2021 Non-Crows AFL Discussion Part 1: we can have lots of fun!

[Deaneus!]

the 2021 season is less than a week away FFS

 

[cm_perfect]

All fair points and correct in hindsight, but the club were pushing hard for a flag in the 2015-2019 timeframe and got damn close. Would history look as bad if we won in 2017? I think the biggest issue was your first point, turning over a few of those types could’ve led to us being in a better position now without compromising our push for a flag.

That is what has got us into the mess we are now. Completely misread our list from 18 onwards (the candied contracts handed out shows that)

 

[Fivel_79]

If the AFL was looking to create a fair playing field (which I don’t believe they are) what is the difference between a head knock and a broken ankle or ACL? And if implemented at the last minute will be another half-baked AFL idea that coaches will exploit.

I believe injury subs would be a good thing but if you can only name one player and you name a midfielder then your ruckman goes down, it doesn’t help a lot or vice versa.

Have an injury subs bench, maybe the players already listed as emergencies which you can use one player to replace an injured player but only in the first three quarters and on the proviso that the injured player automatically misses the following week/match?

 

[hey shorty]

If the AFL was looking to create a fair playing field (which I don’t believe they are) what is the difference between a head knock and a broken ankle or ACL? And if implemented at the last minute will be another half-baked AFL idea that coaches will exploit.

I believe injury subs would be a good thing but if you can only name one player and you name a midfielder then your ruckman goes down, it doesn’t help a lot or vice versa.

Have an injury subs bench, maybe the players already listed as emergencies which you can use one player to replace an injured player but only in the first three quarters and on the proviso that the injured player automatically misses the following week/match?

What's the difference, you're kidding me aren't you.

 

[Red mist]

What's the difference, you're kidding me aren't you.

The selection of the 23 player has to be careful is what I got out of it, and it does.

 

[GreyCrow]

Its a poor rule designed to be exploited by coaches

I do like Fivel_79 idea of mandatory 1 week off for replaced player

 

[Dudersaurus]

Its a poor rule designed to be exploited by coaches

I do like Fivel_79 idea of mandatory 1 week off for replaced player

The problem is that there is a mandated assessment period where they should be legitimately replaced.

If there is an automatic week off, there is a disincentive to properly assess players and will encourage players and teams to hide injury.

The exact opposite of what is desirable.

 

[GROTTO]

I thought the same and then he banned me for a day.

Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said I could be a mod, if there was a nuclear apocalypse.

I asked this, as I just wanted to know what contingency plans were in place as I told them I would still be posting here along with one of ten, Alex's aliases.

 

[GreyCrow]

The problem is that there is a mandated assessment period where they should be legitimately replaced.

If there is an automatic week off, there is a disincentive to properly assess players and will encourage players and teams to hide injury.

The exact opposite of what is desirable.

There are still 3 interchanges for that assessment period

 

[BACCS]

 

[Scorpus]

...or they could fold to make room for a Tasmanian team

 

[baldandbroke]

Hawthorn, West Coast ... then us ?!?!?!?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Why not just increase the bench?

Hawthorn, West Coast ... then us ?!?!?!?

View attachment 1076011

The three powerhouses of the competition

 

[FR0GGY]

SRP board is your friend

No thanks

 

[Red mist]

Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said I could be a mod, if there was a nuclear apocalypse.

I asked this, as I just wanted to know what contingency plans were in place as I told them I would still be posting here along with one of ten, Alex's aliases.

Is there actually an Alex alias here or is that just an old dusted off joke that you save up for when you need a couple likes but not there yet. Please perpetuate a myth.

 

[tinman]

the 2021 season is less than a week away FFS

I reckon that Dill would struggle with a concussion test. Regardless of physical contact

 

[Dudersaurus]

Why not just increase the bench?

Hawthorn, West Coast ... then us ?!?!?!?

View attachment 1076011

Richmond gets $2mill more than us.

 

[AdelaideFan14]

A poster on the Carlton board alleging that a pear player (not spp) has done a “bootsma” and is being investigated

There was a post in the big rumour thread on the main forum earlyish last year from a Carlton poster (Not the same poster unless he has an alias) about a young Port player getting in trouble with the club for doing a "Bootsma". Not sure if there is any truth to it, but it's interesting that the rumour has popped up again.

 

[BACCS]

 

[Red mist]

There was a post in the big rumour thread on the main forum earlyish last year from a Carlton poster (Not the same poster unless he has an alias) about a young Port player getting in trouble with the club for doing a "Bootsma". Not sure if there is any truth to it, but it's interesting that the rumour has popped up again.

History repeats

 

[hey shorty]

Here we go......

 

[Red mist]

There was a post in the big rumour thread on the main forum earlyish last year from a Carlton poster (Not the same poster unless he has an alias) about a young Port player getting in trouble with the club for doing a "Bootsma". Not sure if there is any truth to it, but it's interesting that the rumour has popped up again.

Not that it’s fortunate or anything. It’s about education really. Clubs obviously have a duty of care to make sure theyre gentlemen as well. Unless they’ve got gf and sorted. The club lets you see who you want.

 

[Red mist]

Here we go......

Jack Watss after the act

 

[Red mist]

This is interesting though. history

 

[Fivel_79]

The problem is that there is a mandated assessment period where they should be legitimately replaced.

If there is an automatic week off, there is a disincentive to properly assess players and will encourage players and teams to hide injury.

The exact opposite of what is desirable.

Or the injured player takes no further part in the game and the coach makes the call not to sub the player out in the hope that they’re fit for the next match?

Is there a mandatory time off for concussion cases now already and how often do players suffer “delayed concussion”.

I don’t think there is any easy answers but the AFL looking at it a week out from the first game is a recipe for yet another poorly implemented rule change.