9 hours ago, A F said:

 I've used data to try to back up what I've noticed in game. You've used feel that isn't backed up by anything. 

Haha. You called it a rubbish start but you're also using it as evidence to back up what you've noticed in game? What a delightful contradiction. 

And no, what I did was dig a bit deeper and highlight (for you) one of the actual metrics that is used to measure disposal efficiency which shows how misleading it can be.

His +1 percent in disposal efficiency is more than likely coming from a long kick going to 50/50 contest for us. 

And yes, I use my eyes to judge whether or not his shorter kicking under no pressure has improved because there's no stat in isolation that measures that. And I let my eyes be the judge of that rather than my emotional feeling that I possess for that player. 

My eyes in this instance are telling me exactly what I'm looking for. And your disposal efficiency stat isn't. The only part you got right is that it's a rubbish stat and you should have stopped there. 

 

7 hours ago, jnrmac said:

Yeah shocking kicking a ball 40m to our fwd line is terible.

 

No, most of the time under a high pressure situation with little to no time and space to handball to a team mate, its the most effective action a player can take. 

However, context is key here and it depends on many factors. 

Weird thing to say that it's terrible though?

"A reasonable player would break the laws of physics during a tackle given the 0.003 second opportunity to do so" - MRO, probably 

His head hits the ground so we will lose but I don’t think that sort of tackle should be banned. It’s one action, not two, no arms pinned, and doesn’t involved a demonstrative dump or drive head first. 

22 hours ago, beelzebub said:

OK..

How the F does anyone extrapolate in a 3D meaningful way...in advance... NOT BLOODY HINDSIGHT... how any event matures.

People moving ar upteen kph ...in any and varied directions.    But that isn't the focus of any player.  They only concern themselves with the moment, the event, the role, the ball .  Somehow they have to think beyond ????

Its all B.S.

Nicely put, correct, undisputed yet still we have to tolerate preferences with extraordinary inaccuracies from those to whom experience and alleged foresight, including straight-forward decision-making have no bearing. 

24 minutes ago, JimmyGadson said:

Haha. You called it a rubbish start but you're also using it as evidence to back up what you've noticed in game? What a delightful contradiction. 

And no, what I did was dig a bit deeper and highlight (for you) one of the actual metrics that is used to measure disposal efficiency which shows how misleading it can be.

His +1 percent in disposal efficiency is more than likely coming from a long kick going to 50/50 contest for us. 

And yes, I use my eyes to judge whether or not his shorter kicking under no pressure has improved because there's no stat in isolation that measures that. And I let my eyes be the judge of that rather than my emotional feeling that I possess for that player. 

My eyes in this instance are telling me exactly what I'm looking for. And your disposal efficiency stat isn't. The only part you got right is that it's a rubbish stat and you should have stopped there.

My eyes are also telling me he's improved. So who do we trust? The guy that said Weideman would be a star or me?

The fact is we all get things wrong from time to time and maybe, just maybe, you've got another one wrong.

The FD keep playing him, so I assume Tom is meeting KPIs and improving.

Do we need more versatility in our midfield, sure, and maybe we'll have a chance to rectify that in the coming trade and/or draft period.

As for bias and loving players, I'd say I'm merely giving him credit for gradual improvement. Maybe you're letting your biases cloud your judgement?

23 hours ago, Redleg said:

Let me know if Sharman goes for a front on spoil into Fogarty’s face. Far worse than JVR.

 

As Garry Lyon just said on On the Couch, when showing the Sharman spoil, wasn’t that reasonably expecting injury and he then said not a word has been said, especially by the MRO.

If for no other reason than inconsistency, the current system has to go.

 

On 5/14/2023 at 7:54 PM, beelzebub said:

Games becoming blancmange 

 

On 5/14/2023 at 8:23 PM, The heart beats true said:

I quite like blancmange. It’s also a ripper word.

Blancmange is indeed a ripper word, though chocolate blancmange is of course an oxymoron (except I concede if the chocolate happens to be of the white variety).

7 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I reckon the swinging action is what got him because Day couldn’t protect himself and his head was always going to hit the ground. 
Don’t think we contest. Sparrow could probably use a week off to refresh. 

Point is though that Day's arms were not pinned, in fact he fell forward and did not appear to attempt to brace himself.

