6 minutes ago, hemingway said:

Good stuff Macca. I just think it’s important for committed supporters to fully appreciate present times and not to get too far ahead of ourselves. 

As a supporter I like to speculate in a positive way whenever possible as I don't feel that I actually influence anything anyway

In other words, the club isn't taking any notice of me!! I'm just a number

I'm a great believer in pure talent and having plenty of that type of player ... get that done and it's a sure sign that everything else is working well (Board, FD, Coaching, Recruiting, Finances etc etc)

46 minutes ago, Macca said:

As a supporter I like to speculate in a positive way whenever possible as I don't feel that I actually influence anything anyway

In other words, the club isn't taking any notice of me!! I'm just a number

I'm a great believer in pure talent and having plenty of that type of player ... get that done and it's a sure sign that everything else is working well (Board, FD, Coaching, Recruiting, Finances etc etc)

It's getting off the topic, but your comment about "pure talent and having plenty of that type of player" is an interesting one. Firstly, the salary cap essentially limits the number of players any club can have with "pure talent". Secondly, one of the criticisms of GWS has been that perhaps it had too many players of "pure talent" and not enough of the other type ("role players", "players prepared to get their hands dirty", or any other euphemism you prefer). In other words, the system requires teams to have a "balanced" list made up of skill and grunt. If you can combine the two in as many players as possible, all the better.

4 hours ago, IRW said:

Of course,  so wouldn't it be nice to close the " please please please.." thread.

Anyhow it seems the Club thinks that 2 weeks was a fair penalty.

Funny about that

I presume that's a presumption?

We are three injuries away from last season.

16 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

I presume that's a presumption?

If it wasn't fair under the circumstances they would surely contest it 

Kossie was fortunate to get two.

Airborne,after the kick ,could have spoiled,could have caused a concussion. Obviously intentional .

 

 

25 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

We are three injuries away from last season.

Considering we had 4 the last game I disagree.

13 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Leigh Matthews was wary when asked whether players owe their opponents a duty of care.

“On the footy field, your duty of care is to play to the rules,” Matthews said.

This must be a joke !!! Leigh Matthews what a joke. His king hit on Peter Giles was one of worst hits of all time. 
And the Neville Bruns incident must be wiped from the history books. Matthews was a great footballer but a thug as well. 

He king his Steven Smith as well. Could not stop himself. Astonishing the career he has had when you think how Muir was treated.

16 minutes ago, IRW said:

If it wasn't fair under the circumstances they would surely contest it 

Kossie was fortunate to get two.

Airborne,after the kick ,could have spoiled,could have caused a concussion. Obviously intentional .

 

 

Not smart either, coming as the legal cases for concussion compensation fire up.

Still, the inconsistency with Buddy' penalty is annoying. How many times has Buddy been reported/rubbed out?

The way certain clubs are treated is truly weird. Michael Christian must go. He is no good and never has been any good.

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It's getting off the topic, but your comment about "pure talent and having plenty of that type of player" is an interesting one. Firstly, the salary cap essentially limits the number of players any club can have with "pure talent". Secondly, one of the criticisms of GWS has been that perhaps it had too many players of "pure talent" and not enough of the other type ("role players", "players prepared to get their hands dirty", or any other euphemism you prefer). In other words, the system requires teams to have a "balanced" list made up of skill and grunt. If you can combine the two in as many players as possible, all the better.

Agree with a lot you've said there but GWS lack soul and real passion from an overall perspective.  They are like Leipzig in the German league although because of the RedBull $Billions they play Champions league

I also made mention of FD, Board, Coaching, Finances & Recruiting but did it in reverse.  So it's not just about having a top list ... that's the end result

And the top clubs for years have been retaining top players for less money* thus off-setting the salary cap restrictions.  Can we do the same?

My thinking is that if we lose good players who might be fringe (top list related) we can replace those types with draftees that cost a lot less money

*Numerous mentions have been made in that area (less money for top players)

I agree with this ban and think it’s long overdue, but I’m curious as to whether he’s the first player to get suspended for a bump that caused zero (or at the very least, very minimal) harm?  

2 hours ago, pitmaster said:

Not smart either, coming as the legal cases for concussion compensation fire up.

Still, the inconsistency with Buddy' penalty is annoying. How many times has Buddy been reported/rubbed out?

The way certain clubs are treated is truly weird. Michael Christian must go. He is no good and never has been any good.

In the past, a player's history was taken into consideration when penalties were determined. I think that methodology no longer applies, although I think it should - both for repeat offenders and conversely for the genuine good guys who make a one-off mistake.

I see McAdam got 3 games.

Do they work on some sort of number sequence at AFL.

There's no other explanation !!

