Scoop Junior

Exactly. It’s a nebulous concept that not only vests too much discretion in the MRO (sometimes it’s applied, sometimes it’s not) but requires the MRO to make an assessment it’s not qualified to give. What qualifications does the MRO have to assess whether an incident has more or less potential to cause injury? I’m pretty sure the MRO doesn’t have biomechanics expertise to make a proper assessment. It’s simply a way for the AFL medical/legal team to ensure they get the result they want to protect themselves in potential future litigation. FWIW, I don’t have a problem with Picket getting a week. I just don’t like this “potential to cause injury” and its indiscriminate application. That impact was simply not medium, it was clearly low. I’d rather they just say we are punishing the action instead of this contrived grading of medium impact based on potential.

I was at both games and must say I didn’t have any issues with Port or Crows fans. Maybe it was because I sat near the cheer squad so we had strength in numbers, but apart from the booing from Crows fans about the umpires (bizarrely when they were getting everything their way) it was all fine. Certainly nothing like Blues and Pies fans in the finals last year which was about as bad as I’ve seen it.

Well said. Not only did they target Gawn off the ball a few weeks ago, but I remember their game against Collingwood at the MCG last year where Clarke and Papley himself tried to rough up Nick Daicos off the ball, sparking a melee in the first quarter. Very hypocritical from Sydney.

I think it's disappointing there is no single family day this year. Yes it's chaotic and there are huge lines but the fact is the kids look forward to it. The splitting up of the family day in three events doesn't really work IMO. Firstly, the Melbourne-Richmond game is 7 quarters of footy. I will go and watch it all but I don't think I can take my kids - it's not really reasonable to expect young kids to stand at Casey (presumably in the heat) watching 7 quarters of a practice match, with possibly the last 3 of those quarters not consisting of too many Melbourne players. The training sessions in school holidays are not accessible to everyone, as lots of families will be away over the school holidays, in contrast to the usual family day in March when kids are at school. As an adult it doesn't really bother me, but I think we've missed a trick here for the kids.

I also headed down to training this morning. Pretty much all of it has been very well covered by previous posts. I wouldn't call the full ground drills match sim. It was under pressure and with tackling but there were less players on the ground and no stoppages. The focus appeared to be more on ball movement and transition running forward and back. When reading comments on this part of the training it should be taken into account that while it looked a bit like match sim it was more full ground ball movement under pressure. The drills have been well set out here so just some observations on certain players: JVR - yes it's only January ball movement training but I thought he had more presence and strength in aerial contests than at this stage last season. Last January you'd see him jump at the ball and be brave and aggressive but it didn't really seem like he'd actually clunk the ball in the pack or be in best position to mark it. This time I thought when the ball was in his area he actually looked like being the dominant force in the pack and the most likely to impact. That said, with Lever not training and May not involved in JVR's contests, he wasn't exactly playing on the cream of the crop defenders which he will face during the season. Fritsch - seemed to be on a tackling rampage. I thought he was very physical with his tackling, bringing blokes to ground on a number of occasions. Not sure if just a one-off or he has targeted this as an area to focus on but it was noticeable. Billings - as others have said, he excelled in the ball movement in finding space and then arcing onto the left and kicking long and accurately to teammates on the lead. He showed real class. But again 14v14 in 30 degrees in January is a far cry from the cauldron of the MCG on a cold day in July. I think he has the potential to really add to our side as our midfield mix could really do with a long-kicking left footer. It can help change the direction of play and with switching. We have Hunter and Viney but both are not long kicks and the former almost invariably looks for the 20-30m chip option. -Salem - just did running on the side but I agree with others, he did seem noticeably leaner than last year. -Tholstrup - he just has a great presence about him. Presence is such an intangible thing that is hard to explain, but he has it. He's a good size (both in height and thickness) and looks like he could develop into a really powerful player when he puts on more muscle. Had a few wobbly kicks during the day but he's a player that you seem drawn to watching and I'm looking forward to seeing him play matches (most likely starting with Casey). -Kozzie - does some things no one else on the list can. A pick up, sidestep and acceleration away from the constant almost in one move. -May - speaking of presence. Whenever there was an aerial contest in his area, you just knew he would mark it or impact the contest. A tremendous footballer.

