Jump to content

Featured Replies

6 minutes ago, hemingway said:

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

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)

ย 
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,ย  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 itย 

Kossie was fortunate to get two.

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

ย 

ย 


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.

โ€œOn the footy field, your duty of care is to play to the rules,โ€ 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.ย 
And the Neville Bruns incident must be wiped from the history books. Matthews was a great footballer but a thug as well.ย 

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 itย 

Kossie was fortunate to get two.

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

ย 

ย 

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.

ย 
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.ย  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.ย  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.ย  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 itโ€™s long overdue, but Iโ€™m curious as to whether heโ€™s the first player to get suspended for a bump that caused zero (or at the very least, very minimal) harm? ย 


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.

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 by Bitter but optimistic

Iโ€™ve watched the hits again and Iโ€™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 Iโ€™d say that contact for Buddy was intentional whilst mcadams and Kozzy was careless.ย 

I wonโ€™t debate the Impact grade as itโ€™s a dogs breakfast trying to work that out, but ultimately Lance should have received the biggest penalty out of all 3.


ย 

ย 


47 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Iโ€™ve watched the hits again and Iโ€™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 Iโ€™d say that contact for Buddy was intentional whilst mcadams and Kozzy was careless.ย 

I wonโ€™t debate the Impact grade as itโ€™s a dogs breakfast trying to work that out, but ultimately Lance should have received the biggest penalty out of all 3.


ย 

ย 

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

ย 

1 hour ago, DutchDemons said:

Three hits to the head which donโ€™t cause a concussion with three different outcomes.

And youโ€™re surprised?

Kozzie got his right whack (lucky it wasnโ€™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:

Iโ€™ve watched the hits again and Iโ€™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 Iโ€™d say that contact for Buddy was intentional whilst mcadams and Kozzy was careless.ย 

I wonโ€™t debate the Impact grade as itโ€™s a dogs breakfast trying to work that out, but ultimately Lance should have received the biggest penalty out of all 3.


ย 

ย 

you think Buddy deserved more than McAdam??? thank christ youโ€™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.ย 

5 minutes ago, Vipercrunch said:

It's going on and on.ย  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.ย  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?

ย 
11 hours ago, DubDee said:

you think Buddy deserved more than McAdam??? thank christ youโ€™re not the MRO

Absolutely he does. Donโ€™t get fooled by all the hype and inuendo in the media. He is protected by all. Buddyโ€™s hit was not a football action and was direct to the opponents head.ย 

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 donโ€™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.ย  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.ย  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).ย  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.ย  Very prudent decision to accept and move on.


Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

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 Mondayโ€™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 eitherโ€™s home territory. Even the field umpires forgot where they were and experienced a challenging evening, but no further comment is necessary.

    • 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 Demonsโ€™ finals aspirations? Join the discussion and keep track of the matches that could shape the ladder and impact our run to September.

      • Haha
    • 216 replies
  • PREVIEW: Collingwood

    Having convincingly defeated last yearโ€™s premier and decisively outplayed the runner-up with 8.2 in the final quarter, nothing epitomized the Melbourne Football Clubโ€™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.ย 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. Letโ€™s face it - this kicking disease that makes them look like raw amateurs is becoming a millstone around the teamโ€™s neck.

    • 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 โ€ฆ 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.

    • 1 reply
  • REPORT: St. Kilda

    Hands up if you thought, like me, at half-time in yesterdayโ€™s game at TIO Traeger Park, Alice Springs that Melbourneโ€™s disposal around the ground and, in particular, its kicking inaccuracy in front of the goals couldnโ€™t get any worse. Well, it did. And whatโ€™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 wasnโ€™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 Lyonโ€™s astute use of pressure to contain the situation once they had asserted their grip on the game, and Melbourneโ€™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 Melbourneโ€™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 yesterdayโ€™s 7 goals 21 behinds.ย 
    This has been going on for a while and opens up a number of questions. Iโ€™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?ย 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?ย 

    • 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?

      • Sad
      • Like
    • 528 replies