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?

From another article on the appeals amendment due to the Cripps decision: "Previously, an error of law that had no substantive impact on a Tribunal's reasoning or decision could be a ground for appeal," the updated guideline reads. "The AFL Regulations and Tribunal Guidelines have been amended to provide that the relevant ground of appeal is that there was an error of law that had a material impact on the Tribunal's decision." From a pretty rudimentary look at it without all the facts, it would seem there is an arguable error of law in the application of the test for breach of duty of care. It seems completely non-sensical to say that 1) the evidence establishes the player's objective was to go for the ball and 2) a reasonable player in those circumstances would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did it would have almost inevitably resulted in head contact. Those two findings seem contradictory to me. If a player's objective is to go for the ball the corollary of that is that they have formed a decision that they can get the ball. If you have formed that decision then why would you also be of the view that head contact with the opposition is inevitable? The two propositions don't seem to sit together, and the argument would be that no reasonable person whose objective is to get the ball would foresee inevitable head contact. I think it's pretty clear that if an error of law can be established, it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate a "material impact" on the Tribunal's decision as the application of the breach of duty test is the fundamental basis of the decision.

Tribunal apparently said this: "It was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation. We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However, we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head." So what they are saying is that in 0.6 of a second a reasonable player whose objective is to contest the ball can foresee that the form of spoil which they decide to make (also in a split second) will inevitably result in a player being hit in the head. That is ludicrous reasoning. Absolutely ludicrous. What kind of person can make an assessment in a split second that their form of spoil will inevitably make forceful head contact? If that's the Tribunal's reasoning then we should appeal because I fail to see how any Tribunal, acting reasonably, can put such an expectation on the reasonable player.

When talking about the MRO, Brad Scott on AFL 360 a few weeks ago said something like the MRO has the AFL’s medical and legal departments looking over it. We’ve long suspected interference from the AFL in MRO decisions to try to future proof themselves from potential lawsuits. This stunning comment from not only a coach but someone who was the head of footy operations really confirmed what we already suspected. Even the concept of upgrading the impact due to “capacity to cause injury” is completely flawed. How does Christian have any sort of qualifications to form an opinion on the “capacity” of an act to cause injury? Surely that would require some sort of panel of experts to make a proper informed judgment. It’s just a perfect grey area to enable the MRO to classify impact in whatever way it wants. The system is a farce. And it’s not just Melbourne. Players getting suspended for fairly regulation tackles is just as bad.

Agree with the premise that both roads are tough from outside the top 4 (hence the importance of finishing in the top 4). I also agree that it's speculative - on my example of finishing 5th, if Freo happened to beat Geelong in a QF suddenly we'd be in an MCG semi instead of one at Optus. But if we look at the likely results, finishing 5th with a top 4 of Cats, Swans, Lions and Dockers is likely going to require back-to-back interstate wins to make the GF. Winning interstate finals is hard - if we thought the Collingwood fans were loud last week at the G it's going to be much worse at Optus, the Gabba or SCG in a final (I still think of how loud Optus was in the 2018 prelim - I was there and it was intimidating). Again, it's not insurmountable, but I'd much prefer a situation where we avoid back-to-back interstate finals and only have to win one to get through.

Not sure why people are wanting Collingwood to lose. If we win, it won't really matter as we will be top 4 and most likely playing Sydney. But if we lose, it will only be better for Carlton to beat Collingwood if either Freo lose to the Giants or Sydney lose to the Saints by about 10 points more than our loss (either of which is unlikely). Assuming that doesn't happen, then a Carlton win means we will finish 5th and face a potential back-to-back semi-final and preliminary final interstate (should we make it that far). That is likely to be Freo in a semi in Perth then Brisbane or Sydney in an away prelim. Alternatively, if we lose but Collingwood win, we finish 6th but then only face one interstate final (semi against Sydney or Brisbane away and then prelim v Cats or Pies at the G should we make it that far).

