Strategy Round 4: Trades

[Bomber18]

Rather desperate not to play Bomber?

The Victorian Department of Health and Human Services will be guiding the AFL.

Not sure how you conclude everyone at training would have come face to face with him for 15 minutes, would say almost no one did. Training would have been outdoors, for less than 2 hours, so would be surprised if anyone in the main session would be deemed close contact by definition.

Sure, the legal “close contact” definition might not be met. But how would you know which players touched the ball which Connor touched? Just cos the definition wasn’t met doesn’t mean it wasn’t spread.

Even if players test negative, based on global health advice, the virus can remain dormant for 14 days so you won’t know who really isn’t infected until a test was conducted 14 days since last Friday

At the end of the day, player safety takes precedence over footy. I would absolutely hate the fallout of any Carlton players becoming infected (that would never be forgotten in any rivalry!).

 

[lappinitup]

Sure, the legal “close contact” definition might not be met. But how would you know which players touched the ball which Connor touched? Just cos the definition wasn’t met doesn’t mean it wasn’t spread.

You say "legal" definition, I say the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services definition and the Australian Government Department of Health definition. The two bodies outlined above are the two bodies taking on board the global health lessons and advice, and implementing measures to ensure Australia is still one of the best countries in the world with containing the spread of this disease.

So do we take their advice on the definition of close contact, or your / members of public concern on spread?

They have put in place measures, such as the close contact rules (and definitions), to contain and minimise the spread. I am not putting my own definitions or rules in play here, simply stating the health authorities who have worldwide been recognised to have managed this extremely well.

If the AFL abide by these rules and definitions, I do not think it is them looking for loopholes to get a game on.

It is more likely others looking for loopholes to get a game off!

 

[lappinitup]

The one out I will give @Bomber18, is that previously I remember seeing something along the lines of direct contact with bodily fluids also fell under the close contact definition.

This appears to have gone missing from most government department definitions, however makes complete sense that is still applies.

Essendon could then argue anyone who tackled and exchanged sweat would fall under that definition? I don't believe sweat on a ball would be deemed direct contact? However, not an expert on what constitutes bodily fluid or direct contact...

 

[inwhiterooms]

Simpkin. I’ve learnt to ignore all rules for young players breaking out. So re Simpkin, I’m of the view he could average 110 this season. Shorter games and season helps as well as he’s less lilely to tire out. He’s coming in for me and 480k still seems like value for him.

Pittonet. I think 110+ is sustainable. He scored 130+ against quality ruck opposition, Gawn and Stanley (who actually competes well against the Grundy/Gawn types). Still worth picking up this round imo.

Fyfe, I’m disappointed not to have started him but he’s a priority for me, even if he hits $700k. On my list for maybe next round if funds permit.

I'm 100% with you here. Happy to have all of the above guys after trading in Simpkin this week.

I'd do some truly horrible things to somehow get Lachie Neale into my midfield, but i'll just need to be patient and wait for a low score (which might not come for some time). I just cannot justify paying 740k for him. Historically paying top dollar rarely works out, Neale got to 697k last season before finally dropping a 91. All it takes is one average game to send that price tumbling.

 

[Grundogging]

Rather desperate not to play Bomber?

The Victorian Department of Health and Human Services will be guiding the AFL.

Not sure how you conclude everyone at training would have come face to face with him for 15 minutes, would say almost no one did. Training would have been outdoors, for less than 2 hours, so would be surprised if anyone in the main session would be deemed close contact by definition.

Those close contact guidelines apply to people who are socially distancing - ie. maintaining a minimum of 1.5m between themselves and others at all times.

The players were in full contact training, including handling balls, breathing hard, shouting, running into tackling bags, contesting the ball, etc and that's hardly what you'd call a normal situation where social distancing was being practised. This is why DHHS is working hard to go over the tape from the training session - Conor clearly had COVID-19 in his system on Friday during the full-contact session so they need to scrutinise everything.

The assertion that Conor was doing a weights session on his own and nobody else used the same equipment so they're all fine is also a bit of a furphy - seizing on the idea that "nobody was spotting for him" is a bit naive, as another player wouldn't even need to be in his immediate vicinity at the same time for contact transfer to occur.

Not pre-empting anything here of course, but some of the click bait news updates that are coming out are naive (hopeful) speculation at best at this point.

 

[Bomber18]

You say "legal" definition, I say the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services definition and the Australian Government Department of Health definition. The two bodies outlined above are the two bodies taking on board the global health lessons and advice, and implementing measures to ensure Australia is still one of the best countries in the world with containing the spread of this disease.

