No stand out player as viewed by them. Well done to our vote scorers.

No we didn't tag Kearney. It was obvious in the first Q that she was having a big day and I was expecting us to make her accountable in the second Q, even if she wasn't tagged all the time. Just make her earn her possessions like some not so gentle crashing and tackling, like everyone did to Daisy in the last few years. Tagging doesn't seem a tactic used in AFLW. Things to learn.

Q.1. Apparently, the Code allows mental health issues, as an exemption from testing. It doesn't seem like players need to supply medical evidence to such claims. It sounds like a big loophole in the code. One would think that if a player was too unwell to take a test, he is too unwell to play at AFL standard. If more than a few players at a club were claiming mhi to exempt from testing one would be concerned about the management of that club. Alarm bells should be sounding at the AFL long before 16 (or 10 or 5) players from one club used mhi as an out. AFL prefers to keep its head in the sand and hope it all goes away. After all, its the optics that count, right? Q.2. I don't know the history of the testing

Very good points. The newly formed sports watchdog (Sports Integrity Australia, which will absorb ASADA) has asked the AFL for info about player testing (sans player names) https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/watchdog-urges-afl-to-hand-over-drug-info-20190219-p50yoz.html Unsurprisingly, the ALFPA are anti; can't find an AFL response but suspect they would be anti as well. Personally, I can't see the problem with giving the SIA data without player names.

Just to clarify. The policy is currently 4 weeks out for second strike. Nick is saying 4 weeks for first strike ie zero tolerance. Agree with Nick and yourself.

JLT2 is vs Lions who also play their JT1 on Sunday, in the midday sun. The forecast up there is only 29 but with 90' humidity. JLT1 will be just as tiring for them so for JLT2 neither team is disadvantaged much as both have 6 day turnaround and poor weather conditions. Anyway, they are practice games - we can practice playing in poor weather... Hopefully sanity prevails and player welfare is taken care of when there are extreme weather conditions. Edit: Two SA teams scheduled to play JLT1 in 39' heat early in the afternoon so I suspect a few clubs will be talking to the AFL about starting times etc. But any changes may depend on what the broadcasters are prepared to do.

Not sure Nick has his facts right. Tom started playing forward in mid 2017. This time last year he was injured but when he did play it was as a forward. So he has been a forward (not a swingman) for the best of 18 months. Reckon there are some biases in his top 10 rankings. But he is right about Tom thriving this year being the main man. Agree that Tom can win the Coleman this year, especially if the high level of forward deliveries are more accurate than the past. Dittto don't see Jessie winning it especially as he seems to be playing a high forward/mid role at Freo.

Over the last week there have been a lot of claims and counter claims: - players using 'mental health issues' to avoid testing. The implication is they don't actually have a mental health issue. This excuse was used by 16 players from one club according to Ross Stevenson from 3AW. This was rebuked by Eddie, AFLPA, AFL. - Grant Thomas was told (after his coaching finished at the Saints) that unbeknown to him, drug use was 'rife' among the players during his reign. Strongly rebuked by Nick Del Santo and Spider Everett. Now Nick Reiwoldt says: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-free-for-all-riewoldt-lashes-players-over-afl-illicit-drug-policy-20190225-p50zzs.html “The AFL, by their own admission on their own website, what the policy is designed to do is to identify players with substance abuse issues and place support around them to protect their health and wellbeing...the vast majority of players don’t have substance abuse issues, they’re taking the [censored] because the system allows it. "It depends what your definition of out of control is. I would say it’s out of control.” Riewoldt called for players to be hit with a four-week ban on the first strike. “What I would say, if they’re serious about getting the number closer to zero, remove the safety net,” he said. “If players do have a legitimate substance abuse issue, then getting a suspension on their first detection is probably the least of their worries. They need to get their life together". How often do we hear of a player having an injury, personal issues, mental health issues or glandular fever and are out of the game for 4 weeks. Without casting dispersions on people with those issues, its hard not to think a '4 week suspension is being played out' for a second strike. I agree with Nick: first strike and 4 weeks suspension. No excuses for avoiding testing either. The AFL has said it will review its drug policy. Code for getting it out of the media. I certainly hope that the club with allegedly 16 players using 'mental health issues' isn't the demons. I reckon Mahoney and or Goodwin would get wind of it somehow and make sure the culprits are weeded out one way or another. So doubt it is us.