This x10. I was at the game too and Geelong continually set up at around-the-ground stoppages (particularly throw-ins and ball ups near the boundary) with at least one, sometimes two, players on the defensive side of the stoppage. The one that was constantly there and left alone was in an almost North-West position from the ruckmen at a boundary throw in. Often it was Duncan. Our approach the whole night was to leave this player alone. We either had the same numbers at the stoppage but held defined positions (e.g. we'd have a player in a North position from the ruckmen (defensive side of the Geelong spare but often unable to affect the play)) or we'd have a spare behind the ball. Time and again they would win the footy and flip it out to the spare, who would then have enough time to either handball to a player running past or deliver somewhat un-pressured inside 50. The benefit of having our spare back is lost if pressure isn't applied to the ball carrier - the spare is there for the hack pressured kick but we weren't able to apply enough heat / Geelong were too clean and crisp in close to cause hack kicks forward. Now I have no problem with retaining our structure and method as it has been working and you can't just chop and change all the time. But in this game, with Geelong outhunting us and bringing more heat and intensity, causing us to fumble or turn over the ball when we did get first possession, I thought we could've tinkered a bit at stoppages to try and nullify this. A great example came in the third quarter. Stoppage at Geelong's half forward line. They had the extra at the stoppage, we had Lever spare down back. They won it, flipped it out to the spare, we couldn't close him down quickly enough, the spare then fed it inside to Smith who ran to 50m and goaled. Lever as the spare was then wasted as he could only watch the ball sail over his head. Clever by Geelong to use the extra number to create flowing entries and ensure as few hack kicks as possible to our spare. Without applying enough heat when Geelong won the ball, it allowed them to get the stoppage game on their terms and was a big factor in the result. We also lacked another big target forward of the ball but what really cost us were just some ridiculous decisions going inside 50. There were a number of times we had players out in space but just kicked it straight down the throat of a Geelong defender. These were un-pressured entries so it was incredibly frustrating to waste so many opportunities going inside 50. Geelong were clearly the better side on the night. They were more intense with their hunt of the man with the ball and deserved to win the game. It reminded me of the Collingwood game where we were in the game in the last quarter but never really looked in control or likely to win.

Not sure the "intention to hit the body" defence will work. I believe the guidelines say as follows: A Player intentionally commits a Classifiable Offence if the Player engages in the conduct constituting the Reportable Offence with the intention of committing that offence The guidelines then define a reportable offence as including striking. So if that is correct, the relevant intention is the intention to strike, not the intention to strike a particular part of the body. This also seems consistent with the way the offence is graded. As one of the gradings is "high or body" contact, it would seem superfluous to have a contact grading of high or body if the relevant reportable offence was striking the head. If this is all correct, then I can't see how he gets off on grounds of it not being an intentional strike. It was off the ball (not for example in a marking contest) - what else was his intention if not to strike?

I don't agree with the notion some are running with that "oh well, whatever the rule is, players will adjust". The rule does matter. Let's say there is a new rule that when lining up for a set shot, it doesn't count unless you close your eyes. Well, guess what, players will adjust to that too and will start taking set shots closing their eyes (otherwise the score won't count). So it's not simply a case of saying the players will adjust. The rule matters and has to be based in reasonableness and the look of the game. And the "arms out" automatic 50 rule is a horrendous look for the game. We are asking human beings giving their all in a brutal, physical sport, to not show any emotional body language of surprise or disappointment or frustration. A player may have just run his guts out all game to help win the game for his club and is not meant to show any body language response to a crucial last-quarter decision when mentally and physically fatigued? It is absolutely ridiculous. Arms out can be abusive if it's combined with swearing or yelling at an umpire. That should be punished. But simply holding your arms out in a non-threatening and non-abusive way is a human body language reaction. We don't want to strip the emotion and passion out of the game and have critical 50s paid for absolutely trivial incidents.

I really enjoyed it. Not for the tension and excitement, because it wasn’t that type of game, but for what it represented - a thoroughly professional performance that didn’t give the opposition a look in. It’s never easy away from home against a team with pressure to win. And Port came out and had a crack, tackling hard and putting pressure on. They even changed their style of play against us, refusing to kick long down the line to a contest and constantly switching the ball and chipping it around to nullify our midfield intercept/turnover game. It worked in terms of limiting defensive half turnovers but I love how we just said, fine, chip and switch it around, we’ll just set ourselves up so well in D50 that you won’t score. And that’s what happened - the time it took them to switch and chip and take uncontested marks just allowed us to set up so well deeper behind the ball. We didn’t panic or look to force the issue when it was a bit of a stalemate early. We just focused on our defence and not letting them score and knew we’d eventually get chances at the other end. This just totally broke Port Adelaide, shattering their confidence and belief. In fact the whole game we didn’t seem to care about offence - and as they say in soccer, you can’t lose if you don’t concede. And that’s what it ultimately reminded me of. A top soccer team travelling away to a difficult ground and just not giving the other team a sniff of scoring. A clean sheet, a couple of goals and a mature and professional performance to go home with the points. Nothing fancy, just strangle the life out of the opposition. That’s what the best teams do. The last quarter we just seemed to completely put the cue in the rack but let’s not forget early in the last it was 10 goals to 1. Sure Port had some forwards out, lost Wines and Lycett was hampered, but that was just about as dominant and complete a defensive performance as you could see. And if you appreciate and value good defending, then that was an enjoyable game.

I'm pretty sure umpire Gavine was the umpire who failed to pay the obvious deliberate free kick against Adelaide in front of the rabid home fans in our match last year. He has now given a 50m penalty for a player laughing at a replay of a decision - saying that he felt belittled. I would suggest this umpire needs to work on his strength of character so that he can make the right decisions in the big moments no matter the pressure of the situation and doesn't get offended by a player laughing.