So do we take their advice on the definition of close contact, or your / members of public concern on spread?

They have put in place measures, such as the close contact rules (and definitions), to contain and minimise the spread. I am not putting my own definitions or rules in play here, simply stating the health authorities who have worldwide been recognised to have managed this extremely well.

If the AFL abide by these rules and definitions, I do not think it is them looking for loopholes to get a game on.

It is more likely others looking for loopholes to get a game off!

The one out I will give @Bomber18, is that previously I remember seeing something along the lines of direct contact with bodily fluids also fell under the close contact definition.

This appears to have gone missing from most government department definitions, however makes complete sense that is still applies.

Essendon could then argue anyone who tackled and exchanged sweat would fall under that definition? I don't believe sweat on a ball would be deemed direct contact? However, not an expert on what constitutes bodily fluid or direct contact...

It’s more the talk about analysing video footage to see if players had “15 minutes” of close contact with Connor which sounds like searching for legal loopholes to me.

You only need one second of contact to be at risk of becoming infected.

As you say as well, bodily fluids are easily exchanged through tackling.

I am just hoping like hell no one else got infected and that a Carlton player doesn’t end up being injected. People hate essendon enough already!

 

[Ricky Bobby]

The one out I will give @Bomber18, is that previously I remember seeing something along the lines of direct contact with bodily fluids also fell under the close contact definition.

This appears to have gone missing from most government department definitions, however makes complete sense that is still applies.

Essendon could then argue anyone who tackled and exchanged sweat would fall under that definition? I don't believe sweat on a ball would be deemed direct contact? However, not an expert on what constitutes bodily fluid or direct contact...

Did you see the vision of Connor gobbing & snotting everywhere at training? I reckon there is a fair chance that some of it got spread around

 

[Bomber18]

Did you see the vision of Connor gobbing & snotting everywhere at training? I reckon there is a fair chance that some of it got spread around

I did. It was poor that he was training in that manner. Club said he didn’t have symptoms but it didn’t look that way.

He did test negative before that session though.

 

[Grundogging]

Simpkin. I’ve learnt to ignore all rules for young players breaking out. So re Simpkin, I’m of the view he could average 110 this season. Shorter games and season helps as well as he’s less lilely to tire out. He’s coming in for me and 480k still seems like value for him.

Pittonet. I think 110+ is sustainable. He scored 130+ against quality ruck opposition, Gawn and Stanley (who actually competes well against the Grundy/Gawn types). Still worth picking up this round imo.

Fyfe, I’m disappointed not to have started him but he’s a priority for me, even if he hits $700k. On my list for maybe next round if funds permit.

Sometimes the eye test tells you something that the rules doesn't really cater for - both Simpkin and Rowell have shown a degree of poise in close and an ability to hit targets as well as doing the defensive stuff which really stands out.

I also suspect that they are heavily benefiting from the "must use 3300 points" phenomenon, where in virtually every game the 1-3 players who are standouts for the winning and losing teams score 20-30+ points more heavily than the next group for their team as a result of the heavy in-quarter and end of game scaling.

In past seasons this has been a lot more spread out and gradual, but this year in almost every game there has been that small group who have outscored everyone else heavily.

 

[Bomber18]

Sometimes the eye test tells you something that the rules doesn't really cater for - both Simpkin and Rowell have shown a degree of poise in close and an ability to hit targets as well as doing the defensive stuff which really stands out.

I also suspect that they are heavily benefiting from the "must use 3300 points" phenomenon, where in virtually every game the 1-3 players who are standouts for the winning and losing teams score 20-30+ points more heavily than the next group for their team as a result of the heavy in-quarter and end of game scaling.

In past seasons this has been a lot more spread out and gradual, but this year in almost every game there has been that small group who have outscored everyone else heavily.

Simpkin passed the eye test with flying colours for me. Agree with your summation!

 

[WindyHillWizard]

It’s more the talk about analysing video footage to see if players had “15 minutes” of close contact with Connor which sounds like searching for legal loopholes to me.

You only need one second of contact to be at risk of becoming infected.

As you say as well, bodily fluids are easily exchanged through tackling.

I am just hoping like hell no one else got infected and that a Carlton player doesn’t end up being injected. People hate essendon enough already!

Good points raised. Taking a small risk now puts the whole season at risk - with a potential 2nd and 3rd + positive test - the season could be put on-hold. Then the Essendon hate will go to another level.

