Petty needs to go back. But before we resort to having to bring BBB back, I’d like to try using May as our key forward for a few games. His attack, strength and accurate kicking is surely worth a good look. He’s not the reliable key back he was - for whatever reason - and after listening to his interview, I think he really would like the opportunity up forward. For want of a better analogy, he would be our “Hawkins”. I’d feel better about this if Disco had a better game - but he has only played one full game, so he will improve. While we are experimenting, and we are playing the hawks, I think May forward is well worth a look. 

1 hour ago, Willmoy1947 said:

That said, umpires wait for Viney to go i inch off line to call play on

Can anyone clarify for me please.

If you mark the ball, then feign/fake a handball, is that play on? I swear that was called numerous times against Demons on our half back line?

Has there been a rule change? Or am I forgetting something?

37 minutes ago, old55 said:

I don't get why people think JVR won't be suspended.  

https://www.afl.com.au/video/919868/injury-blow-for-suns-as-ballard-gets-stretchered-off?

I love his general attack on the contest but in this instance he overstepped the line.  Front-on contact, eyes not on the ball (yes he glances up early to anticipate the ball drop but from then on he's looking towards Ballard) - that's careless, high contact with high impact.  That's two weeks.

Front-on contact? You must be joking!  Look again at the video.  And how do you know where his eyes were? because a biased commentator told you so I guess.  And just because the player is carried off does not mean high impact in terms of injury - if a player holds his head (on the oppostie side to any impact) and tells the docs something went crack  the docs will carry him off as a precaution. (Though it is high impact in terms of losing a player for the rest of the game).

If he gets suspended we should appeal even if JVR supposedly needs a rest.

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by sue

2 minutes ago, sue said:

Front-on contact? You must be joking!  Look again at the video.  And how do you know where his eyes were? because a biased commentator told you so I guess.  And just because the player is carried off does not mean high impact in terms of injury - if a player hold his head and tells the docs something went crack  the docs will carry himm off as a precaution. (Though it is high impact in terms of losing a player for the rest of the game).

If he gets suspended we should appeal even if JVR supposedly needs a rest.

"Front-on contact" because JVR's running with the flight of the ball. 

Unless he can see through the top of his head, his eyes are looking forward in the direction he's running.

There's low, medium, high and severe impact. Ballard got carried off on a stretcher and didn't come back on, that's "high" impact.  FWIW Chol's impact on Bowey was "medium" and he should get a week too.

5 minutes ago, sue said:

Front-on contact? You must be joking!  Look again at the video.  And how do you know where his eyes were? because a biased commentator told you so I guess.  And just because the player is carried off does not mean high impact in terms of injury - if a player holds his head (on the oppostie side to any impact) and tells the docs something went crack  the docs will carry him off as a precaution. (Though it is high impact in terms of losing a player for the rest of the game).

If he gets suspended we should appeal even if JVR supposedly needs a rest.

Spot on these comments, and i noticed and heard as well. It is a pity that this interruption was milked for all it was worth.

Will he play next week , i would be thinking yes...

41 minutes ago, old55 said:

"Front-on contact" because JVR's running with the flight of the ball. 

Unless he can see through the top of his head, his eyes are looking forward in the direction he's running.

There's low, medium, high and severe impact. Ballard got carried off on a stretcher and didn't come back on, that's "high" impact.  FWIW Chol's impact on Bowey was "medium" and he should get a week too.

You have to stretch things to breaking point to make that the definition of front-on contact. You can say reckless, nasty whatever you like, but you weaken your case by adding front-on contact to your list of (dubious) sins.  

2 hours ago, jayceebee31 said:

Your kidding, after a performance like that, Disco should be so lucky to be playing at Casey, a woeful display - got towelled .

Casboult was a mis match for him. He improved as the game went on.

Jones to do this game commentary.

Matter of urgency

1 hour ago, sue said:

Front-on contact? You must be joking!  Look again at the video.  And how do you know where his eyes were? because a biased commentator told you so I guess.  And just because the player is carried off does not mean high impact in terms of injury - if a player holds his head (on the oppostie side to any impact) and tells the docs something went crack  the docs will carry him off as a precaution. (Though it is high impact in terms of losing a player for the rest of the game).

If he gets suspended we should appeal even if JVR supposedly needs a rest.

