Jump to content

Featured Replies

4 minutes ago, tdavis said:

 

WOW.  Most uncharacteristic of Ben. 

How did this escape the keen eyes of our DL Casey followers!

Sam gets another go.

Edited by Lucifers Hero

 
1 minute ago, tdavis said:

Looks like Weideman will stay in the side. Haven’t seen the incident but that sounds incredibly out of character for Ben Brown.

Bizarre! Literally the last bloke in the league you'd think would get suspended for anything, let alone striking.

I saw the incident live. It was a coat-hanger tackle early on in the game. It was a clear free kick, and I thought a harsh judge could make a case for a fine or even a week, but two weeks for that?!? Seems outrageous to me. 

EDIT: Different incident my apologies!

Edited by Bang Bang Bang

 

Difficult to appeal the BB suspension because if the two weeks is upheld he misses vs Tigers on ANZAC Eve.  If he accepts the one week he just misses the Giants game.

Still flabbergasted!

Any vision floating around.

5 minutes ago, Bang Bang Bang said:

I saw the incident live. It was a coat-hanger tackle early on in the game. It was a clear free kick, and I thought a harsh judge could make a case for a fine or even a week, but two weeks for that?!? Seems outrageous to me. 

Did the other guy leave the field or was concussed?

Edited by Lucifers Hero


2 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Did the other guy leave the field or was concussed?

He got straight up to take his kick. Can only assume the doctor's report stitched Ben up or the VFL have a different set of rules to the MRO. You have to do some pretty bad damage to get two weeks in the AFL. 

By the way, there may be another incident I didn't catch (didn't watch the full game) - but knowing Ben Brown this tackle is highly likely to be the incident. 

13 minutes ago, Bang Bang Bang said:

I saw the incident live. It was a coat-hanger tackle early on in the game. It was a clear free kick, and I thought a harsh judge could make a case for a fine or even a week, but two weeks for that?!? Seems outrageous to me. 

Where did it happen?

I was in the stands in the first quarter and we were kicking to the stand end and i don't recall it. Definitely no injury break in play or Willy player taken off the ground - so no concussion i don't think (though its possible they tested him at a break and he didn't come back on)   

Might explain why they were into him the whole match. They barely gave him a moment of peace - and atone point he got bowled over by his opponent, number 29, when the ball was miles away (i happened to be watching him on binos because of the ongoing niggle and i thought that incident was borderline reportable) 

Would be amazing given Mitch Brown was knocked out last week, didn't play this week and far as i know no report was made despite it being clearly caught on camera (you can see it in the replay)

Edited by binman

18 minutes ago, Bang Bang Bang said:

He got straight up to take his kick. Can only assume the doctor's report stitched Ben up or the VFL have a different set of rules to the MRO. You have to do some pretty bad damage to get two weeks in the AFL. 

By the way, there may be another incident I didn't catch (didn't watch the full game) - but knowing Ben Brown this tackle is highly likely to be the incident. 

Thanks.

Based on the AFL 'calculator' it looks like it was rated:  Careless, Medium Impact, High Contact.  If it was rated as Careless, Low Impact, High Contact it would just be a fine.

If the guy just bounced up it is hard to see how it was rated 'Medium'.  I would think the VFL would have to rate incidents on AFL rules, especially for AFL listed players.

Edit:  Just saw the report:

It was classed as intentional conduct with low impact and high contact for a two-match ban which can be reduced to a one-game sanction. https://www.afl.com.au/news/740734/from-h-s-protocols-to-vfl-ban-flag-demon-s-return-on-hold-again.

Edited by Lucifers Hero

 
3 minutes ago, Bang Bang Bang said:

He got straight up to take his kick. Can only assume the doctor's report stitched Ben up or the VFL have a different set of rules to the MRO. You have to do some pretty bad damage to get two weeks in the AFL. 

By the way, there may be another incident I didn't catch (didn't watch the full game) - but knowing Ben Brown this tackle is highly likely to be the incident. 

Or just a different person as the MRO. 

I'm not judging the VFL MRO's decision, but the process is always going to be very subjective and different people can come to differing views on the same incident even using the same process.


10 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

If this the incident, Ben has a hand on the ball and the guy has floppy knees..

It's not that incident.

Photo caption is: "Ben Brown tackles Teia Miles high..."

Report says: "two-game suspension for striking Williamstown's Max Philpot"

3 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

It's not that incident.

Photo caption is: "Ben Brown tackles Teia Miles high..."

Report says: "two-game suspension for striking Williamstown's Max Philpot"

Thanks.  Dumb caption not relevant to the story.  Just confuses the whole thing.

 

Have taken the photo still out of my post to avoid creating further confusion.

Edited by Lucifers Hero

Well this could make the decision simple. Give Brown the week off to get fit and firing, if both have good games then BBB plays VFL, if one has a poor game then they make way for Ben, if they both have poor games then I’d say Weid has had his shot and he makes way. 

I just saw the vision on Twitter. How in the hell is that 2 weeks? Talk about tall poppy syndrome 


16 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

It's not that incident.

Photo caption is: "Ben Brown tackles Teia Miles high..."

Report says: "two-game suspension for striking Williamstown's Max Philpot"

Pretty sure that I was commenting on the tackle captured in the photo, so please disregard my initial commentary on the matter.  Clearly Ben is a naughtier boy than I thought, two incidents in one game! 

4 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

 

Looks like he hit him with the elbow or the forearm, behind play when unsuspecting.

I think we will accept the one week.

1 minute ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

Lucky to get offered 1, pretty blatant

 

 

 

 

It was classed as intentional conduct with low impact and high contact for a two-match ban which can be reduced to a one-game sanction. https://www.afl.com.au/news/740734/from-h-s-protocols-to-vfl-ban-flag-demon-s-return-on-hold-again.

