Dogflogger
Senior List
- Sep 25, 2018
- 268
- 326
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Unless your club has been sent to NZ or China i don't think you really have anything to complain about.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
I'm only focussing on Collingwood because its you. It goes equally for the others Carlton, Essendon etc.
We have a really good record at Marvel because we go there a fair bit. We have a pretty ordinary record at MCG because we don't play there very often so for me the more games we get there the better it is for us. Hence why going to Ballarat, Tasmania once we played St Kilda in Cairns is not good for us even if we win that game.
Did AFL let St Kilda choose to play in NZ or China or was it forced on us by us being in debt?My point applies just as much if it's Carlton. The AFL lets teams choose to play some games in different cities - both Vic and non-Vic. It's good for the game as it means games and extra interest in cities that don't usually see footy.
Do they have to play them against teams who they'd draw a big crowd in their local city, or should they get a say in which away games they are?
No, clubs shouldn’t get a say in where they play beyond established home grounds. Who’s running the show, the AFL or the clubs? The fixture shouldn’t be compromised further because certain clubs want to cash in.I understand it, but look at the other half of it - should teams have a say in where they play teams - No one is going to choose to play Collingwood at their smaller venue in Darwin, Canberra, Tassie - Cats a possible exception - not sure.
Attempts to "even" this stuff up by focussing on Collingwood and ensuring they play some away games in a regional small population is giving a penalty to who they play.
Personally, I couldn't care less where our away games are. And I hope we get the AFL to agree to us selling one of our Marvel "home" games to play on the Gold Coast.
No idea.Did AFL let St Kilda choose to play in NZ or China or was it forced on us by us being in debt?
No, clubs shouldn’t get a say in where they play beyond established home grounds.
Do you even realise that you always post from a lounge chair of comfort.You'd think a WA supporter would get that expansion of the game is a key driver of the AFL ... hence they're all for games in Alice, Cairns, Darwin, Tassie, Canberra . To punish teams for doing so by forcing them to play them against rivals who would draw a big crowd in their home city would be ridiculous.
Agreed. Teams can now play where they want.You'd think a WA supporter would get that expansion of the game is a key driver of the AFL ... hence they're all for games in Alice, Cairns, Darwin, Tassie, Canberra . To punish teams for doing so by forcing them to play them against rivals who would draw a big crowd in their home city would be ridiculous.
Yes I do.Do you even realise that you always post from a lounge chair of comfort.
Your team is a protected species that enjoys AFL backing.
Even when Collingwood aren't winning they still live under the AFL umbrella
Done deal. Should I email Dill or you?Agreed. Teams can now play where they want.
So the only solution is to move the grand final so that teams aren't disadvantaged by not playing there.
So all problem solved - grand final at highest placed teams home or rotated going forward.
also two games in NZPlaying one single game in China once
vs
Getting a 2 year trading ban for following the rules
vs
10 hours of flights every second week.
Apparently the first is worse according to Victorians.
Says it all really.
Making excuses again for when Port choke another home Prelim final?Time to put all your cash on Carlton for the flag. The fairytale is ripe and they are really the only Vic side making the top 4 and seemingly capable outside of a Bulldogs 16 type fix. Geelong have an easy draw and will make top 4 based on that but they really are a shadow of what they used to be. 3 losses at Kardinia plus scraping over the line against the Saints there tells you that. Probably a few more weeks before Jacinta Allan, Bracks and Dill rubber stamp it, but that looks like the way it's heading.
Port won't even make the finalsMaking excuses again for when Port choke another home Prelim final?
Don’t even have to look hard to see the bias here.
Brisbane fined 40k for their concussion treatment of Andrews.
Carlton nothing.
Both have the exact same reasoning as to why they didn’t immediately take off their players as their Drs were attending to other players.
Response from the AFL to the lions
“Brisbane’s submissions described the circumstances in which the message from the ARC was missed as Brisbane’s doctors were occupied in attending to players, including Andrews, over the 3Q time break, and in the period that followed. Whilst the AFL acknowledges the demands on Club doctors in sometimes dealing with multiple concurrent injuries and other issues during a match, the Concussion Guidelines require strict adherence to protect the health and safety of our players. “The AFL requires strict compliance of Clubs to the Concussion Guidelines to best protect the health and safety of our players”, AFL General Counsel Stephen Meade said.