4 hours ago, daisycutter said:

not only that. consider that christian makes his decision on his own in a virtual vacuum. no opportunity for cited player to offer explanations, etc and this is after 4 umpires didn't even award a free and it was out in the open for all to see. So the mro makes a decision on one person's input with no other opinions and if a suspension is awarded it becomes very difficult to overturn and we know the afl hence mro have an agenda which amounts to a continual changing of the interpretation of a rule mid season. the solution is to change or clarify the rules before a season starts. the term duty of care is not a rule because it is not clearly definable and loose enough to just re-interpret whenever the current agenda presents itself.

if the afl is so concerned about litigation and optics it needs to do a better job on its rules and get proper fully professional umpires rather than part timers.

Do you mean his decisions are made by the vacuum, that occupies his cranium? 

And he doesn't make them without input - often only those highlighted by the media get looked at, JVR exhibit #1..

He has very clearly been given a task beyond his capabilities and lacks impartiality.

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by monoccular

2 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

His head hits the ground so we will lose but I don’t think that sort of tackle should be banned. It’s one action, not two, no arms pinned, and doesn’t involved a demonstrative dump or drive head first. 

Agreed.  But this part of an over correction in protecting the head in terms of player responsibility to opponents and "duty of care". 

What seems to have dissipated is an individual's duty of self care.  In this case Day had the capacity to use his free arms to brace his fall. That he didn't shouldn't fall on Sparrow in my view but that's the environment we find ourselves in.

No winning this so move on. It'll be another player from another club in the coming weeks.  Best get used to it

When Viney kicked that goal, Impey pinned his arms and sling tackled him into the ground. No stretcher and no injury and nothing to see here.

The potential to cause injury was obvious.

It can’t go on like this where an MRO just picks and chooses who to punish.

Off the ball punches getting fines because no stretchers or injuries.

There is just no consistency or logic in the system.

44 minutes ago, Redleg said:

When Viney kicked that goal, Impey pinned his arms and sling tackled him into the ground. No stretcher and no injury and nothing to see here.

The potential to cause injury was obvious.

It can’t go on like this where an MRO just picks and chooses who to punish.

Off the ball punches getting fines because no stretchers or injuries.

There is just no consistency or logic in the system.

it’s all about optics. If a player gets slung to the ground and takes an 8 count he will get opponent suspended. 

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by John Crow Batty

Has there been extra video yet?  If not, Sparrow released Day earliy and he stumbled over the umpires' guide dog as far as we could see in the partial video.  Woofy was too cute to charge.

Edited May 15, 20232 yr by redandbluemakepurple

13 hours ago, YearOfTheDees said:

I take it was 11am this morning going by this.

0. A Player charged with a Reportable Offence may:

   • »  Submit an early guilty plea by 11am (Melbourne time) on the day following notification of the charge to the Player’s Club, in which case the relevant sanction for the Reportable Offence will apply subject to any reduction available as a result of the early guilty plea (see applicable reductions in section 3); or

   • »  Contest a charge or plead guilty to a lesser charge by 11am (Melbourne time) on the day following notification of the charge to the Player’s Club, in which case a Tribunal hearing will be convened for which the Player may engage legal representation.

     If a Player does not submit an early plea, elect to contest the charge or plead guilty to a lesser charge by 11am (Melbourne time) on the day following notification of the charge or such later time as determined by the AFL, the Player will be deemed to have pleaded guilty to the Reportable Offence,
     in which case the relevant sanction for the Reportable Offence will apply.

 

Article on the MFC site still states ‘If Accepted’.

I might’ve missed it but I haven’t heard anything about taking the week. 

15 hours ago, radar said:

What about Murphy “dacking” the kid Cadman in front of 50 000?

Consensual? 
 

What if Carey/De Goey etc  did it to a girl outside a nightclub at 3 am?

 

13 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Fined $1500 for pulling his shorts down. 

It's sexual assault and should have been suspended.

No player should have their underwear removed by an opponent, exposing them to supporters and tv cameras.

This can't even be justified as "a joke between mates" as they were opposition players.

 

6 minutes ago, deanox said:

 

It's sexual assault and should have been suspended.

No player should have their underwear removed by an opponent, exposing them to supporters and tv cameras.

This can't even be justified as "a joke between mates" as they were opposition players.

 

If I did that here at work I'd be sacked on the spot.

13 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

May I remind you of Maysie, Langdon, Jayden etc etc etc!!  Or are you ditching them too!!🙃

Not to mention the rest of us!

The vision I saw was Sparrow airborne holding onto Day who had one arm free. Very different to planting one foot and slinging a player with arms pinned.

Once Sparrow was airborne he could not exert any pressure as centripital force would have ket him travelling in the same direction as his initial momentum.