Interpretation is everything in the current crackdown on all head contact. JVR's action was clumsy and at least careless, and although the outcome seems fortunately to have been far less severe than at first feared, the MRO will look also at the potential for serious injury. I would think the odds are about 60-40 that he will get suspended for at least a week. Hope I'm proved wrong, because there was clearly no malicious intent.

6 minutes ago, Dee-monic said:

Interpretation is everything in the current crackdown on all head contact. JVR's action was clumsy and at least careless, and although the outcome seems fortunately to have been far less severe than at first feared, the MRO will look also at the potential for serious injury. I would think the odds are about 60-40 that he will get suspended for at least a week. Hope I'm proved wrong, because there was clearly no malicious intent.

I don't think his action was much different from a slightly clumsy attempt to spoil.    I can't see what he did that was wrong.  All attempts to spoil from behind have a  'potential for serious injury' so what is the criteria for suspension?   Surely it must be recklessly trying to hit the player and not the ball.  There is no evidence of that in the current case.  If the player hadn't been stretchered off this would be a non-event.

6 hours ago, Neitas bump said:

The Hawks are awful this year and they will be coming back from a big interstate flogging.

We need to consider the bigger picture anyone that is not 100% fit should be rested (not to casey). The medical and performance team will know who those people are. A freshen up now will help us against some very strong opposition coming such as Port in Adelaide and the filth on kings day.

Casey not playing anyway...bye.

2 hours ago, old55 said:

I don't get why people think JVR won't be suspended.  

https://www.afl.com.au/video/919868/injury-blow-for-suns-as-ballard-gets-stretchered-off?

I love his general attack on the contest but in this instance he overstepped the line.  Front-on contact, eyes not on the ball (yes he glances up early to anticipate the ball drop but from then on he's looking towards Ballard) - that's careless, high contact with high impact.  That's two weeks.

Because merely saying "that's careless, high contact with high impact" isn't how the analysis works.

The first step is whether it's a reportable offence.

Last year Junior Rioli cleaned up Matt Rowell. No suspension because it wasn't a reportable offence.

This year Brayshaw got Libba high in a bump-style move. No suspension because it wasn't a reportable offence.

Both of those involved careless conduct with high contact. 

17 minutes ago, sue said:

I don't think his action was much different from a slightly clumsy attempt to spoil.    I can't see what he did that was wrong.  All attempts to spoil from behind have a  'potential for serious injury' so what is the criteria for suspension?   Surely it must be recklessly trying to hit the player and not the ball.  There is no evidence of that in the current case.  If the player hadn't been stretchered off this would be a non-event.

Essentially we are in agreement. All I am saying is that in the current climate it seems that any player who makes contact with the head of an opponent seems to be automatically at risk from the MRO and/or tribunal. In a contact sport, such collisions are sometimes inevitable, which leaves the grading of "careless" difficult to define, especially when clouded by club loyalties.

1 minute ago, Dee-monic said:

Essentially we are in agreement. All I am saying is that in the current climate it seems that any player who makes contact with the head of an opponent seems to be automatically at risk from the MRO and/or tribunal. In a contact sport, such collisions are sometimes inevitable, which leaves the grading of "careless" difficult to define, especially when clouded by club loyalties.

I agree. And would be happy if the AFL applied its rules consistently, but sadly they don't.  I'd forgive them the occasional line-ball decision - it's difficult.  While I, like others, see things through red & blue glasses, there are enough cases which do not involve MFC (or teams I hate etc) to make it clear that the AFL cannot be trusted to be consistent. 

3 hours ago, DubDee said:

fyi Harmes as the sub can’t be one of the outs unless one of your ins is the sub 

Yeah, I know. Just not keen on Jordon (the other realistic option) being the one to make way, but maybe Jordon to sub

3 hours ago, drysdale demon said:

I seem to remember Petty putting in a very poor performance in his first game, whilst this is Turner's second game he did alright in his first until getting his jaw smashed, pretty confidant he will turn out okay.

He did, against the Saints. He then waited the better part of a year and a half for his next game though. I like Turner but if we’re playing him as a key he’s not ready yet and undersized, he plays better as a second or third KPD, even in the VFL Tomlinson takes the largest forward . Especially when we have a premiership KPD to play there in Petty., it’s not Turner’s time yet. 