My thoughts do need to be heavily qualified - it is very difficult to comment on things like attitude while watching a December training session from the sidelines. And no doubt my thoughts are influenced by things that have been said about him - eg. "best character in the draft". I think what I was trying to get at is he has presence. Intangible and hard to define. Usually the young first-year players just blend in and you don't really notice them but your eyes seem to be drawn to him. I haven't seem him play so have no idea what he's like on the field. But if he can play, he will definitely be one of those types you notice.

I was able to get down to training this morning. Those who I didn't see there - May, Salem, Viney, Spargo, Gus, Hunter, Langdon, Tomlinson, Smith, ANB, Fritsch, Sparrow, Kozzie, Chandler Oliver was doing numerous run throughs on the boundary and then some ground ball work. Not running at full speed but was doing a decent chunk of slow running. Melksham and Petty did some kicking and then went in early. No moon boot on Petty. Neither did any running. I got there just before 10am and they were initially doing some transition work without tackling. Fairly easy ball movement stuff without any pressure / tackling. They then split into groups - talls and smalls. The smalls did one-on-one ground balls, one player would win possession and the other would tackle. The talls did one-on-one marking. They then swapped so the talls did ground balls and the smalls did marking. No real surprises in the split up here, the only one of interest was that McAdam was with the talls. After this, they then did a drill where the ball was kicked to about 40m out in the D50, a ground ball would ensue, and the defensive team would win the ground ball and then try transition the ball forward to an inside 50. This was under pressure as there was an opposition. The focus seemed to be on running hard off half back. Again no positional surprises, other than perhaps McAdam as a tall deep forward. It appears he may be earmarked to play a bit out of the goal square. I think of Kozzie in the Carlton final where he created problems with his speed as a deep forward. McAdam has speed but is better in the air. They then repeated this drill but on the other half back flank / side of the ground. The next drill was a kick out from the pocket in the attacking team's 50 and the attacking team would win the ground ball and then look for a re-entry inside 50m. Whereas the previous drill was a deep turnover (at half back), this was a high turnover (between half-forward and wing). They looked to switch it a fair bit so that the inside 50 entry was to the fat side where there were less numbers and less congestion. It was a bit messy but there did appear to be a focus to get it to the fat side rather than a down-the-line re-entry to congestion. This was also done under pressure with a defending team. Finally there was some full ground ball movement drills. By this stage some of the new boys went and did running so it was probably something like 11 v 11. As a result there was a lot of space so it obviously didn't replicate the kind of pressure and lack of space you'd see in a game. TMac played key back for this. Maybe just to stand in for May, but who knows. I left soon after this as they were doing some handballs in tight and shots for goal/snaps. I find it hard to read too much into player performance at training so I've focused more on what they did as a group. One thing I will mention is there is something about the Tholstrup boy. The big mop of curly hair that makes his head stand out in a crowd and what appears to be a level of confidence / self-belief. I didn't get the impression that he was a new guy there. He really pushed hard on the run throughs, leading the way when running with Windsor, Brown and McAdam. He then encouraged Windsor and McAdam to beat the required times when they were doing some extra running after he finished. He went and helped up the skipper off the ground after they did push ups. I don't know exactly what it is but there does look to be something a bit different and unique about him. If he can play, he seems the type of player who will be really fun to watch.

