Scoop Junior

The more I see the incident the more disgraceful the decision is. He completely slows down and the contact is more a result of Georgiou forcing Lynch into Viney than Viney running into Lynch. He almost tried not to make contact by slowing down and bracing himself...if he really wanted to bump he could easily have charged into him and taken him out. This is an absolute travesty of justice. It is akin to a crucial kick going straight through the goals and it being awarded a point. Plainly, clearly incorrect. How he can get the same penalty as Douglas who intentionally picked off a player with a bump and got him in the head is an out and out joke. Completely different incidents yet the same penalty. For me it reeks of the AFL giving directions to the tribunal that any player who causes a serious facial injury must get suspended, because otherwise they fear that mums will think the game is too rough and will not let their kids play footy and instead get them to play soccer. Stand up to this blatant injustice and appeal. I am absolutely disgusted. By the way I would have liked to have seen Josh Mahoney a bit more aggressive in his interview. Very philosophical for mine - it is what it is type of stuff.

Same penalty as Daniel Merrett for intentionally sticking out an elbow and collecting a GC player. Great system we have!

I think there is an Appeals Board that hears appeals from players dissatisfied with tribunal hearings. We must appeal.

Nathan Schmook: Gleeson now proposing he could have spun out of the collision. Agree. He could also have done a Matrix style lean back, slowing down time, allowing him to sum up the situation before leaping up over Lynch with a triple somersault in the air while landing on his feet behind Georgiou.

17:50 Nathan Schmook: Gleeson sas he could have avoided contact by pushing off his left foot and getting out of the road. Well that's not a reasonable alternative at all because it is unpalatable for a footballer to 'get out of the road' when the football is there to be won.

I think the normal speed replay of the incident provides further support for Viney. Normally when watching a game it's pretty easy to see a bump. You see the player line up or 'prepare' for the bump before executing it. When watching the game I didn't for one second think that Viney bumped him - to me it was just a collision with both players going for the footy. It's only really the last few micro-seconds when Viney turns to brace himself for contact (and only if you freeze the frame or watch it in slow motion) that you notice something resembling a bump (but which is really him bracing himself for contact). The rule states that the player must make an election to bump. This requires there to be a 'bump' and, secondly, an 'election' to bump. An election means the player must have made a decision to bump. My first argument would be that it was not a 'bump' but is rather two players hunting the ball and one bracing himself for contact. This is supported by the vision in the lead up to the incident and the fact that Viney hits him with his arm down and not locked in as you would normally execute a bump. My second argument would be that Viney did not make an 'election' to bump. As I said above it's normally easy to pick up a bump when watching a game because the player prepares for it, tucks the arm in, and then hits the player with their eyes off the ball. That shows an election. Viney however was watching the footy, hunting the footy and at the last second noticed the oncoming 6"4 Lynch and turned to protect himself from getting flattened. To me it is impossible to say that he made an election to bump Lynch - the build up to the incident clearly supports it. Gerard Whately on AFL360 gave a good analysis of why he should be cleared. He looked at the vision, analysed it and gave his view. Compare this to our mate Damo Barrett who just said Viney should be rubbed out without any reasoning or analysis for his view. That's why one of these guys is a respected footy journo and the other relies on scraps of garbage and sensationalism. Interesting also that KB, a renowned advocate for protection of the head, believes Viney should be cleared.

Spencer's was different. He deserved to go because a player had his head down over the ball and he made a decision to go at him. It was clumsy but he had time to pull out. 3 weeks was harsh but he did deserve a penalty. Viney couldn't really have done much different other than run away from the ball which for obvious reasons isn't a realistic choice.

