chookrat

SPC, you are correct as I remember it was the bravest kicking in danger in the history of the game.

I read the news that Trac is out for the season to mean he is not expected to be available for home amd away matches. Lets see how he goes over the coming weeks and if he returns to light duties in the rebah group in the next 3 - 4 weeks or is out for longer. In any case its a positive that he didn't have his spleen removed and is out of intensive care.

Hopefully Trac's recovery runs smoothly and his spleen fully recovers. Based on a recovery time of 2 - 2.5 months for a spleen to fully heal and return to full contact and that Trac will need to be off legs for at least the first 4 weeks before being able to perform light aerobic activity, I cannot see him being able to be available for senior footy for at least 10 weeks. Pencil him in for round 24 when we play Collingwood for a top 4 spot or put him on ice if come round 24 we are ruled out of challenging in finals. The upside to all of this is that our entire team that has become too reliant on Trac will need to lift significantly if we are to challenge in September. Regardless of where we end up this season we will learn alot about our list and ability to adapt to our tweaked game style. Dees!

As the head of the footy department Alan Richardson is the only person to make a statement re how Trac's injury was handled by the medicos. There is no story here, Trac passed the tests and any club would have cleared him to return to the field in the second quarter. I would be worried if the President starts talking on football matters.

The medical staff did their job. The assessed Trac at quarter time, diagnosed that he had likely cracked some ribs, and while in some discomfort he was able to breathe and did not display any of the red flags for organ damage. If he had difficulty breathing or had shown sides of organ failure the they would have sent him to hospital immediately. When he didn't improve and wasn't able to perform he came off and was subbed out of the game.

I'm not to concerned when considering that we tend to look flat in the lead up to the bye which I suspect is due to how we structure our training loads throughout the season. I had a quick look at our win/loss record back to 2018 and here is a summary of how we have performed in the lead up to the bye. 2023 - This is the only season we won in the lead up to the bye where we beat Carlton and then Collingwood. Lost the next 2 after the bye. Finished 4th. 2022 - Lost 3 in a row vs Freo (MCG), Swans (MCG) and Collingwood where we looked flat and disinterested. Won the next 2 after the bye. Finished 2nd. 2021 - Great wins vs Doggies (Marvel) and Brisbane (Sydney) before losing to Collingwood. Won 2 out of 3 after the bye. Finished Minor & Major Premiers. 2020 - Did not have mid season bye due to Covid. Won 3 out of 4 btw rounds 10 - 13. Finished 8th. 2019 - Lost 4 in a row leading up to the bye and won 2 out of 3 after the bye. Finished 17th. 2018 - 6 wins and then a loss before the bye before losing the next 2. Finished 5th. Our performances have been pretty mixed all season this year where it looks like we're spreading the load more particularly through the midfield and also being more aggressive with our ball movement. We have been very ordinary the past 3 weeks where we haven't been able to defend the corridor, win contests or execute skills when the heat is on. I reckon the Footy Department deserve some credit for 2021, how we started in 2022 and the position we put ourselves in last year despite our challenges with personnel in the forward half. I back them in to get us in a good position come September, we have heaps of upside and I'm expecting us to be switched on and sharp on Kings Birthday. Let's see how we go over the next 5 rounds.

I also forgot to add that it was an early start time and that the Freo boys we're playing a bit rough.

I thought we were pretty good. A couple of unlucky momentum sapping umpiring calls when we had them on the ropes early were the difference for mine.

I'm not too concerned re 5 day break as the key impact is limited opportunity for a session to simulate parts of our game we need to work on. Essentially a 5 day break means a focus on recovery and then priming up for the next match with limited ability for a main session. I'd expect Carlton's 3 games in 13 days to have a greater impact due to limited ability to simulate areas of their game that they need to improve over that time. Their 4 changes also don't help from a stability and consistence perspective. This said I'm expecting a tough match and well will need to be at our best to win.

It seems overly complex, there is also a bike track so risk of the players getting hit by bikes and horsies, or horsies riding bikes. I don't trust horsies.