Looks about right...it might be a reprieve for Tommy or Weid...then again we might try something else.


Don't think Benny meant to flush him and unfortunately he'll have to cop the week, but the Willy defender deserved every bit of it.

It's completely dodgy off the ball blocking and it's coming in to Brown's space to create contact way off the ball.

The defender leaves his direct opponent to block Brown and comes in right at him with his arms up to block him. The kind of motion that's seen Ryder in trouble this week.

Doesn't justify flushing him on the chin but Brown was well within his rights to strike at him because he's flat out cheating and making completely unnecessary contact.

Cut out the off ball cheating and you cut out the contact entirely.

36 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Coming a week after Mitch Brown was put out of the game against Essendon and at least another week by a blow behind the play, this sounds like cruel justice to me.

F#*K DOUBLE AND TRIPPLE F#*K

So BBB gets done for that?? YET the imjectiondon incident which outed Mitch Brown goes unpunished? RUBBISH VFL GARBAGE

 
19 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

I just saw the vision on Twitter. How in the hell is that 2 weeks? Talk about tall poppy syndrome 

Because you can't elbow a bloke to the head area. 

Regardless of what people think he deserves the 2 weeks. 

The AFL are trying to stamp out this behind the play stuff. If he's had a delay concussion out of this then it justifies a suspension. 

Braydon Pruess copped the same suspension for his exact same act.

The head area is sacred.  Pretty simple.

 

You know what Id still Drop Weeds and Play Smith or even Van Royen up forward!


Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Featured Content

  • CASEY: Collingwood

    It was freezing cold at Mission Whitten Stadium where only the brave came out in the rain to watch a game that turned out to be as miserable as the weather.
    The Casey Demons secured their third consecutive victory, earning the four premiership points and credit for defeating a highly regarded Collingwood side, but achieved little else. Apart perhaps from setting the scene for Monday’s big game at the MCG and the Ice Challenge that precedes it.
    Neither team showcased significant skill in the bleak and greasy conditions, at a location that was far from either’s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • NON-MFC: Round 13

    Follow all the action from every Round 13 clash excluding the Dees as the 2025 AFL Premiership Season rolls on. With Melbourne playing in the final match of the round on King's Birthday, all eyes turn to the rest of the competition. Who are you tipping to win? And more importantly, which results best serve the Demons’ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Thanks
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last year’s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Club’s performance more than its 1.12 final half, particularly the eight consecutive behinds in the last term, against a struggling St Kilda team in the midst of a dismal losing streak. Just when stability and consistency were anticipated within the Demon ranks, they delivered a quintessential performance marked by instability and ill-conceived decisions, with the most striking aspect being their inaccuracy in kicking for goal, which suggested a lack of preparation (instead of sleeping in their hotel in Alice, were they having a night on the turps) rather than a well-rested team. Let’s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the team’s neck.

      • Thanks
    • 1 reply
  • CASEY: Sydney

    The Casey Demons were always expected to emerge victorious in their matchup against the lowly-ranked Sydney Swans at picturesque Tramway Oval, situated in the shadows of the SCG in Moore Park. They dominated the proceedings in the opening two and a half quarters of the game but had little to show for it. This was primarily due to their own sloppy errors in a low-standard game that produced a number of crowded mauls reminiscent of the rugby game popular in old Sydney Town. However, when the Swans tired, as teams often do when they turn games into ugly defensive contests, Casey lifted the standard of its own play and … it was off to the races. Not to nearby Randwick but to a different race with an objective of piling on goal after goal on the way to a mammoth victory. At the 25-minute mark of the third quarter, the Demons held a slender 14-point lead over the Swans, who are ahead on the ladder of only the previous week's opposition, the ailing Bullants. Forty minutes later, they had more than fully compensated for the sloppiness of their earlier play with a decisive 94-point victory, that culminated in a rousing finish which yielded thirteen unanswered goals. Kicks hit their targets, the ball found itself going through the middle and every player made a contribution.

      • Thanks
      • Like
    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterday’s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourne’s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldn’t get any worse. Well, it did. And what’s even more damning for the Melbourne Football Club is that the game against St Kilda and its resurgence from the bottomless pit of its miserable start to the season wasn’t just lost through poor conversion for goal but rather in the 15 minutes when the entire team went into a slumber and was mugged by the out-of-form Saints. Their six goals two behinds (one goal less than the Demons managed for the whole game) weaved a path of destruction from which they were unable to recover. Ross Lyon’s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourne’s self-destructive wastefulness, assured that outcome. The old adage about the insanity of repeatedly doing something and expecting a different result, was out there. Two years ago, the score line in Melbourne’s loss to the Giants at this same ground was 5 goals 15 behinds - a ratio of one goal per four scoring shots - was perfectly replicated with yesterday’s 7 goals 21 behinds. 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. I’ll put forward a few that come to mind from this performance. The obvious first question is whether the club can find a suitable coach to instruct players on proper kicking techniques or is this a skill that can no longer be developed at this stage of the development of our playing group? Another concern is the team's ability to counter an opponent's dominance during a run on as exemplified by the Saints in the first quarter. Did the Demons underestimate their opponents, considering St Kilda's goals during this period were scored by relatively unknown forwards? Furthermore, given the modest attendance of 6,721 at TIO Traeger Park and the team's poor past performances at this venue, is it prudent to prioritize financial gain over potentially sacrificing valuable premiership points by relinquishing home ground advantage, notwithstanding the cultural significance of the team's connection to the Red Centre? 

      • Thanks
    • 4 replies
  • PREGAME: Collingwood

    After a disappointing loss in Alice Springs the Demons return to the MCG to take on the Magpies in the annual King's Birthday Big Freeze for MND game. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • Thanks
    • 527 replies