Having had a look at the vision again, I think the following points are in his favour: 1) He was initially looking to win the ball and only at the last second did he change his action and bump Lynch. It was more of a 'brace' position then a clear election to bump. 2) He had little choice, if he didn't brace for the bump he would have been steamrolled by Lynch who was coming at a fast pace. 3) Lynch had the footy so it was in-play, not off the ball like Douglas' bump on Ward. 4) He didn't leave the ground. 5) He is significantly shorter than Lynch so it's impossible for him to bump Lynch in the head (while not leaving the ground) without Lynch going low. The reason why Lynch went low was because he got nudged forward by Georgiou. It is impossible in that micro-second to see Lynch get pushed forward and then change your action. 6) Was the broken jaw caused by the head clash or Viney's shoulder? If the former then he shouldn't be made to pay. However I have no faith in the tribunal system and their arbitrary decisions. It is decided on the basis of injury, which is an absolute disgrace because you should be punished for what you can control (i.e. conduct) not what you can't (i.e. an unfortunate and unforseeable set of circumstances that results in an injury). I'm expecting no other result than being shafted by the tribunal in much the same way as the umpires did to us on the weekend. I really am sick of seeing players banned for legitimate tough footy and snipers being given far less significant penalties for blatant and intentional dog acts.

It is very early days but the player JKH reminds me of is Allen Christensen, a little bloke who can win the footy inside, goes hard, has clean hands and is able to rack up good numbers. He will be tested though in coming weeks as opponents pay him more attention. Cross may have made a few errors but you can excuse him because he is generally a good decision maker and his hardness and courage sets a fantastic example to the team. A mate of mine is a passionate bulldogs fan and he absolutely loves him. It's pretty easy to see why. One thing I would like to see though is him keeping his feet more, I think at times he tries to dive on it a bit too often. But he is just an out and out on-field leader. Terlich I find hard to judge. I love his commitment and attack on the footy and ability to find it, but he can then make you tear your hair out with at times appalling lack of awareness, disposal and fumbling. I think in an ideal world you would want a half back flanker with more awareness and composure and reliability coming out of defence. Some of his errors are just so costly. Two things from Salem that I actually enjoyed as much as his goal were a half volley pick up at full speed which just showed raw talent and clean hands and a really clever aggressive bump on an Adelaide player in the last quarter to clear the space for I think Dawes to kick it forward. In those two instances I saw a lovely combination of aggression and pure talent.

What an absolutely outstanding win! I still cannot believe it, not just winning away from home but in Adelaide where we have hardly looked like winning in 13 years, with the umpires doing everything they could to get the home team over the line and 45,000 fans roaring their side home. To stand up to all of that and hang on for the win must do wonders for the belief of the group. Obviously the first half was tremendous, but the key to the win in the second half (when Adelaide were the superior side) was not letting them kick multiple goals in quick succession. So many times in the past you'd see Melbourne concede 5 or 6 goals in 10 minutes and we would be blown away in that short period. Yes the crows dominated the second half but we kept fighting and scrapping and made it hard for them and while they ate away at the lead they could only do so slowly. I said it after the GC game but the thing I admired about the swans under Roos was the way they'd not concede too many goals and just hang in there while the other team had momentum. It's early days but we are showing some preliminary signs of that. I was convinced they were going to steal it late but we just held on with so much spirit and effort. Even with 20 seconds left I thought they would get a free kick and nick it but Bernie won the clearance and that was it. Still cannot believe it, the Demons have beaten the Crows in SA, all I can say is wow! Fantastic effort

Agree with this 100%. You need to punish the intention and the conduct, not the fact that an unfortunate / freak injury results from what is otherwise legitimate conduct. It means that dog acts which do not result in injury do not get appropriately punished. Basically we have a system where it's just about luck as to whether a player is injured or not. The MRP would probably give a guy who tripped over on the street and accidentally fell across someone's leg and broke it a 10 year jail term, while giving a fine to someone who shot at another person's head but just missed.