 

[Bomber18]

Good points raised. Taking a small risk now puts the whole season at risk - with a potential 2nd and 3rd + positive test - the season could be put on-hold. Then the Essendon hate will go to another level.

To think the Essendon hate could get any worse since ASAGA! ?

 

[lappinitup]

Those close contact guidelines apply to people who are socially distancing - ie. maintaining a minimum of 1.5m between themselves and others at all times.

I wasn't aware we now have two definitions of close contact coming from our health authorities in relation to Covid-19?

IF we are deemed to be governed by close contact rules by the Health Departments, I suspect the definition will be the same!

I also suspect the direct exchange of bodily fluids line (that is now missing from many definitions online, however I know it was previously included), is the only line that trips up the game.

People on this forum don't make up the definition or get to govern based on what they think looks right or wrong (The AFL might try), it will be the department guidelines and rules / definitions that will be followed and applied.

No contact full training sessions seems a no brainer moving forward! Isolate contact to smaller groups of 8/9.

If one group of 8/9 test positive, the game moves forward!

 

[freowho]

Did you see the vision of Connor gobbing & snotting everywhere at training? I reckon there is a fair chance that some of it got spread around

Wish they would stop showing that vision.

 

[Toothless Tigers]

To think the Essendon hate could get any worse since ASAGA! ?

I think it is sheer disbelief that another player from Essendon would blatantly break COVID 19 protocol after the club was warned about BZT.

To compound the issue the Xavier Campbell comes out and says the game should be postponed because it is unfair on Essendon.

 

[Bomber18]

I think it is sheer disbelief that another player from Essendon would blatantly break COVID 19 protocol after the club was warned about BZT.

To compound the issue the Xavier Campbell comes out and says the game should be postponed because it is unfair on Essendon.

I haven’t read any announcement from the AFL confirming that any protocol was broken or issuing any punishment on Connor for breaking protocol. I’ve seen journalists post certain speculation but haven’t seen anything to confirm that this was outside guidelines etc.

 

[Dazza]

Trades at this stage

Pickett out (Budarick >Mid, Brander >Fwd) Doedee Def in
Whitfield out Simpkin in

Still looking at
Jacobs out Pittonet in

 

[Grundogging]

I wasn't aware we now have two definitions of close contact coming from our health authorities in relation to Covid-19?

IF we are deemed to be governed by close contact rules by the Health Departments, I suspect the definition will be the same!

I also suspect the direct exchange of bodily fluids line (that is now missing from many definitions online, however I know it was previously included), is the only line that trips up the game.

People on this forum don't make up the definition or get to govern based on what they think looks right or wrong (The AFL might try), it will be the department guidelines and rules / definitions that will be followed and applied.

No contact full training sessions seems a no brainer moving forward! Isolate contact to smaller groups of 8/9.

If one group of 8/9 test positive, the game moves forward!

Once again the guidelines around close contact triggers are based on social distancing guidelines and research which shows that it takes on average 15 minutes for people in the same enclosed space to facilitate surface-based contact transfer. It's not about making up a definition - it's just common sense that when players are exerting themselves in close-contact training drills the risk of transfer is far greater.

This more than anything is why AFL teams and officials are in the bubble, as their best (and realistically only) defence is keeping the virus out of the AFL system because once it takes hold even to a small degree it's game over for the season.

It'll be interesting to see how DHHS assesses this, we'll just have to wait and see how this all pans out as it will set a precedent for the inevitable future cases we'll see.

 

[Grundogging]

I haven’t read any announcement from the AFL confirming that any protocol was broken or issuing any punishment on Connor for breaking protocol. I’ve seen journalists post certain speculation but haven’t seen anything to confirm that this was outside guidelines etc.

Even without the official announcement Conor attending an open house to inspect a property (only private inspections are permitted) and then visiting the family who took him in when he first arrived in Australia (strictly prohibited) both fall within the self-isolation guidelines issued to clubs and players. The breaches are there for all to see, it's just a case of how the AFL handles them.

I also think they're just taking their time and giving some due consideration to his mental state - I have no doubt he undertook both activities innocently rather than deliberately seeking to break the rules so that is probably also being taken into account. Can't imagine what is going through the poor young bloke's head right now, especially given he was 50-50 about coming back at all and now this happens.

 

[Ricky Bobby]

Trades at this stage

Pickett out (Budarick >Mid, Brander >Fwd) Doedee Def in
Whitfield out Simpkin in

Still looking at
Jacobs out Pittonet in

I though you had posted your trades in the wrong thread... But you are in the right place

Your trades look pretty good to me