On 08/03/2020 at 04:47, rjay said:

HIs leg speed looks ok to me...

I am more concerned with his reaction time to make decisions with ball in hand though.

Will be interested to watch his development.

Don't you know ever player on Melbourne list must be slow

  On 08/03/2020 at 05:01, Dr. Gonzo said:

Wouldn't we already know if Viney was cited? I thought MRP results would be within 24 hours of each game this year

I think that’s during the home and away season.

MRP results for all Marsh Series games  have been released on the Monday after each weekend, not the day after each game.

  On 08/03/2020 at 00:49, Pates said:

Are we actually worried about Viney’s sling tackle? Commentators keep mentioning it but surely a fine at worst given the Hawks player was totally fine. 

I think a fine would be a fair result.

It honestly didn’t look good in this day in age of concussion and duty of care of protecting the head.

However Stratton didn’t get hurt so I can’t see how a player can get suspended if the “victim” didn’t get hurt or sustained an injury.

  On 08/03/2020 at 06:15, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I think a fine would be a fair result.

It honestly didn’t look good in this day in age of concussion and duty of care of protecting the head.

However Stratton didn’t get hurt so I can’t see how a player can get suspended if the “victim” didn’t get hurt or sustained an injury.

Without commenting on the specific case, I disagree that lack of injury should get a player off.   If I push someone off a cliff and they happen to land in a bush which breaks their fall and they suffer no injury, surely I should pay a penalty for performing a dangerous (possibly murderous) act. 

The degree of injury may be relevant in determining factors relating to the level of 'badness' / intention and of punishment. It is unlikely to throw much light on whether the act itself was 'bad,' though I suppose it could in some cases, so it should be considered. But not as blindly as saying 'no injury, no problem'.

By letting players off when the victim is not injured (which is usually a matter of luck) the AFL has been sending the wrong message for years.  Need to discourage  bad acts even if the transgressor is lucky enough not to have hurt the opponent. (Of course the MRP has been so corrupt that this has been the least of their problems.)

In the current Viney case, I don't see much evidence of a bad act though I'm open to argument and need a clear definition of what is 'bad' by the AFL.

  On 08/03/2020 at 06:15, Bring-Back-Powell said:

I think a fine would be a fair result.

It honestly didn’t look good in this day in age of concussion and duty of care of protecting the head.

However Stratton didn’t get hurt so I can’t see how a player can get suspended if the “victim” didn’t get hurt or sustained an injury.

I'm not disputing what you say because that appears to be the way the MRO operates, but if the AFL is serious about preventing concussion, it needs to penalise for the risk associated with the act not for any injury that it causes. If it is going to make this change, it needs to make sure that the players and coaches know so they can understand the consequences of the players' actions before they choose to bump, sling tackle or punch an opponent.

  On 08/03/2020 at 01:51, willmoy said:

Because the whisper i heard has played on him.....good enough?

In the Hawks game? If not then Lockhart has improved and looked AFL standard to my eyes.

The action should be what is punished, not the outcome. If Viney's tackle was a dangerous tackle, then he deserves punishment.

However, the fact that it appears the tackle didn't impact Stratton at all means a fine should be the maximum punishment. 

Any punishment of Viney will, though, make Crouch's lack of punishment stand out even more.

  On 08/03/2020 at 06:45, titan_uranus said:

The action should be what is punished, not the outcome. If Viney's tackle was a dangerous tackle, then he deserves punishment.

However, the fact that it appears the tackle didn't impact Stratton at all means a fine should be the maximum punishment. 

Any punishment of Viney will, though, make Crouch's lack of punishment stand out even more.

Appreciate you view and fair enough ,  probably used to think the same way. My problem is the inconsistent interpretation of various actions. How often do we see situations with two similar incidents, where one is seen to be a beach and the other not so. The seriousness of the matter clarifies it a bit for me and l have to admit to a bias in this dating back to Jack Trengove/ Patrick Dangerfield.

  On 08/03/2020 at 06:45, titan_uranus said:

The action should be what is punished, not the outcome. If Viney's tackle was a dangerous tackle, then he deserves punishment.

However, the fact that it appears the tackle didn't impact Stratton at all means a fine should be the maximum punishment. 

Any punishment of Viney will, though, make Crouch's lack of punishment stand out even more.

The Marley /Richards case ought to show you and Sue that you can knock the [censored] out of a player, put him la la land and Christian looks the other way. Viney tackles Stratton, he lands on the turf, gets up and plays out the rest of the game with absolutely no consequences.  The only way to counter any  concussion issue is to totally ban tackling. That hasn't happened, you are still able to tackle, that's all Viney did.

Great to get the win, lots of positive signs across the pre-season.

Though can't help but get the feeling that at least a few of the players were holding a bit back until the real stuff, which then had an impact on disposal etc.

Could be wrong.

  On 08/03/2020 at 07:45, dieter said:

The Marley /Richards case ought to show you and Sue that you can knock the [censored] out of a player, put him la la land and Christian looks the other way. Viney tackles Stratton, he lands on the turf, gets up and plays out the rest of the game with absolutely no consequences.  The only way to counter any  concussion issue is to totally ban tackling. That hasn't happened, you are still able to tackle, that's all Viney did.