I thought the effort was excellent and if we can bring that intensity every week I will be happy. I know we only kicked 5 goals but I'm a big believer in getting your defence right first and then worrying about offence. Yes we have been lucky with teams kicking poorly in games but I still think we've looked better defensively and have applied more pressure for longer periods of the game than we have in recent seasons. Our defence will get tested by better teams but at the moment we are not leaking goals like we have used to in the past and that means we are staying in games longer. Yep it was scrappy and dour but I'd take that any day over seeing the opposition kick goal after goal and us be 10 goals down at half time. In fact I loved the second quarter, I thought the intensity and pressure was terrific and it didn't bother me that only one goal was kicked. Finals footy is tough and hard and low scoring and you need to be able to scrap. I thought the difference in the game was Sydney's run and spread off half back. Guys like Shaw, Malceski and Rampe, with their hard running and pace they were able to get the ball out of the defensive half of their ground very quickly. We really lack this type of player - guys that can spread quickly and run the ball out of defence and then kick long and accurately. Sydney just have more class in their 22 than we do and that really was the major difference in the game. It wasn't a night for key forwards and Sydney's were quiet as well, but Frawley, Howe and Dawes were poor and, while we had a forward structure, we didn't really look dangerous with the long kick into our forward line (Dawes' effort was tremendous but he just couldn't get enough separation on his opponent to take any grabs). On Watts, I thought his effort was better than last week (which isn't saying much) but it was still well below acceptable levels. I wonder whether he looks at Pederson's game and thinks, "gee, here's a bloke who is undersized for the role he plays, not a great athlete, not quick, not particularly skilful, yet he had 10 times the impact that I did". Pederson probably got about 95% out of his natural talents tonight, Watts probably operated at about 15%. Overall another loss but I can see where we are heading and I believe in it. We will come up short most weeks as we don't have the talent but if we give effort like that I can't have any complaints.

Strange game because at half time I was thinking 'this is terrible, we should be 7-8 goals down', but walking away after the game I thought 'gee, we really could have won that'. From that perspective it was pleasing, because a Melbourne side of the past few years would typically have thrown in the towel at half time and copped a 15 goal belting. The fact that we fought back hard, displayed greater effort and IMO outplayed the Suns in the second half was a positive sign for us. We did miss some really gettable chances in the 3rd and 4th but to be fair they kept us in the game in the first half with their poor kicking. Disappointed with our tackling and defensive pressure, particularly in the first half. After performing well in this area last week we just failed to replicate it. I think the Suns had 20 more tackles which is a bad result. The Ablett decision was absolutely disgusting and killed any momentum we had. There was plenty of time left and we looked to be on top of them. I watched the Collingwood Richmond game last week and if that was a free kick to Ablett then McCaffer should have had 30 frees paid against him each quarter. In a tight, low scoring game to pluck a real softy out like that was disgraceful. Ablett is a sensation though. Not one mistake all game. Put him in red and blue and we win by 5+ goals today. One thing I always marvelled at Sydney under Roos was their ability to stay in the game when not playing well. You would see them get absolutely dominated in general play for a quarter but only be 15 points down. Their ability to hang tough and not leak multiple goals when playing poorly won them a lot of games. I can't draw any conclusions yet as we've faced mediocre opposition (other than WCE) but I have noticed a little bit of this in our play this year. There were times when the Giants, Blues and Suns were well on top of us, but instead of leaking 6-7 goals as we did in the past, we hung tough and stayed in the game. Now this could just be a result of the wet weather vs GWS, Carlton's ineptitude and the Suns' inaccuracy, but this is one thing I'll be looking at this year and so far there appears to be some improvement in this area. I'll save my last comment for Watts, who is copping a caning on here. Rightfully deserved. He was beyond embarrassing today. 6"5, now with a body on him, 6 years of senior footy, all the talent in the world...time to take a game by the scruff of the neck against a young interstate side and help drag your team over the line. His softness almost belied belief. Even at times when it would have been impossible for him to get hurt, he still didn't go. Yes, he is an outside player, but there is minimum standards required for a footballer and he fell well short of these standards. His effort and intensity was disgusting and I find it very difficult to support a player that gives absolutely nothing. How can he walk off and even look at guys like Jones and Viney. Pederson has about 1/1000th of his talent yet made more of an impact on the game. We need to be serious about building the right culture and setting the trademarks of the team. Watts cannot play until he demonstrates that he is willing to do what every single league footballer is expected of them.