 

What are the club doing about the Sparrow suspension? Accepting it? Fighting it?

Haven't seen anything about it

No news would mean that we're accepting the one week I imagine.

I'd be very surprised if the club challenged this.

20 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

For those complaining that you can't tackle, that's not true. Sparrow needed to pull him down in the tackle, not swing him around. This is the difference between an acceptable tackle and a dangerous tackle now. It's been that way for a while.

If you swing a player, you better hope that you land them softly on their side. If you swing them and they hit the ground hard or their head hits the ground, you are gone.

There is no point contesting this charge. Even Geelong players have copped suspensions for these types of tackles, so you know we are no chance. 

Ok , so no more tackling against Brisbane. Three reasons. They wack their hands on the ground to exaggerate the tackle. They throw the ball away in full view of everyone except umpires. And two little squirts put their elbows up to break the tacklers jaw....

Pretty unfortunate that Tom Sparrow gets a week. But oh well...🤷🏼‍♂️

Who replaces Tom Sparrow in the team?

I reckon James Harmes or maybe Jake Melksham?

12 minutes ago, Supreme_Demon said:

Pretty unfortunate that Tom Sparrow gets a week. But oh well...🤷🏼‍♂️

Who replaces Tom Sparrow in the team?

I reckon James Harmes or maybe Jake Melksham?

Jordan should come in to the 22 with most likely sub options of Melksham, Harmes, Laurie, maybe even Smith. I hope its Melksham for some depth/insurance up forward, especially if Tmac or Brown play and are still not fully fit and firing. Need someone to make Alir accountable so Melk could be useful there as a sub option. 

Its a shame Dunstan got injured as this would have been his perfect opportunity to at least be a sub bringing similarly what Jordan and Sparrow bring to the contest. 

6 hours ago, jnrmac said:

The vision I saw was Sparrow airborne holding onto Day who had one arm free. Very different to planting one foot and slinging a player with arms pinned.

Once Sparrow was airborne he could not exert any pressure as centripital force would have ket him travelling in the same direction as his initial momentum.

 

Time to bring in the biodynamics experts, with support from a good exercise physiologist and kinesiologist (Phys Ed - Human Movement Studies), and an experience physicist, all accompanying a KC and any donated video of the incident that may be available.

Y'see, I don't trust Champion. There is no telecast of the complete and graceless end of the tackle. So Champion went for broke as a nemesis of the MFC. This one might just get him replaced.

18 hours ago, Redleg said:

When Viney kicked that goal, Impey pinned his arms and sling tackled him into the ground. No stretcher and no injury and nothing to see here.

The potential to cause injury was obvious.

It can’t go on like this where an MRO just picks and chooses who to punish.

Off the ball punches getting fines because no stretchers or injuries.

There is just no consistency or logic in the system.

PRECISELY: IN THIS FANTASYLAND CALLED THE AFL, A PUNCH IS - WELL, JUST A FINE. BUT IF YOU TACKLE- WHICH IS PART OF THE GAME AND THE RULES, AND A PLAYER ACCIDENTALLY HITS HIS HEAD, WELL, NO, THAT'S SUSPENSION MATERIAL. WHAT UTTER HYPOCRITCAL CLAP!

1 hour ago, Supreme_Demon said:

Pretty unfortunate that Tom Sparrow gets a week. But oh well...🤷🏼‍♂️

Who replaces Tom Sparrow in the team?

I reckon James Harmes or maybe Jake Melksham?

As I hear Harmes wasn’t training Monday 

1 hour ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Time to bring in the biodynamics experts, with support from a good exercise physiologist and kinesiologist (Phys Ed - Human Movement Studies), and an experience physicist, all accompanying a KC and any donated video of the incident that may be available.

Y'see, I don't trust Champion. There is no telecast of the complete and graceless end of the tackle. So Champion went for broke as a nemesis of the MFC. This one might just get him replaced.

I suspect that the person you are calling Champion is anything but - Michael Christian.   He is anything but impartial and has an agenda, either his own or called from HQ. 

If down the track one of our more high profile players is cited for a similar type of tackle and the next game is a final or even a GF, would we appeal? 

I'd say no doubt we would, especially if it's an Oliver, Petracca or a Gawn

So why not appeal now to see how far we can stretch things?  A test case so to speak

I understand that we aren't appealing but I would have appealed if only to see what the result would be

So in other words you take up the fight knowing that you'll probably lose but ... you live to fight another day