You don't need to convince me that the MRP is wickedly inconsistent and effectively corrupt.   But clearly there are some tackles very likely to cause concussion or worse and these should be banned.  But the AFL needs to clearly define them and then enforce them as impartially and consistetly as it can.  Not easy because there is a grey area somewhere between picking someone up and dumping them vertically on their head and a tough tackle. 

With Viney I don't think there was a clear secondary action to dump the player, so I think Viney should be OK.  Since I think the action is more important than the result I'd have said that even if the opponent was injured.  Would anyone argue there was a clear secondary action?  Maybe.

  On 07/03/2020 at 10:14, deanox said:

I think the description of ANB as "coaches favorite" shows personal bias unfortunately (this isn't just you either!). The coach likes him because he runs better than almost anyone and generates lots of chances at goal. The coach picks him because no one else has been able to offer those qualities in that position. When other players go past him, he'll get dropped. 

This is spot on!

The game today requires elite runners to hold structure and maintain competitiveness, ANB provides this.

Even though he lacks some polish his strength in providing run and contests is essential - he had 5 (= top) tackles, and 22 (4th) pressure acts. Also snagged a goal and hit a target inside 50 on a fast break (from memory...?)

So yes, 63% DE is less than we'd like, but he earns his spot for mine.

  On 08/03/2020 at 01:51, willmoy said:

Because the whisper i heard has played on him.....good enough?

Well I've watched the first 2 games and he doesn't look slow to my eye. If he is he's certainly reading the play well enough to get plenty of the ball. Is your whisper going on last year when he didn't have much preseason because he certainly ran out of puff last year.

If Viney wanted to hurt him.
He would've.
I'm sure he thought about it.
Then changed his mind.

Fair tackle ..... Play on.

 

  On 08/03/2020 at 09:55, loges said:

Well I've watched the first 2 games and he doesn't look slow to my eye. If he is he's certainly reading the play well enough to get plenty of the ball. Is your whisper going on last year when he didn't have much preseason because he certainly ran out of puff last year.

The demon myth continues,if someone says a Melbourne player is slow in must be true because they all are.

  On 07/03/2020 at 10:16, dieter said:

One of the things I've taken out of this game is the intensity Il Signor Patracca has brought to his game. As far as I know nobody has mentioned his contribution last night but I simply felt awe at how much more he was involved. 

He's fit for the first time.

  On 08/03/2020 at 23:27, Clint Bizkit said:

He's fit for the first time.

Goodwin though noted this improvement became evident towards the latter half of last season.

  On 08/03/2020 at 09:55, loges said:

Well I've watched the first 2 games and he doesn't look slow to my eye. If he is he's certainly reading the play well enough to get plenty of the ball. Is your whisper going on last year when he didn't have much preseason because he certainly ran out of puff last year.

No it was  two to three years ago. By the way he doesn't look slow to me either, and hopefully natural improvement and fitness with decision making, make up the difference.

  On 08/03/2020 at 04:03, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Based on what I've read in this thread (admittedly I haven't read every post) it seems like the back 7 for Round 1 (assuming everyone fit and well) might be:

May, Lever, Salem, Harmes, Jetta and Hibberd plus one of O Mac (if we need an extra tall), Hore (if we need a medium tall) or Lockhart (if we need an additional small). I'm not saying that Lockhart doesn't deserve to play round 1, but if WC play Darling, Kennedy and a resting ruckman forward, won't we need a third tall defender? And if so, where, then, would Lockhart fit in? Is he a better option than Salem, Jetta, Hibberd or Harmes?

I'd change tactics to start the game - 2 talls only but instructions to bring the ball to the ground for both of them - backed by a medium, a floater, and two smalls that establish a varied feed-out routine for our flanking runners to receive. Even a floated midfielder will assist in this carriage, one would hope. 

Viney all clear...phew...not even a fine.

  On 09/03/2020 at 06:06, Dee Zephyr said:

Viney all clear...phew...not even a fine.

Great news.  Good to see some common sense prevail when the words 'Melbourne' and 'tribunal' are potentially in the same sentence together.

Never in doubt.

If he was rubbed out or even fined for that the game is truly doomed.

suck **** Huddo! 

Hudson tried his best to make a big deal about it when commentating the other night. I bet he was one of those kids who liked to dob on everyone else at school.

  On 08/03/2020 at 08:17, sue said:

You don't need to convince me that the MRP is wickedly inconsistent and effectively corrupt.   But clearly there are some tackles very likely to cause concussion or worse and these should be banned.  But the AFL needs to clearly define them and then enforce them as impartially and consistetly as it can.  Not easy because there is a grey area somewhere between picking someone up and dumping them vertically on their head and a tough tackle. 

With Viney I don't think there was a clear secondary action to dump the player, so I think Viney should be OK.  Since I think the action is more important than the result I'd have said that even if the opponent was injured.  Would anyone argue there was a clear secondary action?  Maybe.

Yeah, there was a secondary action but it was almost indiscernible and of negligible impact or effect and, as a result, no case to answer. 

Edited March 9, 20205 yr by Pink Freud
Spell check