What about Jakovich, Schwarz, Charles and Prymke? Schwarz was obviously still a star for us, but he would have been a superstar of the competition had his knees been okay. Prymke may not have been a superstar of the competition but he showed signs of being a dominant key defender before a back injury cut him down. A back injury also ruined Jako's career, probably the most exciting player I've seen at Melbourne. It doesn't help a club's bid to produce a superstar when they get career-ending injuries or illnesses. Best of luck Mitch, we will miss you.

Regardless of the result I will be furious if we don't at least match the Blues in the intensity and aggression stakes. Their captain has promised a more aggressive effort this week and their president has basically said they need to come out breathing fire. There is no doubt Carlton will come out very hard after the week they will have, and they know they are playing a poor side which will give them confidence to go after us. I can take losing, because they are currently a better side than us, but I will lose all faith in the playing group if we just let them physically dominate us from the start. If guys like Robinson and Waite run around dishing it out and we just cop it, then to me that will feel worse than losing the game. After all, we've been battered around more than them over the years and there's no reason why our players should not come out just as physical and intent on sending a message. Our leaders must set the tone - I know people have been bagging Grimes but I'm a fan of his. Having said that I would love to see a bit of nastiness from him this week. Get angry.

For three quarters I didn't think it was the worst performance. Early in the last quarter we were 1 point behind with a great chance to win the game. We had defended well, were well organised down back, had only let them kick five goals and had scrapped it out pretty well. Make no mistake we were right in the game and had we finished over the top of them instead of capitulating then people here would have lauded the performance. So it was a decent three quarter effort for mine - however for me the two big disappointments were our last quarter fade out and our work at the stoppages. We really should have done better from Frawley's goal onward. To just crumble and let them score 4.6 without us scoring is really poor. We simply don't have a bloke or blokes who can take the game by the scruff of the neck and drag the team across the line. We don't have a Joel Selwood who always seems to win the key clearances (as he did on Saturday night when Collingwood got back to within a kick). We lost the key contests over the next 5-10 minutes and then all it took was a couple snaps from Kelly and a soft free to Mumford and we dropped our bundle. As for the clearances, I thought we matched them in Q1 but after that it was a domination. Pretty ordinary effort considering some of the experience we have in the midfield compared to the Giants. I know we did well to pick up some midfielders but really you can't go from F grade to A grade in one season - our midfield has improved but it's still well and truly bottom two in the competition. We just need to keep adding more and more talent in there. To top it off you have Spencer getting absolutely mauled by Mumford. I know Spencer tries hard but really, this is AFL not under 9's, tring hard is not enough. He's just not up to task as a no.1 ruckman in the AFL. When your midfield is poor and you get creamed in the ruck...well -25 clearances is the result. At the end of the day it just comes down to a lack of talent - our recruiting has been diabolical and has left us with a list of so many players with critical deficiencies. You have some players who will put their bodies on the line and are as brave as they come, but they can't kick or lack composure or basic footy nous. Then there are ones with great physical footy talents but either don't win the ball or won't put their bodies in. It's just a mish-mash list of players with some good attributes but some really poor ones as well, and very few players with the complete package. We are still to play Hawthorn, Fremantle, Essendon, Port (x2), Geelong and West Coast in Perth. Good times ahead!

I guess the one thing we have that cannot be lost is passion. You either have it or you don't. Your friends may be disillusioned, disgruntled, have lost interest, etc., but I reckon the passion is still there, it just needs to be re-ignited. The major disappointment for me is that footy is a huge passion of mine (and many others on here) and we are not really getting anything from that passion. It's like if your passion was playing guitar, and everyime you pick up the guitar the strings fall off and you can't play. Footy can be so much fun, derive such a great range of emotions and provide unforgettable experiences. Unfortunately for us Melbourne supporters footy has not been like that for the last seven years. The things that we used to love - the anticipation and excitement the night before a game, the feeling when the crowd goes wild after a crucial goal is kicked or the momentum starts to build with the Dees, looking forward to watching the replay of the win, working out who needs to beat who in order for us to move up the ladder - we have not experienced any of this over the last seven years. As I said though the passion is still there and I'll keep going to games. We've just got to hope the experience and excitement returns sooner rather than later so we can enjoy our footy again.

