chookrat

Good point, Its worth noting that Viney successfully appealed an MRO suspension on the basis that he was bracing and not bumping. The Maynard argument is that he left the ground to smother and that he had a right to brace for contact when contact was inevitable. Per other posters I think that if Maynard was required to have a duty of care to Gus that he probably would have kept his arms outstretched and therefore not caused brain trauma to Gus. It would be interesting to see the percentage of concussions in AFL that are to the ball carrier as the result of bumps or other incidents where the opponent is careless towards the ball carrier. I suspect these would account for the majority of concussions and could be reduced by making it clear that bumps are not allowed and that defenders owe a duty of care to the ball cartier, and that these changes would have next to no impact on the quality of the game.

I agree with everything except for the ability of the AFL to successfully uphold and suspension. It is worth remembering that we successfully appealed JVR's suspension for the exact reason that Maynard would have been successful on appeal. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/102335210 Under the rules last year a player does not owe any duty of care to the impact if their actions unless they have breached a rule such as rough conduct which covers bumps and contact below the knees but does not apply to incidental or careless contact during a smother or spoil.

My take is he was definitely putting pressure on the ball carrier but hard to know whether this included deliberate body contact either before or after he left the ground. This is why I think any high contact to the ball carrier when they are in possession of or have disposed of the ball should be reportable and treated as rough conduct.

640MD, if you read the Tribunal Guidelines it is has specific provisions that spell out that any bump that results in high contact is reportable. There are no such provisions for spoils, smothers and other football actions. I get that there is alot of angst re the brain trauma to Brayshaw as a result of Maynard's action, not to mention the way that the Collingwood supporters behaved on the ground and Eddie afterwards. This said I think the MRO and Tribunal have been consistent in how they grade incidents for st least the past few seasons. Can I propose we stop complaining re the Tribunal and enjoy winning and giving it back to Collingwood supporters at the ground when we smash them. I think we are a genuine contender this year and complaining about the MRO is not befitting for a champion.

WCW while a large billboard on the main road to and from the airport at a time of record immigration, in the heartland of the children of Essendon supporters watching the despair of their parents team miss finals again, is all well and good can we get back to outrage at players names being spelt incorrectly and the wrong photos being used 🤪

Monoccular, the Rough Conduct provisions specifically cover bumps but there is no provision for football actions such as smothers or spoils. Even if the Tribunal had suspended Maynard it would have been overturned on appeal. The JVR spoil case earlier in the season made it clear that the AFL Tribunal could not impose an additional duty of care on players outside of the existing rules and while a key difference in the JVR case the ball was in dispute this isn't relevant in the way the rules are currently written. I think the AFL have missed the opportunity to protect the ball carrier, by both making any bump a reportable offence regardless of whether there is high contact due to its potential for high contact, while imposing a duty of care for any high contact that results in injury on the ball carrier.

With the SPP and Jimmy Webster incidents I think it has become clear that they AFL has made a huge mistake in not banning the action of bumping a player who is in possession of, disposing of or has just disposed of the ball. The player with the ball is just too vulnerable to contact and too often this action results in head trauma. I've listened to what Andy said on the podcast here, what Simon Goodwin has said for at least two season re instructing our players not to bump, and Gus's comments re the need for the AFL being proactive rather than reactive. While I'm comfortable that the AFL had no way of suspending Maynard under the existing rules, I do wonder whether a shift in attitude towards contact when a player is disposing of the ball may have changed Maynard's action. The players react to split decisions and if the option to bump is removed then logically it should reduce these sort of brain fart incidents which make no sense in the context of a practice match.

Having just ready the past 2 pages I can only conclude that Round 0 cannot come soon enough.

Tassal Salmons or Tassie Lumberjacks

Between the poor picture quality and buffering Kayo is a poor product even with the $15 discount which brings it to $20 per month. That they are advertising 4K when they cannot even get the HD product working is very ordinary. I'm preparing to document instances of buffering and poor image quality supported by network speed tests to compare with what Foxtel claims and hopefully if enough people do this and seek compensation for false and misleading claims Foxtel will have to invest in the product so that it works as represented.

Have only watched the first half but my takeaways are: 1. Our midfield is up and firing and the inclusion of Salem and Windsor should improve our ball movement. Also good to see Sparrow go up a level and ANB moving the ball well/so quickly between the Arcs. We've done well to cover the loss of Brayshaw and to think we still have Oliver to come back into the side. 2. Our forward line looks potent. Ball movement in our forward half much improved, Pickett and Fritch busy, JVR clunking everything and Shache obviously working well with JVR and Fritch. 3. Backline held up well and looks like we haven't lost much from a defense perspective despite our quicker ball movement. In the context of being in the top 4 every round in the past 3 years bar 2 games yesterdays match reinforces that we are a quality outfit that will be aiming for a top for finish and home final and having our best team fit and ready to challenge in September. i think the clubs approach of not doing too much media and letting our actions speak for themselves will silence the critics.

For those suggesting that we should have traded Petty for McAdams and pick 14, had Petty been fit for finals last year we most likely would have beaten Collingwood and been a good chance for the GF and combined with JVR sort out our key position forwards. By comparison the value of pick 14 and a future second round pick would net us a young key position player requiring at least 3 years development at VFL to help us in September. Alternatively to bring in a KPF from another club would require approx $1m per annum on a long term deal whereas retaining Petty would probably save us in the order of $200 - 300k per annum. As for Petty being injury prone, I don't see the evidence for this. He has been fairly durable to date with only minor soft tissue injuries until his recent foot problems and most key position players have periods where they miss games through injury. Having a medium term injury does not make a player injury prone.

