Changes for Round 2 v Western Bulldogs

[Faunac8]

erm, did you read both posts? Wolftone went off the reservation, bloodspirit didn't say anything controversial or irrational..?

Agreed very long bow to suggest selection decision was based on racism and borderline offensive . Sorry not borderline actually it was offensive

[jono2707]

Agreed very long bow to suggest selection decision was based on racism and borderline offensive . Sorry not borderline actually it was offensive

I agree - it was a somewhat offensive suggestion. But Wolftone is and has been one of the most insightful posters here over a number of years and a lot of thought and passion goes into his posts so it'd be good to give him a right of reply. Perhaps you'd like to give what you'd said a bit more thought Wolftone?

[RogueSwan]

Agree - wolftone was "a bit off tap".

However, his post, in total, was a lot more rational than bloodsprits' crap.

erm, did you read both posts? Wolftone went off the reservation, bloodspirit didn't say anything controversial or irrational..?

I thought Bloodspirits post was reasonable, he articulated his points prudently.

[liz]

I thought Bloodspirits post was reasonable, he articulated his points prudently.

Couldn't agree more.

[Plugger46]

Yep - unsure how anything Bloodspirit said could be construed as crap.

[bloodspirit]

Thanks for the support ROWers and redeyes. I think perhaps I was a bit disrespectful of wolftone57 and/or a bit smarmy and maybe that was the problem. I apologise for that. But nor do I want to be too vanilla! It's hard getting the balance right. (Although Ludwig and dejavoo do a great job.)

While I stand by my critique of wolftone's last post, I agree that wolftone's posts are usually insightful, thoughtful and passionate and I welcome them. I'd say wolftone knows a lot more about footy than me too. It's just that in this case I thought the post was way over the top, thought someone should say so and figured it might as well be me.

I hope we can go back to talking about Friday night's game and how we crush the fairypuppies now.

[Ludwig]

Okay. Back to the footy.

Here's a selection question for the rules experts (that means you, Meg, but happy if anyone knows the answer).

Edwards has been elevated to the senior list in place of Rohan.

Suppose:

1. We want to take Papley off the LTIL so he can play in the NEAFL game on Saturday.
2. We also want to play Melican in the AFL game on Friday, but would prefer not to have him elevated for Alex Johnson.

Question 1: Could we leave Papley on the LTIL until after the Friday night match, elevate Melican to take his spot on the senior list, then after Friday match, but before the Saturday Neafl match, Papley is taken off the LTIL and Melican is dropped back to the rookie list?

Question 2: Could Melican and Edwards switch the players they were elevated for so that Edwards could drop back to the rookie list and Melican could stay and take the Rohan spot? (There was something with a similar set of circumstances last year, perhaps involving STK, but I can't the recall the details).



.................................................. ..............................................

This photo and caption appears in the Gallery story on the Swans website. It seems very unfair. Why can't they just let it go. Poor Mikey.



Will Hayward was all smiles before training. Could he know something we don't?

[707]

Players aren't tied to specific LTIs any more, its just a numbers thing, changed the way it operates a couple of seasons back from memory?

We have AJ & Rohan as LTI's so can promote two.

Rumour that Cameron & Hayward are debuting this week. If that's correct maybe Naismith is out too and we'll ruck Tippett mostly with Cameron FF? Hayward would be in for pressure in the forward 50?

[Mountain Man]

The 2 definite outs are a backman in Rampe and a mid in Robinson.

Those 'debuts' would be structurally odd.

[Ludwig]

Players aren't tied to specific LTIs any more, its just a numbers thing, changed the way it operates a couple of seasons back from memory?

We have AJ & Rohan as LTI's so can promote two.

Rumour that Cameron & Hayward are debuting this week. If that's correct maybe Naismith is out too and we'll ruck Tippett mostly with Cameron FF? Hayward would be in for pressure in the forward 50?

Then why did the article about his elevation say that he takes the place of Gary Rohan.

Also, I haven't heard that Papley was taken off the list yet, although I know the 8 weeks are up.