Agree that we need to back the Roos regime. He is a proven coach and a proven manager of people - we are very fortunate we have him on board steering the ship instead of some unknown who could take the club further back. I do take comfort from having him there and will back in his list management and understanding of where we're at. What made last year so hard was that in addition to the thrashings, I didn't agree with Neeld's list management strategy and had no confidence in the direction he was taking us.

What we are witnessing is a list with a number of players who are not only scarred and completely devoid of confidence but are also seriously lacking in talent and footy nous. What a great combination to have. People may bang on about playing for the jumper, putting in 100% effort, greater intensity, etc. but I'm not sure if such people were actually at the game yesterday. There was nothing wrong with our effort, our desire, our intensity. I thought we tried hard and battled on for four quarters. The difference was the gulf in class, talent, footy nous and confidence. Early in the game West Coast dominated out of the centre, but I thought we gradually became more competitive in that area after quarter time. What killed us after quarter time was either a terrible kick or a stupid decision forward of centre that created either a turnover or a 50/50 (which the Eagles invariably won). From there the Eagles would just counter-attack and run in numbers down the ground and kick an easy goal. Yes, a few tall forwards would have definitely helped, but this does not excuse the sheer ineptitude on display during some of our forward moves and the way we failed to defend the turnover. Unfortunately it looks like we are a League 1 side playing in the English Premier League. We are playing in a division that at this point in time is too good for us. That's not to say it will always be this way, but the simple fact is we are a long, long, long way off even being competitive with the top sides in the league. You can make excuses each week and say this and that, but on talent and confidence and decision making we are currently not up to scratch. We're not an AFL standard team and that's why we cop 100 point beltings. It's just so depressing when you watch a round of AFL footy and see some great games, close contests and tight battles, and then you rock up to watch your team (something that we all love doing) and the game is not even a contest at any stage. You get nothing from it - no highlights, no memorable passage of play, nothing to enjoy - and perhaps even worse you don't feel any emotion. I just sat there watching the game totally withdrawn, with no rage and no anger at what was unfolding in front of me. Can you imagine a more peaceful 100 point loss? Normally you would feel gutted, but not us Melbourne supporters, we've had it all beaten out of us to the point where we just turn up waiting for it to happen.

It comes down to personal choice. I would rather be informed straight away and can then reset and readjust my expectations accordingly, than to just mysteriously see player X fail to make the team and have no understanding why. All it is doing is delaying the inevitable. We are going to find out about the injuries in due course as the player won't be playing - therefore in my opinion it is better to be open and honest straight away than to try to hide something that will come out anyway.

I think it's more a description of the injuries. For example, when Dawes injured himself in the intra-club, it was reported as calf tightness. Well calf tightness doesn't keep you out of action for 2 months. Perhaps it was calf tightness then and he subsequently strained the muscle, but I don't recall that ever being communicated - all I can recall was the initial diagnosis of calf tightness, that he is close to playing and they want to get him right for Round 1. Next thing you hear he is off to the AIS. Same as the Hogan 'stress reaction' and I wouldn't be surprised if Gawn's injury is more than mere hamstring tightness. Also, in cases where the prognosis is not clear, then there is nothing wrong with communicating that. If you think Dawes should be two weeks away but it could be more depending on how it settles, say that. We understand that healing rates differ and it's not an exact science, but I think that can be communicated better. Anyone know anything about McKenzie? Last week Mahoney said he could have played but they were being cautious and he'll return next week. Is he injured or was he just not selected?