AFL response to Carlton:
“Due to those other commitments, both of Carlton's doctors did not observe the incident involving McKay live and were delayed in reviewing the ARC Message and the vision. Please note that the ARC Medical Spotters did issue a mandatory off-field assessment (including SCAT6) notification to Carlton in relation to the 3a quarter incident involving McKay. Once the ARC Message was reviewed by Carlton's doctors, there was a further short delay (in the review of vision of the incident) before Carlton's doctors promptly instructed other staff to remove McKay from the field which was effected a short time later. Whilst the Club was in breach of protocols on account of the short delays in removing McKay from the field, the AFL acknowledges the Club's explanation predominantly on
account of Carlton's doctors dealing with multiple pre-existing and concurrent injuries.”
Don’t even have to look hard to see the bias here.
Brisbane fined 40k for their concussion treatment of Andrews.
Carlton nothing.
Both have the exact same reasoning as to why they didn’t immediately take off their players as their Drs were attending to other players.
Response from the AFL to the lions
“Brisbane’s submissions described the circumstances in which the message from the ARC was missed as Brisbane’s doctors were occupied in attending to players, including Andrews, over the 3Q time break, and in the period that followed. Whilst the AFL acknowledges the demands on Club doctors in sometimes dealing with multiple concurrent injuries and other issues during a match, the Concussion Guidelines require strict adherence to protect the health and safety of our players. “The AFL requires strict compliance of Clubs to the Concussion Guidelines to best protect the health and safety of our players”, AFL General Counsel Stephen Meade said.
AFL response to Carlton:
“Due to those other commitments, both of Carlton's doctors did not observe the incident involving McKay live and were delayed in reviewing the ARC Message and the vision. Please note that the ARC Medical Spotters did issue a mandatory off-field assessment (including SCAT6) notification to Carlton in relation to the 3a quarter incident involving McKay. Once the ARC Message was reviewed by Carlton's doctors, there was a further short delay (in the review of vision of the incident) before Carlton's doctors promptly instructed other staff to remove McKay from the field which was effected a short time later. Whilst the Club was in breach of protocols on account of the short delays in removing McKay from the field, the AFL acknowledges the Club's explanation predominantly on
account of Carlton's doctors dealing with multiple pre-existing and concurrent injuries.”
Lions cop big fine over Andrews management
After a delay in taking action following a knock suffered by Harris Andrews in round 19, the Lions have been finedwww.afl.com.au
- This was a 2nd breach for Brisbane, as they had a suspended fine from the AFLW GF.
- Carlton's drs were in the rooms dealing with other issues durng a qtr. Brisbane had their Drs assessing players over the 3qtr time break and missed it.
They're similar, but not quite the same.
Think the main issue was Brisbane got fined previously in the AFLW GF for something similar.So the circumstances were quite different then?
So the circumstances were quite different then?
You're missing the difference in the two examples.Don’t even have to look hard to see the bias here.
Brisbane fined 40k for their concussion treatment of Andrews.
Carlton nothing.
Both have the exact same reasoning as to why they didn’t immediately take off their players as their Drs were attending to other players.
Response from the AFL to the lions
“Brisbane’s submissions described the circumstances in which the message from the ARC was missed as Brisbane’s doctors were occupied in attending to players, including Andrews, over the 3Q time break, and in the period that followed. Whilst the AFL acknowledges the demands on Club doctors in sometimes dealing with multiple concurrent injuries and other issues during a match, the Concussion Guidelines require strict adherence to protect the health and safety of our players. “The AFL requires strict compliance of Clubs to the Concussion Guidelines to best protect the health and safety of our players”, AFL General Counsel Stephen Meade said.
AFL response to Carlton:
“Due to those other commitments, both of Carlton's doctors did not observe the incident involving McKay live and were delayed in reviewing the ARC Message and the vision. Please note that the ARC Medical Spotters did issue a mandatory off-field assessment (including SCAT6) notification to Carlton in relation to the 3a quarter incident involving McKay. Once the ARC Message was reviewed by Carlton's doctors, there was a further short delay (in the review of vision of the incident) before Carlton's doctors promptly instructed other staff to remove McKay from the field which was effected a short time later. Whilst the Club was in breach of protocols on account of the short delays in removing McKay from the field, the AFL acknowledges the Club's explanation predominantly on
account of Carlton's doctors dealing with multiple pre-existing and concurrent injuries.”
Roo hates Port Adelaide.Der-Wayne calling port games and Roo any games involving an SA team.
The cheerleading and backslapping is Eddie like.