[Matimbo]

Okay. Back to the footy.

Here's a selection question for the rules experts (that means you, Meg, but happy if anyone knows the answer).

Edwards has been elevated to the senior list in place of Rohan.

Suppose:

1. We want to take Papley off the LTIL so he can play in the NEAFL game on Saturday.
2. We also want to play Melican in the AFL game on Friday, but would prefer not to have him elevated for Alex Johnson.

Question 1: Could we leave Papley on the LTIL until after the Friday night match, elevate Melican to take his spot on the senior list, then after Friday match, but before the Saturday Neafl match, Papley is taken off the LTIL and Melican is dropped back to the rookie list?

Question 2: Could Melican and Edwards switch the players they were elevated for so that Edwards could drop back to the rookie list and Melican could stay and take the Rohan spot? (There was something with a similar set of circumstances last year, perhaps involving STK, but I can't the recall the details).

Ludwig, I will defer to those more knowledgeable on this, but my understanding is it is possible to leave the rookie that was originally elevated for Papley on the Primary List after Papley is reinstated if the rookie is then replacing a different player now on the LTIT. I think this applies to your 2nd question.

My source for point 2 is the 2015-2016 CBA, with the relevant clauses below ...

(h) When an AFL Club transfers a Player from the Long Term Injury List back to the
Primary List (?the date of transfer?) and the Rookie who was temporarily promoted to
the Primary List in accordance with clause 14(e) in respect of that Player remains on
the Primary List after the date of transfer:
(i) the Rookie shall be taken into account in calculating the number of Players on
the Primary List for so long as the name of the Rookie remains on the Primary
List after the date of transfer; and
(ii) the Football Payments made to the Rookie in respect of the period his name
remains on the Primary List after the date of transfer shall be taken into
account in calculating the Total Player Payments of that AFL Club.
(i) The provisions of clause 14(h) shall not apply to circumstances where the name of
the Rookie remains on the Primary List after the date of transfer for the purpose of
replacing another Player whose name is on the Long Term Injury List.

I do recall Meg posting about a new CBA recently but I can't find it. Not sure if the LTIT rules changed in it?

Regarding Papley's 8 weeks ... the Swans announced it on 3rd Feb. If they announced it the same day as his official start date, then he is eligible for reinstatement this Fri by my calculations.

[Mel_C]

I noticed on the weekend that the umpires cracked down on the quick "handballs" that were actually throws, (although they missed one from KJ). Hopefully they continue it on Friday and penalise the bulldogs throws. I didn't see their game against the pies so don't know if they were caught out.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

[S.S. Bleeder]

I too don't know what horse has against Aliir. I thought he was ripe early last year but Longmire wouldn't even play him in the preseason matches for long. I got the feeling he was still hoping X Richards came good as a defender but the evidence was Aliir was a far better defender than X Richards will ever be. Whether this is a bit of unconscious racism or just not liking his attacking style I don't know. He seems once again very reluctant to play one of the best defenders in the AFL. WHY? The boy is fit. He played Kizza and he wasn't match fit. He played Mills & Macca in last years GF and they weren't match fit. They were also crap. He played Naismith after as much time out. I must admit I am confused by Longmire's handling of Aliir.

Crikey Wolftone. WTF is this PC crap?

If Longmire was a racist he wouldn't have selected AA in the first place, let alone recruited him. It could be argued that Newman, O'Riordan, Mitchell, Jones, Rose, et al have/had all proven themselves in the 2nds and haven't/hadn't been promoted when they should have been. Is he being racist or discriminatory against them too?

You can't go around throwing the racist card whenever you want and labelling someone, anyone, is a racist without proof. Especially in this day and age when everyone needs to be so PC. That's just not on.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Agreed very long bow to suggest selection decision was based on racism and borderline offensive . Sorry not borderline actually it was offensive

+1

[dimelb]

Did I read a while back that the AFL was going to dispense with the division into seniors and rookies? Roll on the day.