If Fitz and Tom McDonald don't play, then it would be the equivalent of West Coast having the following players out of their side: Naitanui, Cox, Kennedy, Darling, LeCras, Sinclair, Mackenzie and Mitch Brown. Puts into perspective what we're up against this weekend with our rotten luck.

I suppose the most frustrating thing for me (and I'm sure many others) is that we start a new season with a really winnable game and a chance to have a really enjoyable start to the season. However, as has been our luck recently, we go into the game without our 3 key forwards and 2 best ruckmen, lose our next best key forward and the defender marking the opposition's best player to injury before half time, and to top it all off we waste chances in front of goal. If there was a game it would've been nice to go in with close to a full strength side and not cop mid-game injuries, it was this one. Unfortunately the circumstances conspired against us and we are left with that familiar feeling of disappointment. That said, there's no doubt we put in an ordinary performance on the night. There were individual highlights (Watts, Jones, Dunn, Vince at times, Tyson at times) but as a team is wasn't a great performance. To lose the contested possession and clearance statistics against a really weak midfield was really disappointing, as was our lack of pressure in the front half of the ground and what I perceived to be a stronger attack on the ball and man by the Saints. None of those factors are influenced by missing talls. Let's hope we can improve on that this weekend because we will need to play a lot better to even be competitive with West Coast.

Nothing quite like feeling absolutely gutted after Round 1. Year after year after year. Yeah, there were signs of improvement from last year (although could you really get any worse than losing by 321 points in the opening three rounds?) and we were completely down on luck (as usual) with our three key forwards out plus the injury to Fitz before half time, but seriously... This was a very poor St Kilda team without its three best midfielders. I would probably rate their midfield bottom four in the league and without Hayes, Montagna and Steven a clear bottom. Yet they won more contested footy than us and smashed us in the clearances. That's right, the worst midfield in the comp. beat us in the contested footy and clearances. That has nothing to do with missing key forwards. A midfield featuring names such as Curran, Saunders, Newnes and Dunstan beat us in the contests and a dogged tagger in Clint Jones was made to look like a brownlow medallist with 39 touches. St Kilda got the game on their terms early. Numbers back, make it hard for us to find any loose players or space in the forward line (which you need when you have a small forward line) and then break forward to Riewoldt and Maister / Stanley one out. The plan worked a treat for them. Of course we didn't help by moving the ball too slowly at times, delivering the ball poorly inside 50 and then failing to apply enough forward pressure on the way out. I said all week not to play Cam Pederson. But many on here dismissed that, saying they like the contest he brings. Far out, that was one of the most deplorable performances I've seen from a Melbourne player. Gave us absolutely nothing all night, missed two set shots and somehow contrived to miss a goal from 5m out on the run. I don't care if he's our only tall - he can't play forward. So we can rattle off some positives (Watts was superb, Jones and Dunn excellent), but frankly I'm not really in the mood. For me the most upsetting thing is that our one perceived advantage (midfield) didn't pan out that way - we had the cattle tonight to dominate them in midfield but we didn't. We also allowed them to play the game on their terms for pretty much the entire night. Any other team would have smashed St Kilda tonight and to start another season with another shocking performance is just shattering. I thought perhaps for one week in seven years we may actually enjoy footy - obviously too much to ask for a MFC supporter.

The purpose of the Fitz and Howe comment is just to show that certain situations warrant deviation from the plan. It's not a case of "we are sticking to the plan no matter what". In my opinion our situation warrants a slight temporary deviation. I can understand that others may not share that view, but having our three key forwards out is extreme circumstances and I don't think we can simply close our eyes to it and say "we're sticking with the plan". At the very least it warrants strong consideration. As for Richmond, I don't think that's relevant at all. There is no fundamental change of course here, no change of strategy or approach (which the Tigers have been accused of in the past) - it is merely a temporary response to extreme circumstances. As soon as Hogan or Dawes or even Gawn can come back into the side, Watts would move back into his midfield role. It is likely to be a 1-2 week change at most. I also believe the added benefit of selecting another runner is something that needs to be taken into account.