Is it possible to have Max play forward for a whole game and put Petty back where he belongs? Max could still do some rucking in the forward 50 and take a bag of marks inside it as well.

And Grundy does seem better at palming the ball to our players.

2 hours ago, Engorged Onion said:

Can anyone clarify for me please.

If you mark the ball, then feign/fake a handball, is that play on? I swear that was called numerous times against Demons on our half back line?

Has there been a rule change? Or am I forgetting something?

I don't think it is and I don't think the rules have changed. If you feign a handball it should still be ok and not play on. 

One thing that irked me was twice I think the umps seem to force us to take the advantage which wasn't there.

3 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

I don't think it is and I don't think the rules have changed. If you feign a handball it should still be ok and not play on. 

One thing that irked me was twice I think the umps seem to force us to take the advantage which wasn't there.

Yep, a couple of times our players stopped very quickly and got told they had taken advantage which isn’t how it’s usually called. Generally players get a fair leeway to stop if they haven’t kicked it 

1. JvR will likely get some time off unless we can get Hawkin’s rep in to explain about accidental contact. The outcome wasn’t as severe as appeared according to Dew but … MRO.
2. Good luck anyone telling Clarrie he needs a rest.

3. Reckon Hunter has been good this year.

4. Probably BBB in for JvR. Still want to see more of 26 year old, 200cm Schache though.

5. Can not figure out who Spargo replaces.

 

I’m worried about Roo getting suspended, I don’t think he should be, it’s a football action and he was centimetres from getting the ball, the part of his arm that brushes the head is incidental contact with his upper arm and I think it’s very mild contact. The problem is Ballard’s head moves at a strange angle and hurts his neck at the back, hence why he holds the back of his head when JVR contacted him in the front. The suns medical staff were cautious because of the potential for a neck injury and the early knock in the game where he probably could’ve stayed off. It’s not an impact injury. That said the MRO hates Melbourne and always suspends us, so probably two weeks. Apparently it’s going to the tribunal on Tuesday according to John Ralph. Get Cripp’s QC please Dees! 
 

If Roo’s out I think Smith comes in for him, he’s been super lively at VFL level and while he lacks a bit in composure and field kicking his athleticism, marking, speed, leap and set shot kicking look good up forward. I’d also love Petty back, I love Disco, but he’s not ready and we need to get the May, Lever, Petty band back together and settled, our impenetrable defense has started to look a little leaky lately and it would be great to get it back. I was for Ben Brown coming in last week as I thought he played his role well, this week I’m less convinced as while he kicked three goals he wasn’t getting to the contest as much or as well and wasn’t getting the outlet marks up the ground the way he was the week before. He’s probably the only option though as Schache was unsighted, Melksham well down after an incredible performance the week before. It’s a shame that none of our options are banging down the door up forward. Spargo and Laurie looked good but I’m not sure who they replace. 

If JVR available:

In: Smith or Brown (Petty back)

Out: Turner

If JVR suspended:

In: Brown, Smith (Petty Back)

Out: JVR(Susp), Turner

The only other one is Hibbo, if he’s fit he comes in but a lot of that will depend how we structure up with Petty and co. It’s likely Goodwin will keep Petty forward and bring Hibbo in for Turner but I’d really like Petty to go back. It’ll be interesting. Any sore players go out for Laurie,  Spargo or Harmes.

 

Edited May 7, 20232 yr by deejammin'

10 minutes ago, leave it to deever said:

Is it possible to have Max play forward for a whole game and put Petty back where he belongs? Max could still do some rucking in the forward 50 and take a bag of marks inside it as well.

And Grundy does seem better at palming the ball to our players.

That would most likely require Schache in as the second ruck.

I think we’ll see BBB in.

But I don’t mind the idea of Gawn CHF and Petty as the second ruck after centre bounces. Petty would be really valuable behind the ball and as an extra mid and would get more involved in games. 

 

8 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

 

Thanks for posting Dazzle.. worth it to hear Browny pronounce “Tribuneral” 

5 hours ago, jayceebee31 said:

Your kidding, after a performance like that, Disco should be so lucky to be playing at Casey, a woeful display - got towelled .

Harsh He was the wrong matchup for Casboult. Lever should have been on him. Once they changed it he took a few good marks at the end before he got subbed.