Top up players

[MC Extra Dollop]

I just think the club should be given the option to take top up player it is then up to them weather they do or not.

If another club (Collingwood included) found itself in the position that 2-5 extraordinary suspensions would result in them literally not having an available ruckman/full back or whatever, presumably they could apply to the AFL for a top-up or two. It would probably have to be a pretty compelling case though. Geelong hasn't had Dawson Simpson or Hamish McIntosh available for almost all of the past two finals series and Nathan Vardy was out for all of last year, due to injury (which is obviously more worthy of sympathy than a drug suspension). If you're going to start allowing teams to have top ups because of a couple of suspensions, pretty soon teams will be asking for the same concession, when it has a few injuries. It's sensible to allow top ups when a team has been utterly decimated like Essendon was in the preseason and not for cases like Port Adelaide and Collingwood even if it's not, strictly speaking, 100% fair.

 

[Underarm]

Just be thankful it's only 2 players and not your entire list. And if you really think top up players are going to be any help, then you're in for a pretty bad year anyway.

 

[Seedsfan]

If another club (Collingwood included) found itself in the position that 2-5 extraordinary suspensions would result in them literally not having an available ruckman/full back or whatever, presumably they could apply to the AFL for a top-up or two. It would probably have to be a pretty compelling case though. Geelong hasn't had Dawson Simpson or Hamish McIntosh available for almost all of the past two finals series and Nathan Vardy was out for all of last year, due to injury (which is obviously more worthy of sympathy than a drug suspension). If you're going to start allowing teams to have top ups because of a couple of suspensions, pretty soon teams will be asking for the same concession, when it has a few injuries. It's sensible to allow top ups when a team has been utterly decimated like Essendon was in the preseason and not for cases like Port Adelaide and Collingwood even if it's not, strictly speaking, 100% fair.

I do see your point, personally I would have no problem if the AFL let clubs who were left with out for arguments sake a ruckman for what ever reason apply to promote someone from there reserves list.

 

[HTPunter]

Top-up players are there to fulfil contractual obligations, and not disadvantage other teams (i.e. teams scheduled to play Essendon in the pre-season still got their 3 games).

I guess it sucks for Collingwood if injuries strike, but I can see why not.

 

[Seedsfan]

lol @ the supporters of proven drug-cheat clubs like Co11ingwood. Have you been snorting clen for lunch Seedsfan?

I wouldn't crow to early if I were you. A positive B sample needs to comeback before they are proven drug cheats and the verdict in the Essendon case will get handed down today then you could become potential a club full of proven drug cheats

 

[Andronicus]

Ok we are dealing in hypotheticals here. Just say for the point of the argument it was Witts Grundy and Cox in this situation, that would leave us with no ruckman available to play. We would be better off getting a ruckman from the VFL then playing White as number one ruck all year.

Are only players picked up as rucks allowed to play in the ruck?

Save a little face and admit this thread was not as good an idea as you thought it was.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

I don't like the idea of top-up players

If found guilty as a club, the club should suffer. If the players are already banned they shouldn't be allowed top up players - it's like a non-punishment in principle (I'm disregarding any quality of players lost/gained - a player lost is a player lost regardless of quality)

If they aren't found guilty as a club but the players somehow cop bans, then yeah sure, I wouldn't have a problem with it

 

[Andronicus]

I wouldn't crow to early if I were you. A positive B sample needs to comeback before they are proven drug cheats and the verdict in the Essendon case will get handed down today then you could become potential a club full of proven drug cheats

So your guys are afforded the luxury of 2 failed tests, yet you are happy to call ours proven drug cheats without failing even 1?

Champion.

 

[Seedsfan]

So Collingwood would rather back a couple of VFL hacks than their 23rd-40th players as replacements?

Doesn't say a lot about your list management.