4 weeks is a pretty hefty outcome for SPP and Port and he is such an important player for them. I thought he might end up with 3 weeks given the player was slung into his path and the time he had to bump, brace or tackle. Overall btw 3 - 4 weeks seems reasonable and if he was a Melbourne player most if us would think 4 is a bit harsh.

There has been alot of discussion about our straight set exit from finals, off field issues, our injury list and the gap that Gus's retirement will leave in the team. What hasn't been discussed is the matter of our players having babies and/or pregnant partners on the eve of the season and how this may serve as a distraction in our 2024 campaign. While this is great news from a personal perspective outside of football, as a parent I do worry about the impact of nighttime feeds on sleep and the morning sickness, food cravings, and general irritability of pregnant partners on our playing list.

It is an interesting question re which party takes on the risk of player being injured when signing a player on a long term deal. I think the difference between a medical retirement and retirement due to injury is that rehab is always possible with an injury, where as a medical retirement is where the medical condition creates a situation where continuing to play would create an unacceptable risk. I cannot think of a situation where an injury in itself is career ending. Usually a player might suffer a recurring injury which means they eventually retire as it becomes too hard to get back to a condition where they can play. Re medical retirement while brain injury is the most topical there would be other scenarios such as heart irregularities and potentially other conditions that cause seizures etc that could result in medical retirement. Even the eye condition that Mason Cox has would have resulted in medical retirement if he wasn't able to wear goggles. I think its reasonable for the AFL to share in the risk of medical retirements given it is a workplace health and safety decision that is entirely outside the control of the football department. Obviously the salary should be outside of the salary cap and the AFL or insurance should contribute towards the contract payout and the retirement frees up a list spot. I think there is also a good case for draft pick compensation given the medical retirement is fully outside of the control of the football department and that the free agency compo formula is probably a good basis to work from.

It is incredible yet unsurprising that the AFL has not determined whether the club or league pay what is owing on the contract, how this impacts on salary cap, access to supplementary players, and how draft pick compensation would work if the league medically retires a player.

I'm not convinced that we've lost any midfield depth that won't be offset by what we have brought in and through improvement to our existing players. 1. James Harmes - struggled to break into the team in 2022 and 2023 who was forced to play half forward and back. Handy depth but I think Billings will offer us more in the forward half. 2. James Jordan - a handy player who is best 22 and will continue to improve but able to cover his loss with the younger brigade of Woewoden, Laurie etc. 3. Angus Brayshaw - leader and champion who allows Trac to play forward when needed and can plug gaps off half back and help fill the void if Oliver is not available. Our main loss with Gus will be his leadership. 4. Luke Dunstan - handy depth if we are decimated by injuries. Was unlucky to be injured when we could have used him in 2022 and 2023 but we managed pretty well. Kossie will build on 2023 along with Rivers to make us more dynamic. We've also brought in Windsor, Tholstrup and Brown who could all feature at stages in 2024 and would expect improvement from our second and third hear players. Olivers health and availability is probably the most important aspect of how our midfield performs as he is probably the best ball winner in the competition and frees up our more dynamic players in Trac, Pickett and Rivers. Personally I think it is our forward line that will be tested again and my view on this is that the lack of tall options early will provide the opportunity to work on our ball use inside 50 and then hopefully have JVR, Petty and Fullarton/Melksham play most of the year together and build cohesion in the second half of the year.

This thread reeks of excuses. We have a solid list and will be contending again this year. Trac and Viney will do what they do, Clay Clay will go to another level, Pickett will dominate, our second string players will step up and our first round picks will play this year and provide energy.

Reading Gus's letter puts into perspective that footy is just a game. He can look back at his footy career and be really proud of what he has achieved and the friendships he has made. He is a heart and soul player who supporters love and I'm happy for him in the sense that he won't continue putting his health at risk on the field and hopefully he doesn't have longer term issues.

Our forward line was functioning really well in the past few rounds up until Melksham did his ACL vs Sydney. IMO losing Melksham cost us significantly during finals as he made us so dangerous forward of centre which would have made a significant difference in both finals.

While it is not ideal to have such a decimated forward line heading into 2024 I don't think it's all doom and gloom. Going into round 1 we will likely see JVR, Fritsch and Schache as our key forward targets, gaining Kossie for Round 2 and then McAdams and Fullarton filtering in during the early part of the season. I'm not convinced we will see a fit McDonald or Brown back in the side but either could play in place of Schache or Fullarton depending on injuries and form. I'd anticipate Petty and Melksham to come in after the bye and at that point our list should be at full strength with the next 10 or so rounds to keep improving for September. The bonus of starting the year without alot of firepower up forward will be the need to use the ball well out of the middle, a skill that will serve us well even when we have our first choice forwards available.

I might be slightly wrong here but from memory he kicked the 13 goals over 3 games, the first and last of which he was injured in the first half. Effectively kicked 1.5 goals per quarter he played on the ground as a forward.

Stats can be deceiving, of the 17.3kms I think you will find the majority of these were hus runup when kicking for goal.

I received an offer for $15 off Kayo Basic subscription, which is currently $30 and looks like it will increase to $35 in February (so $20 per month after the Feb increase). According to Kayo this offer is only for returning customers. Personally I don't care about 4K but would instead rather Kayo get their HD image quality and buffering to an acceptable level. Last year I cancelled Kayo when I saw how much better the 7HD broadcast quality was compared to Kayo not to mention the buffering that would at times make Kayo unwatchable.

Isn't trackless tram just a fancy word for bus?