Yes. By their own stats female participation is where the growth is. https://www.afl.com.au/news/2019-02-24/females-lead-big-rise-in-footy-participation-rate AFLW is already being played internationally and it will do more for AFL international exposure than AFLX ever will. An anecdote. My niece lives in Hong Kong and her team won their local AFLW comp last year. I was surprised they even had a comp. It was made up primarily of expats. The expat's kids are playing the game and the families will eventually go back to their home country. This is what will help spread the game internationally not AFLX. (My delight was not only that her team won but her team wears our Demon colours and she is a staunch Pies supporter ? )

AFL spruikers and media have changed the narrative (spin) on a Conf ladder vs a Combined ladder. They are now saying the best two teams will still play in the GF effectively acknowledging that the top two Conf B teams will lose their finals. This conveniently ignores that two of the best 4 teams may not play finals at all and they would be worthy contenders in the GF. So AFL please note, no we won't necessarily get the best teams in the GF so stop treating us like idiots who unthinkingly absorb your spin!!

The Run Home: Conf A: Can't see North loosing top spot with one game and good %age over others. It then becomes a race for second. To help our cause North need to thrash Adel and Freo. And we need to win all three. Its doable but challenging with Adel now finding form. What a tantalising rnd 7: 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 4! The top two will go down to the wire. But will North rest players, etc and just let Freo win as they are much less of a threat than Melb or Crows in the finals. As a comparison, think Crows vs Eagles last AFL game of 2017 which kept us out of finals by a whisker. Finals for us will most likely be decided by our last game vs Crows. Lets just hope we don't miss on %'age, again! Conf B: Nothing to say except on current performance no team deserves to play finals and it will be tragic to see two of the best teams miss out because of the warped conference system where the top two teams of each conf play finals. For those that don't go to AFLW Board there is a thread on the Conference system farce here

Robbed by the umpires! Those 3 dubious frees within 20m of North goals at the 7/8 min mark in th elast Qtr from which they kicked the winning goal. And, the missed frees in our favour all game. OMG! Terribly deflating to have a really good game decided like that.

Of course they should be called out. I would think the Crows have the police and the social media platform the post was made on track the real person. Eddie has dignity, skill and patience. Feel for him. A much respected person of the game. Deserves better. I would be over-the-top livid if this happened to our equivalent: Jetta.

Qtr Time: Dees 1.0.6 North 1.1.7 Not much sign the wind is having an impact. Low scoring but good quality game. We need to make Emma Carney accountable - getting too much of the ball. And btw she has gone to the Joel Selwood school of milking free kicks: lifts the elbow and hunches the shoulder to draw a high free. For some reason we seem to be pushing our forwards a long way up the ground so difficult to get the ball into scoring range. We played a more balanced field in recent weeks.

Some good results last night. Lions ousted Blues from the top two of Conf B. As GF finalists of the last two years Brisbane are so much more deserving of a finals berth. They are also more likely to give Conf A teams a challenge during finals. Adelaide had a convincing win over Freo which really opens up Conf A. Win today by more than a few points and we go to second. Interestingly North are not a high scoring side - their excellent %age is on the back of a miserly defence or poor opposition. In the context of this season North haven't taken a 'scalp' with wins over Carlton, GWS and Bulldogs. They are gettable!! Needless to say, we must win today to stay in touch with top 2.

As Goodwin turned away I think he said "be proud" or "so proud". It was quite faint so I assume the sub title writer didn't notice it. Still, a critical few words.