I wouldn't be too stressed. I reckon we've been loading and will be cherry ripe for Anzac Eve after the bye.

I've got alot of time for Leigh Montana and his analysis of teams and how they will match up. If only the networks could find other ex players who are articulate and can provide insights instead of the boof heads they bring in.

They might get held up shouting at clouds on their way to the meeting

Good summary Young Blood. For what its worth the rule change re provisions for spoils under rough conduct are working as intended. The Fogarty 1 week suspension and Kossie facing 1 week, or a fine if we can argue low impact shows the change is working as intended. Had this change being made last year then Van Rooyen probably would have faced 2 weeks and Maynard 3 - 5 weeks with the difference being the Impact grading of High v Severe. Finally there is no point comparing the Fogarty incident to Pickett. The whole point of the grading system to grade incidents against the criteria on their own merit and that clubs can then elect to challenge the gradings. While taking into account the 'potential' for injury provides some grey area I think it provides for a more appropriate outcome by factoring in the action when grading an incident.

The problem with the Maynard incident was that the spoil was carelessly executed and he made no effort to minimise impact to Brayshaw after he had committed the spoil. In comparison Kossie deliberately pulls back from the bump to minimise impact to Soligo. The rule change this year re spoils, following the Maynard and Van Rooyen incidents last year, means that they are covered under rough conduct and players have a duty of care to other players when executing a spoil. I'm a supporter of gradings taking into account potential to cause injury as it weighs not only the outcome but also the action. In this case I think we can successfully argue low impact on both actual and potential injury on account of Kossie's decision to pull back from the bump.

I read this as not only meaning the actual impact was light but also that Kossie played fairly and did show duty of care, e.g he could have lined me up but consciously decided to pull back from full contact.

It was graded High Contact, Careless, Medium Impact which = 1 week. Low impact = a fine.

I reckon we have a good chance of having it downgraded as it looks like Pickett pulls back a bit before impact resulting in pretty light contact. It is clear that the actual impact was low and also argue potential for injury is low due to Pickett pulling back from the bump. That Pickett made the decision to pull back from forceful contact is exactly what the AFL is looking to achieve and thus a low impact grading is available and appropriate.

I reckon it will be looked at and we might need to argue the case but that it will ultimately be graded as low impact. The action started as a smother and finished with a brace with the shoulder contact being pretty light. We might also argue the other player ran into Kossie and therefore the contact was reasonable.

Jane, that would not have been an enjoyable 6 months. While all injuries are different it is often the case with back injuries that muscular imbalances and dysfunctional movement patterns become the main issue after the initial acute injury. The physios will make sure that Maysie is keeping his trunk mobile and exercising with a level that is tolerable so that he is ready to play. While I'm sure he will be in pain the players and club medicos understand that pain is just feedback and nothing to worry about. This is a problem I see with general medicine that doctors tell civilians to avoid pain and prescribe pain medication rather than work through it in a sensible manner.

I'd be surprised if May misses more than three weeks and hopefully he is back for the Brisbane match. He can always wear a guard to help protect the ribs. As for the cracked vertebrae while it sounds serious it might not pact him in any way. I'm not to stressed as we have plenty of depth and will ensure we keep evolving.

It makes sense that we are above Brisbane, them being an interstate team and us being Victorian and all.

I don't get the argument that you cannot win the flag if you lose the first 3 matches on the basis that it hasn't happened before. There are 23 games in the season and between 16 and 17 wins gets a top 4 finish and probable home finals. Whats to say a team cannot lose the first 3 games and win 17 of the remaining 20 to finish top 2?

Like others here have said the environment Watts was drafted into was not professional and the expectations the club put on him were unfair on a young player. This said there are others who succeeded in the same environment and Jack was given every opportunity to do well under Roos and Goodwin. The impression I get from his media appearances is he really lacks confidence in himself as a person which makes it really difficult to thrive in adversity.

Rather than shortening the matches the AFL could pause play within quarters to show more betting ads to kids. I'm comfortable with an April start and 18 matches when Tassie join. Appreciate this won't happen due to tv rights and revenue but any changes that make the season longer take away from the game.