Highlights: Roos win thriller against Melbourne

Yeah, I looked that up just before, no problems totally agree with you. Mark Matthews

Under the rules of infectious disease, the AFL should have as a matter, of course, have every player tested regularly and I was under the impression that with this issue of infectious disease they did as a part of the duty of care, if not I stand corrected. You are of course completely right on “Universal Precautions”. Furthermore, I think public safety should override privacy laws regardless of possible stigma and discrimination, which gives an impression through the media of having been eradicated or will this subject also eventually fall under the new escape clause of Mental Health. HIV sent a shudder through the world and in the course of my own work had to be tested for those very concerns you defend and to which I totally agree with. Prudence and precaution are paramount in the workplace so prior to HIV scaring administrators to death, the so-called blood rule was not imposed until liability appeared as a factor. Previous to the blood rule, players wore their blood streaming as a badge of courage, not a medical emergency. But in light of the current world and its degenerative behaviour we now are faced with this blight and any blood flowing freely should be rectified as the rules imply and in today’s climate are completely necessary and just. Unfortunately, I was referring to Norths view of the 90 cap rotations and how they should be consigned not who might or might not have an infectious illness. As I stated; “I stridently hope that the AFL stands firm and leaves the situation alone.” Thank you, Mark Matthews.

BTW.....The Blood Rule specifically comes under AFL Rule 22..........................The Title of AFL Rule 22 is........wait for it.................."INFECTIOUS DISEASES".

I sincerely believe that the issue was raised by Scott in a matter of fact way as an issue. The AFL is already considering his comments, as you do when someone raises a scenario that possibly had not been considered when the conditions were implemented. No drama, no hysterical rantings.. On the subject of Infectious diseases. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The AFL has no cause to test players for Infectious Diseases. Blood tests are very specific and you have to specifically ask for a particular blood test. General blood tests are not specific for HIV or HepC. The very reason the AFL instituted the blood rule was a protection against Blood Bourne Viruses being transmitted. The blood rule was instituted in the wake of the HIV concerns. All medical professionals who treat anyone all take what is known as "Universal Precautions" ie. everyone is assumed to be infectious. This is why AFL trainers, Doctors, Paramedics, Police, Nurses......All wear gloves if there is any blood contamination. The Blood tests for HIV and HepC test for antibodies and those antibodies may not be detectable for months after exposure, therefore you can have HIV or HepC and be walking around for months before they are detectable by blood tests.....All the while being capable of transmitting the illnesses to others. There are also strict privacy laws that protect sufferers of HIV and HepC from having to declare their infectious status, this is protect individuals from stigma and discrimination. I would be interested to know.........If it isn't about prevention of the spread of blood bourne viruses.......What do you actually think the purpose of the blood rule is?

damed if he wins damed if he looses.

Just listened to your podcast about your predictions for North Melbourne this year . Turn it up!!! Can I supply the hat for you guys to eat? Carn the Roos!!

Nonsense, of course he was, imagine if they had lost, Oh dear! Mr. Scott, as a coach should have been totally aware of the rotation rules and their implementation and any contingency issues that may have confronted him over the use of the interchange cap, forced or unforced. To my understanding, if a player leaves the field under the Blood rule that is not counted as a rotation, therefore, he is replaced with no penalty to the total rotation numbers. The fact presented here was that North had burnt their rotations in a naïve way and demonstrated that they failed to understand the rotation philosophy now imposed on the game, due to the fact that they had burnt their 90 rotations, therefore, Norths coach can’t then turn around and say, well, the AFL have to alter the rule on the grounds that we were stupid and don’t understand the nuances of the interchange. The club under the rules had the player substituted, therefore, was the player who was sent onto the field as that replacement, was he of a lesser capability to play, or is his role within the team pathetic under pressure. As a consequence, the club will need to be cognisant of how many changes they will need, even with twenty seconds to go. The subject of infectious diseases? are you serious, who could possibly have an infectious disease with all the testing undertaken through the AFL. Surely if players have Hep C or HIV or any other health ailment that could be possibly transmitted, then under the law of OH&S and WH&S legislation they have a duty to report the illness in which they are "infected" with, not run around ‘willy nilly’, blood rule or no blood rule. I stridently hope that the AFL stands firm and leaves the situation alone. The clubs just have to understand and Manage the game in a more sophisticated way and the North coach has demonstrated that he doesn’t understand or can't. Thank you, Mark Matthews

I didn't interpret it as a whinge. I think Brad Scott was pointing out an unintended consequence of the new interchange rule. A coach can "manage" interchanges perfectly BUT a blood rule change is foist upon you, it is a compulsory change that the coach has no say over. In all likelihood the next time the issue comes up it will not involve North Melbourne. It may well be that if the rule remains unmodified, that coaches now know that they need to keep 1 or 2 changes up their sleeve. Alternatively there could be consideration of blood rule changes being exempt from the interchange tally as they are not tactical changes, they are changes in the interests of lowering the risk of infectious diseases being transmitted.

I see this morning on AFL.com that the North Melbourne coach’s having a whinge about the interchange cap, well coach it’s called “player management”, the North Melbourne Coach stated; “We'd had 90 interchanges and then we had a blood rule and that blood rule was a pretty important player in Petrie," Scott said. "The problem was we couldn't put Drew back on because we'd exceeded the interchange cap. "When you've got a game as tight as that you're looking at tiny little things like that that can cost you. "It's a long bow to draw, but theoretically, you could have a player removed from the ground under the blood rule in pretty ordinary circumstances and then you can't replace him because you've hit your cap.” Well! That’s absolute nonsense, complete rubbish and a child’s view of the new system, that’s why it’s call “player management”, just because you burnt all your interchange caps and didn’t allow for any contingency with regard to blood rules or other innocuous situations, which do not affect the interchange cap rotations number. You just stuffed up but cannot admit it. Of all the games seen this weekend the interchange cap forced a new aggressive fairly uncongested amount of games. On top of that, St Kilda showed that the Cap is inconsequential to achieving victory, and is a shining light of the willingness to win. So to the North Melbourne coach I hope, lesson learned, now learn how to manage a football team, after all, it’s not about you. Thank you, Mark Matthews