Wouldn't mind seeing some camera work to show the set-ups at centre bounce under the new rules. Also, how far can players run for the point kick ins? I thought there was going to be a big 'square' around the traditional one. Couldn't see any markings so will the umpires be guessing how far players run? On the new kick-in rule, Max and Preuss doing well marking from the kick-ins. It seems we have a set-up down field, depending on who kicks in. I think we are working well with that new rule.

Jetta added to leadership group Congratulations to Nev. A much deserved promotion for a perennially underrated player. 2019 Leadership group Nathan Jones (co-captain) Jack Viney (co-captain) Max Gawn Neville Jetta Jetta replaces Lewis who will work with coaches and leaders.

I like the concept! The 'symbols' can be used to mean different things at different clubs so opps won't be able to easily interpret them during each game. And smart coaches will change the meaning of their 'symbols' or a regular basis so opps studying past game footage won't know what each 'symbol' means in the next game. This could have been handy in a few games last year when we lost our way a bit and our on field leaders were distracted or dozed off. Also handy now that the use of runners is limited.

I like the idea of Collingwood fans watching on our website, suffering a pro demon commentary and promotion of our fine club and our sponsors. And isn't it refreshing to have our club broadcast this - the polar opposite of Cats/Roos making their prac game a closed session only to have the clever media boffins jump in their helicopters and get a bird's eye view. Of those 4 clubs it is the demons that are looking after their fans the best! And thanks to Zurich for making it possible. Go Dees!

Very glad she is free to play. The appeal was for a striking charge which was assessed as: '... an off-the-ball incident...intentional conduct with medium impact to the head." Would be interested to know the appeal grounds and how/why the Tribunal dismissed a seemingly serious charge, in its entirety. One would expect a diminution of one or even two of the assessed factors would result in a week off or a fine. Edit: Appeal grounds: "Melbourne's representative, Peter O'Farrell, initially submitted the case should be thrown out completely, that the incident was not a strike and impact was "lower than low"...O'Farrell presented the case was a forward pushing off her opponent and going for a mark, with eyes only for the ball. He also argued that the act was done in play, with the wind affecting the drop of the ball.' https://womens.afl/news/16631/blues-star-big-dee-free-to-play-after-tribunal-wins To me the vision shows a late push in the back with a forearm - downfield free kick or 50m at worst! Don't know where Michael Christian got his assessment from!!! Charge deserved to be thrown out!

Glad the club has taken this step. 2 weeks is terribly harsh; equavalent (in % of games) to 6-7 weeks in the AFL. Also, 2 weeks over penalises the team in a short 7 week season. It is the difference between making finals or not as the player depth isn't there in the AFLW for a team to cover such a player. This is a similar situation to Katie Brennan. Last year, after her appeal failed she was taking her case to the Human Rights Commission. The AFL reached a compromise. Like the Bulldogs we have a lawyer as President who has shown he is prepared to employ his skills to protect the club. This will be interesting to watch. It is staggering the AFL/AFLW didn't have the foresight to see the Katie B situation arising again and revise the penalty system before this season started. If this turns into another farce the AFL will only have itself to blame for the bad 'optics.

The issue isn't who plays in the GF, it is who plays in the 2 prelims. To my mind, the prelims should be based on the 4 best teams overall not who may make it thru to the GF (and the Home Ground advantage should go to the higher placed team overall not the highest placed in each conf). imo Carlton/Geelong (as the ladder currently stands) have less right to play in the prelims than any team that finishes above them on W/L and %'age regardless of where the higher teams finished in conf A. Will wait and see how it pans out.

Sounds like Plough has misunderstood as the solution he proposes is what is proposed hence the problem. The problem is on a 10 team ladder the top two teams of Conf B are below most or all of the Conf A teams so two bad teams would play in the finals dislodging two better teams. The solution is for the AFL to admit their mistake and to combine the ladder for the two conferences so the 4 best teams play in the finals regardless of which team. Imagine the outcry if teams 9 and 10 with inferior W/L and inferior percentages played in AFL finals over teams finishing 7 and 8.