First, we need to at least win one more. While I agree an MCG final v Collingwood is probably preferable to an interstate final, the consequences of a loss to Collingwood (1v4) will likely be far more significant than a loss against Port/Brisbane (2v3). Lose to Collingwood and the path could well be a white hot Carlton in a semi final, with the winner then travelling to Adelaide Oval or the Gabba for an interstate prelim. That's a difficult road. On the other hand, lose to Port/Brisbane in the QF, then the path may involve avoiding both Carlton in a semi final and an interstate prelim (with Collingwood at the MCG awaiting the semi final winner should the Pies win their home QF). Of course, lots of water still to flow under the bridge, but most importantly we must get that one more win to secure top 4.

Agree with you. We have been very poor in wet conditions and have not adjusted well, especially over-handballing against Geelong. We have also fumbled more than the opposition and haven't seemed to have handled the ball as well. My comment was simply in relation to the claim it has been wet in 4 of our last 5 games. It hasn't. We lost to Freo in the dry and were just as inefficient inside 50 and wayward with our goal kicking in dry games against Carlton and Collingwood.

That is incorrect. Our last 5 games were against Freo, Carlton, Collingwood, Geelong and GWS. Only the last two were wet.

From AFL website: The Tribunal panel, led by chairman Jeff Gleeson, found it wasn't a dangerous tackle. "Cerra only has a light grip on Hickey's arms. They are not truly pinned," Gleeson said. "Hickey could use one or both of his arms." Tom Sparrow’s tackle did not pin Day’s arms. Day could have used one or both of his arms. But it was deemed a dangerous action being a sling. Sparrow is not the only one. A large group of players have been suspended for similar actions when arms were not pinned. But suddenly it’s now a relevant, if not determining, factor. And what happened to the infamous duty of care this time around? It’s really hard to have any faith in this system. I’d go one step further and say it’s a blight on the game that there is no consistency and certain players/clubs seem to get treated differently.

That’s just incorrect and not correct technique for approaching a ground ball head-on with an opponent. If players are approaching head-on at speed it’s not just going to be a clash of arms but a clash of heads. You don’t go in at speed and clash arms and bounce off - arms reaching down for the ball are hardly strong enough to cause a bounce off between two physically strong athletes at speed. That is why players are taught to turn their bodies when approaching a ground ball head-on. The correct technique would see side-to-side contact with both going for the ball rather than head-to-head contact if leading with the head. Your suggested technique would lead to many more head injuries from head-on ground ball contests.

Yep it has been framed like that and Counsel for the AFL has argued it that way in his submission by saying "he needed to take care and he failed to take care". But what I'm trying to do is ascertain how he failed to take reasonable care. What was he supposed to do? What would the reasonable person have done? It is accepted he intended to spoil the ball. He tried to spoil the ball and just missed. It wasn't a roundhouse or swinging arm spoil. I'm really not sure what the AFL are saying he should've done other than pull out of the contest.

Even if that is accepted, that only goes to them having a duty of care. Whether or not they breach that duty of care (i.e. fail to exercise reasonable care / act carelessly) then comes down to the reasonable person test. I would have thought the reasonable person test used by the Tribunal and its application to the fact can still be attacked.

Agree. The Tribunal used the words "a reasonable person would have foreseen almost inevitable head contact". I suppose it could be argued that the words "almost inevitable" were added to distinguish a situation where a player contests the ball and should have foreseen "possible" head contact...perhaps it could be argued that the Tribunal is saying that the latter situation ("possible" head contact) would not be a reportable offence. But even if this were accepted, I think there is still the argument that the "almost inevitable" reasonable person test is just plainly wrong. How can it be said that the reasonable player, whose objective is to contest the ball, can, in a split second, make a determination that head contact will be "almost inevitable." Not only is there almost no time to make that determination, along with the many variables that could influence whether or not there is contact (e.g. opponent jumps, twists, turns), but it seems incongruous to expect a player, in circumstances where their objective is the ball, to foresee almost inevitable head contact. A player who it is accepted is going for the ball does so because they feel they can win it. Why would such a player foresee almost inevitable head contact?