22 hours ago, Perago Validus said:

Here's the deal from my view guys. We've missed a GOLDEN opportunity to be something in a league that WILL grow in the coming years and will only become bigger than we could imagine. Next year it'll grow to 8 the year after 10, and it'll jut keep growing. We've had the best squad the last two years and have missed narrowly each time, due not to lack of talent but our coaches instruction RE conversion and forward 50 entries. I really hope Stinear gets the boot and we can get a coach next year minus unfortunately Mithen, Cranston, Hoare and others who will take us to the flag! Those lost playes WILL be Stinear's legacy. 

Where are Mithen and Cranston going?

Geelong

As expansion comes we'll be diluted. 

We just missed the best opportunity to snag a cup and establish our real bone fide as a power club.

Ive seen under 16's playva cleverer style of footy.

I don't think the game coaching was at all where it needed to be.

Wasted opportunity. 

Back to drawing board Dees. Have a good and proper think.

Next year much harder.

On 18/03/2018 at 12:24 PM, McQueen said:

This top two teams playing off is going to fail miserably with 10 or more teams.

 

Needs to be top 4 play a final to decide who makes the GF. Otherwise you end up with percentage kicking people from a GF which doesn’t sit right with me co spidering the different conditions the teams all play in. 

Katie Brennan has not only lost her appeal against the one match suspension the Tribunal has made it two weeks! 

Don't from which rule book they pulled that one from!  iirc, an AFL player can now appeal and pay $10,000 but there is no risk of a higher penalty if appeal fails.   Different rules for AFLW?

In this case the MRP penalty for the 'rough conduct'(sling tackle) was a reprimand.  But because this was her second reprimand of the season it automatically results in a week off.  This seems a dumb rule as 'rough conduct' can be anything.

I think a week off for a sling tackle is fair but the rules as applied seem bizarre.

I feel for Katie.  There were far worse things in that game that didn't even get a free kick yet she misses the GF.  

I would be shattered if that was our captain, Daisy. 

According to Sam Edmund, the club wants our women's team to do a lap of honour before our round 1 game. The girls aren't keen apparently, as they want to save it for when they actually achieve something.

Surely this won't help the 'Melbourne getting ahead of themselves' narrative

32 minutes ago, Mickey said:

According to Sam Edmund, the club wants our women's team to do a lap of honour before our round 1 game. The girls aren't keen apparently, as they want to save it for when they actually achieve something.

Surely this won't help the 'Melbourne getting ahead of themselves' narrative

Why?  It beggars belief!

The club has its priorities wrong if it wants to celebrate missing the Grand Final for two years in a row on % when we had it in our control. 

Its no wonder the men's team 'drinks its own bathwater' when the club has a 'celebrate a non-achievement' mindset.

MFC should listen to Daisy and her players. 

Edited March 21, 20187 yr by Lucifer's Hero

Can someone explain to me what the go is regarding the Katie Brennan tackle?

More specifically, I thought it was a pretty textbook case of a sling tackle and given it's her second offence of a similar nature, I can't see any reason why anyone would reverse the ruling, although I can totally see why the Bulldogs would be appealing the decision.

The issue I have is that a sling tackle in the AFL for men can result in suspension.... but why was Brennan's tackle determined as reckless or something that would only result in a fine in the Mens' comp?  I understand that due to the nature of the women's comp that fines are not part of the tribunal process (given it's not fully professional) but Brennan slung the player to the ground and they had their arms pinned. It's unfortunate but it was excessive force as per interpretation of the rules IMO.

Did Michael Christian classify it too leniently? or did he classify it appropriately to enable the correct penalty for the AFLW comp?

Now it seems like the Dogs and Brennan are claiming discrimination with the Human Rights commission because if her ruling was interpreted for the mens comp she would only have copped a fine, but in this comp she if it was classified using a penalty in the Men's comp, would she have copped an even larger suspension than the 1 to 2 week which would have been a massive suspension in a 7 week comp. 

Thoughts??

2 hours ago, Ouch! said:

Can someone explain to me what the go is regarding the Katie Brennan tackle?

More specifically, I thought it was a pretty textbook case of a sling tackle and given it's her second offence of a similar nature, I can't see any reason why anyone would reverse the ruling, although I can totally see why the Bulldogs would be appealing the decision.

The issue I have is that a sling tackle in the AFL for men can result in suspension.... but why was Brennan's tackle determined as reckless or something that would only result in a fine in the Mens' comp?  I understand that due to the nature of the women's comp that fines are not part of the tribunal process (given it's not fully professional) but Brennan slung the player to the ground and they had their arms pinned. It's unfortunate but it was excessive force as per interpretation of the rules IMO.

Did Michael Christian classify it too leniently? or did he classify it appropriately to enable the correct penalty for the AFLW comp?

Now it seems like the Dogs and Brennan are claiming discrimination with the Human Rights commission because if her ruling was interpreted for the mens comp she would only have copped a fine, but in this comp she if it was classified using a penalty in the Men's comp, would she have copped an even larger suspension than the 1 to 2 week which would have been a massive suspension in a 7 week comp. 

Thoughts??

I think you have understood it very well.

I don't know of the classifications these days but if Christian had classified it the same as Dangerfield's sling tackle late last year, Brennan would have got a week.  Same result but with less confusion.  WB could have appealed but on different grounds and we wouldn't have the Human Rights case that is now brewing.

Now it seems like it is 'the system' (ie two reprimands = one week suspension) that is the problem (ie different penalty to men's rules), rather than the incident.  I think it deserved a week but Christian should have called it for what it was. 

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

I think you have understood it very well.

I don't know of the classifications these days but if Christian had classified it the same as Dangerfield's sling tackle late last year, Brennan would have got a week.  Same result but with less confusion.  WB could have appealed but on different grounds and we wouldn't have the Human Rights case that is now brewing.

Now it seems like it is 'the system' (ie two reprimands = one week suspension) that is the problem (ie different penalty to men's rules), rather than the incident.  I think it deserved a week but Christian should have called it for what it was. 

Ok, so I wasn't missing anything.

After seeing how that tackle 'ended up' I don't think anyone should be surprised about the suspension. The intent however is based upon the training that these players do. The goal is to immobilise the player and either pin the ball to the player or force the ball to be released. I don't disagree with Brennan's comments that she executed the tackle exactly as she would have been taught at training, however pinning both arms, slinging and not giving the player the chance to protect themselves from impact cost her a spot in the Grand Final.

There has been no outrage in the media other than feelings for Brennan missing out on the biggest game of the season. I think everyone knows that tackle, whether in AFL or AFLW, is going to end up costing the player executing it. The men know the risks when they tackle and it turns out wrong,... Brennan and the AFLW know this now too. 

1 week in a  7 week comp = missing 14% of the season.  1 week out of 27 weeks is ~4%. That is the inequity between competitions.

 

god i hate footscray