[censored] me! Can they get sillier?!!!!!

26 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I see McAdam got 3 games.

Do they work on some sort of number sequence at AFL.

There's no other explanation !!

[censored] me! Can they get sillier?!!!!!

It's the AFLs version of the Fibonacci sequence

23 minutes ago, Stiff Arm said:

It's the AFLs version of the Fibonacci sequence

That's very clever Stiffy!!!!

And ......sadly .... no doubt correct.

Edited March 21, 20232 yr by Bitter but optimistic

I’ve watched the hits again and I’m going to change my view a bit. Buddy was the only one that had a clean hit on the head. Both Kozzie and McAdams had incidental , secondary head contact and thus I’d say that contact for Buddy was intentional whilst mcadams and Kozzy was careless. 

I won’t debate the Impact grade as it’s a dogs breakfast trying to work that out, but ultimately Lance should have received the biggest penalty out of all 3.

 

 

Three hits to the head which don’t cause a concussion with three different outcomes.

47 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I’ve watched the hits again and I’m going to change my view a bit. Buddy was the only one that had a clean hit on the head. Both Kozzie and McAdams had incidental , secondary head contact and thus I’d say that contact for Buddy was intentional whilst mcadams and Kozzy was careless. 

I won’t debate the Impact grade as it’s a dogs breakfast trying to work that out, but ultimately Lance should have received the biggest penalty out of all 3.

 

 

Yeah I'm thinking that too. Franklin's had the most potential for serious damage. 

 

1 hour ago, DutchDemons said:

Three hits to the head which don’t cause a concussion with three different outcomes.

And you’re surprised?

Kozzie got his right whack (lucky it wasn’t more imo)

3 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I see McAdam got 3 games.

Do they work on some sort of number sequence at AFL.

There's no other explanation !!

[censored] me! Can they get sillier?!!!!!

Don't give them ideas, BBO ...

3 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I’ve watched the hits again and I’m going to change my view a bit. Buddy was the only one that had a clean hit on the head. Both Kozzie and McAdams had incidental , secondary head contact and thus I’d say that contact for Buddy was intentional whilst mcadams and Kozzy was careless. 

I won’t debate the Impact grade as it’s a dogs breakfast trying to work that out, but ultimately Lance should have received the biggest penalty out of all 3.

 

 

you think Buddy deserved more than McAdam??? thank christ you’re not the MRO

7 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

In the past, a player's history was taken into consideration when penalties were determined. I think that methodology no longer applies, although I think it should - both for repeat offenders and conversely for the genuine good guys who make a one-off mistake.

Andrew Gaff being a prime example. 

It's going on and on.  Bring on tomorrow nights footy FFS!!

https://www.afl.com.au/news/886962/crows-to-appeal-mcadam-ban-as-bump-debate-rolls-on

5 minutes ago, Vipercrunch said:

It's going on and on.  Bring on tomorrow nights footy FFS!!

https://www.afl.com.au/news/886962/crows-to-appeal-mcadam-ban-as-bump-debate-rolls-on

While I think the MRO and Tribunal decisions are too often a toin coss biased towards famous players, I'm not inclined to bag our club for rarely appealing.  But given Crows are appealing for an almost identical hit as Pickett's which actually injured the opponent, I am perplexed. Are we too compliant, or Crows to much the other way or maybe Pickett didn't want the fuss?

11 hours ago, DubDee said:

you think Buddy deserved more than McAdam??? thank christ you’re not the MRO

Absolutely he does. Don’t get fooled by all the hype and inuendo in the media. He is protected by all. Buddy’s hit was not a football action and was direct to the opponents head. 

The check that both Kozzy and McAdams performed were only problematic as the opponent was not in the right state to protect themselves and hence secondary impact to the head was inevitable . Now I don’t support these acts by any stretch and I think they should be outlawed as the have, but Buddys cheap hit was vile, unprofessional and had actual intent to impact the head - which has been overlooked by all.

Just now, sue said:

While I think the MRO and Tribunal decisions are too often a toin coss biased towards famous players, I'm not inclined to bag our club for rarely appealing.  But given Crows are appealing for an almost identical hit as Pickett's which actually injured the opponent, I am perplexed. Are we too compliant, or Crows to much the other way or maybe Pickett didn't want the fuss?

I think we pick our battles really well and this is one I don't think we could have won.  If we took it to the tribunal, he could have ended up with more than two weeks (the tribunal isn't bound by the MRO ratnkings and they hinted they could have very well rated Kozzies bump as Severe during the hearing last night).  And given Goodwin has now publically said 3 times (March 2021/22/23) that he doesn't want his players bumping and advises them not to, Pickett effectively went against team rules.  Very prudent decision to accept and move on.