https://www.womens.afl/news/86829?_ga=2.20500733.473279029.1645514682-748253986.1643976408 Another match we ignore for keeper leagues
Not sure where to post this but it seems the WCE players in both leagues are locked and cant be changed - can someone please fix? Thanks.
Looking like the season will be in spring from now on, and the 4 new teams will join next season https://www.womens.afl/news/90826/
I think May would be possible and have heard talk of pre-season starting in June if late August is the start of the next season. For all of the AFL's recent enthusiasm late this week the lack of a CBA for season 7 and beyond and lack of consultation and agreement from the players and the AFLPA makes me think that am August 2023 start for season 8 with a season 7 start between October/December is another possible outcome.
Yes, they've made a lot of noise about it considering they don't have that agreement yet. A bluff to get players to agree on a middle ground instead of suggesting October/November in the first place?
https://www.womens.afl/news/90915/q...boost-for-dockers-as-all-aus-defender-returns Finals week 1 - NM vs Freo teams
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03...men-gender-inequality-hormones-hips/100859924 Interesting to see that both junior player pathways and full time professionalism are noted as ways to drive down rates of serious injuries in AFLW including ACLs.
https://www.womens.afl/news/91321/who-s-hanging-up-the-boots-your-club-s-retiring-players Retirements so far
https://www.womens.afl/news/91538/tomorrow-s-stars-new-faces-dominate-22under22-team The under 22 all stars for 2022
Its an incredible team isn't it! A lot of these players are already dominating the competition, or close to it. Studies have shown that mens AFL players generally are in their prime performance between the ages of 25-28, with rucks a little later. I wonder if it is different for women players? It will take a long time to do a proper study I think, because investment in the junior development for girls has improved a lot in recent years, so the young players in the league have had that benefit over some of the older ones, and i think it would be best to wait for that to level out before analysing peak years etc.
You definitely can see the difference between the men’s (developing) and women’s (close to All Oz) under 22 teams. My main nitpick is they once again have included at least one player who was 22 in December (Conti), would prefer a strict 31 December cutoff, or rename it to 22 under 23.
https://www.womens.afl/news/91851/prelim-teams-crows-swing-axe-call-made-on-zanker Prelim teams are in
I believe one needs a subscription to access this news source, but here is a copy and paste AFLW player leads vax mandate challenge in SA (workplaceexpress.com.au) AFLW player leads vax mandate challenge in SA Tuesday, April 05, 2022, 12:08pm In what looms as the country's most sophisticated legal challenge to compulsory workplace vaccinations to date, South Australia's Supreme Court will tomorrow begin hearing a case featuring a frozen-out player from the Australian Football League's elite women's competition, a respected vaccine developer and a former federal court judge. A legal team led by solicitor Loretta Polson and Simon Ower QC will on behalf of AFLW player and nurse Deni Varnhagen mount four arguments against State Police Commissioner Grant Stevens' power to make vaccinations mandatory for health care workers under South Australia's Emergency Management Act 2004. Stevens as 'State Coordinator' has mandated the vaccinations through a succession of emergency declarations since March 2020, most recently last Thursday. The Adelaide Crows last November placed two-time premiership player Varnhagen on its "inactive" list for failing to comply with the AFL's own vaccination rules, after which she was sidelined from her nursing job for refusing to follow the State's health orders. Together with fellow nurse Courtney Millington, Varnhagen is asking Supreme Court Justice Judy Hughes in her judicial review to rule the process underpinning the emergency declarations and mandatory vaccination orders unlawful, thereby making the orders invalid and clearing the way for the plaintiffs and others affected to resume their jobs. Polson and Ower are being advised in their case by retired Federal Circuit Court judge Stuart Lindsay, who recently marched in Adelaide's 'Freedom Rally' (see his 'case update' video to fellow marchers here; read his Quadrant essay on free speech here; listen to his 'Pandemic Unmasked' podcast interview with Federal MP George Christensen here). The plaintiffs will also rely on evidence from Flinders University medical professor Nikolai Petrovski, chair and research director of local vaccine development company Vaxine Pty Ltd. Costs cap agreed In an overview of the case, Polson said that the legislation's emergency powers are ordinarily used only in the event of natural disasters like fires or floods and that in bypassing the government of the day they were also intended be temporary. Polson continued that the four grounds upon which the plaintiffs would base their case are: that the true effect of the Emergency Management Act is that it cannot be used to declare an emergency of any longer than 30 days without the matter going back before both houses of the South Australian Parliament; that, even if the continuation of the emergency is lawful, the Emergency Management Act does not empower the Police Commissioner to make laws in a similar way to an Act of Parliament; that the Police Commissioner was required as a matter of law to consider other effective ways to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 and did not do so; and that, relatedly, the Commissioner is relying upon outdated science referring to the original strains of the virus, and that the science shows that COVID-19 vaccines do not affect the spread of the virus. Polson said that the difference between this case and others run elsewhere in Australia was its focus on the State Emergency Management Act and that none had yet "sought to bring forth scientific evidence regarding the effect of vaccines on transmission". Following a previous hearing, the Crown consented to cap any costs awarded against the plaintiffs at $50,000. The court rejected an application to have the crowdfunded case livestreamed because it lacked the technological capacity. The matter is scheduled for three days, with a fourth day reserved. Varnhagen & Ors v State of South Australia & Anor COV-21-013758
https://www.womens.afl/news/92673/grand-final-teams-crows-make-three-changes Teams named for the Grand Final