Would they get a game maybe maybe not. But we should be able to take top up players if we want. I don't want to take the players because I don't back the quality of players on our list it is more to safeguard against injury. For example at the end of last season Reid, Brown and Marsh were all injured leaving the key defensive roles to Keeffe and Frost. If that was to happen again I would like the club to have the option to add a key defender to the squad to cover the lose of Keeffe.

 

[CountryRace]

2 players vs ~20. Huge differen

why?

lol at this making up rules as we go

Collingwood must be allowed top up players. Anything else is ludicrous

 

[CountryRace]

So your guys are afforded the luxury of 2 failed tests, yet you are happy to call ours proven drug cheats without failing even 1?

Champion.

join the dots.

look at the Ziggy Report. Look at the AFL charge sheet.

where there is smoke there is fire.

 

[Sttew]

Surely given the precidant of the Bombers getting top up players the Pies should be given the right to add top up players to the list.

Yes, and arguably there is a precedent as well

 

[Andronicus]

Would they get a game maybe maybe not. But we should be able to take top up players if we want.

Men should have the right to have babies.

 

[Seedsfan]

So your guys are afforded the luxury of 2 failed tests, yet you are happy to call ours proven drug cheats without failing even 1?

Champion.

If you had half a brain you would realise that is not what I said.
There is the potential that the Essendon players are drug cheats and the tribunal will hand down a guilty verdict. The key word there being potential meaning that it may happen but is not guaranteed of happening.

Also the B sample is not a second test it is part of the same test and is there to safeguard against a test becoming contaminated with something and leading to a miscarriage of justice

 

[Pessimistic]

If a club loses all their ruckmen to injury, thats stiff stuff.

Essendon are the stoner of the family which keeps getting soft justice

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Men should have the right to have babies.

Okay, Loretta

 

[The Swert]

why?

lol at this making up rules as we go

Collingwood must be allowed top up players. Anything else is ludicrous

Who's making up rules? The Saints lost Saad to a drugs ban and did not receive a top-up player.

 

[Andronicus]

If you had half a brain you would realise that is not what I said.
There is the potential that the Essendon players are drug cheats and the tribunal will hand down a guilty verdict. The key word there being potential meaning that it may happen but is not guaranteed of happening.

Also the B sample is not a second test it is part of the same test and is there to safeguard against a test becoming contaminated with something and leading to a miscarriage of justice

Fail any test and you don't get top ups.

How does that sit with you? Must be hard supporting a team in your position.

 

[Crankyhawk]

That is not the point either you are allowed top up players for players on a drug ban or you are not

Take the ones essendon used to get gameplan insights.

 

[Engimal]

Fail any test and you don't get top ups.

How does that sit with you? Must be hard supporting a team in your position.

 

[Seedsfan]

Fail any test and you don't get top ups.

How does that sit with you? Must be hard supporting a team in your position.

Laugh all you want there still is a lot of water to go under the bridge in both cases I would wait before I started bagging people about all this stuff

 

[Andronicus]

Laugh all you want there still is a lot of water to go under the bridge in both cases I would wait before I started bagging people about all this stuff

We have waited.

Waited 3 years and in all that waiting failed to see any evidence produced. Waited while the trial by media slandered any and every person they could. Waited while people sunk the boot in at every opportunity.

I'm not laughing at all. Just relieved that we didn't fail a test.

 

[mike123]

Just upgrade Gault and Cox

 

[Seedsfan]

Just upgrade Gault and Cox

Why would we upgrade Cox he is that far off getting a game it is not funny

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Why would we upgrade Cox he is that far off getting a game it is not funny

Not to be a smartarse, but because he's on your list and top up players aren't?

Mark Blicavs was 'that far off getting a game it wasn't funny' two years ago, when McIntosh, Vardy and Simpson were all injured and Trent West practically rocked up to the Easter Monday game in his hospital gown. Blicavs has barely been out of the AFL side since. At some stage, if your ruckmen keep going down, you've got to get creative with your solutions, because having eight ruckmen on your list (especially if several of them can only play in the ruck) is a waste of list spots.