Scoop Junior

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.

Unfortunately it was difficult given the viewing position to really get a good gauge on some of the younger players. Howes - I liked some of the things he did. Didn’t do a lot, understandably as a first year player against the strong blue team, but a few times he got the ball he made really quick decisions, once with a rapid handball almost as soon as he got it. Showed some good awareness in those situations. Unfortunately the highlights video captured the occasion when he got caught holding the ball! Needs to build his body in the gym but will be an interesting watch. Dunstan - Won some ball, but didn’t really stand out for mine. Difficult though being part of a well beaten midfield against the somewhat first string blue team getting silver service from Max. McVee - Didn’t notice him much. Don’t think he was on the ground the whole time. Showed a bit of toe on one occasion when taking on the man on the mark. JVR - had a really difficult task, not only being starved of service but trying to impact as a first year forward against our A defence. But I actually thought he showed a bit given the circumstances and could easily have kicked 2 goals. Took a mark on the lead in the second term but missed from close range (although others also missed at that end with a somewhat tricky breeze). Had another chance with a snap which also missed. Will need time to learn and build his body but definitely shows something.

TV/Movies - Sport, True Doccos (eg. crime/legal), Thrillers, Mystery/Drama

Haha I'll leave the sci-fi to the experts - it's definitely not my genre!

I went down to Casey Fields for today's training. The boys started with lighter drills (kicking, shots on the run, snaps from the pocket, set shots) before moving into a drill where the players were in four groups (two at each end, two on each wing) which involved basic kicking to a lead, giving off to a player running past and then kicking to the next group. Missing from training (at least to my eye) were Melksham, Petty and Daw, while TMac ran laps. TMac didn't appear too bad and ran at a pretty steady pace - I would presume he will be back in training fairly shortly. Then match sim began, which was three 20-minute quarters (or should that be thirds?). Of the training group, ANB and Spargo didn't play in the match sim (but trained prior to then). Blue v Red, with Blue seemingly a predominantly "A team". Teams were as follows: Blue backs - Lever May Tomlinson Bowey Hibberd Salem Hunt Blue mids - Oliver Petracca Viney Langdon Brayshaw Sparrow Jordon Gawn Blue forwards - B Brown Weid Fritsch Pickett Chandler Red backs - Turner J Smith D. Smith McVee Rivers Baker Red mids - Dunstan Harmes Woey AMW Rosman Howes Jackson Red forwards - M Brown JVR Laurie Bedford There were a few fill-in players who played for the red team. My comments below are subject to a pretty ordinary viewing position about 30m behind the goal and behind a fence. But I'll try my best! -Unsurprisingly, the Blue team dominated. Scores were B 3.3 v R 0.4 at the first break, B 8.8 v R 1.6 at the second and the final scores were B 13.13 v R 3.7 after the three terms. I've just included that for those who like those things - it means nothing, especially when after the second term the entire Blue "A" defence switched teams with the Red defence. Jackson also switched into Blue as a forward, taking Weid's spot, while Weid went into the ruck for Red. I also noticed Chandler in Red for the third term. -Blue were just too dominant in the midfield and even when Red were able to get the ball forward, May, Lever and co. were just too well organised to allow easy scores. -Goalkickers for Red - Harmes, AMW and Chandler. Harmes kicked a nice long-range goal on the run and handed an easy one over the top for AMW in the goal square, while Chandler kicked a nice snap from the pocket. -Goalkickers for Blue - Fritsch 5, B Brown 4, Weid, Jordon, Langdon, Jackson -Fritsch and Brown were obviously the most dangerous forwards - Fritsch got his goals mostly in opportunistic fashion, including a 50m penalty, marking a floater that he judged best and getting an over-the-top goalsquare handball from Viney, but smart forwards get themselves in the right positions. He also kicked an absolute beauty, gathering a ground ball with back to goal, turning and drilling a left-foot drop punt on the spin. Brown kicked all his from set shots, one from a free, one from a 50m penalty (having marked on the lead) and two from marks out in front. His kicking was excellent, with two of his goals from fairly tight angles. He looked slightly more mobile to me - I think he was very straight-line last year and while he will never be the greatest exponent of lateral movement, he did look a bit more agile. -Gawn was just superb, especially in the air - he dominated the ruck and marked everything in sight, whether in a one on one or in a pack of 6 players. -Oliver was his usual ball magnet self, just racking up touch after touch and setting up the play, particularly in the first two terms. -Trac was a bit quieter but got better as it wore on. He took two lovely marks as a forward where he parked himself in line with the ball, used his big frame to protect front position and the drop zone and just marked on his chest. -I thought Weid was really good in the first two terms as a forward. He really launched at the ball and took several contested marks. He spilt some others but hit the pack hard each time. He wasn't as effective in the ruck in the third but he was up against Max. -D Smith seemed to get a head knock during the game and went off. He didn't return to the match sim. Other than that I didn't see any other injuries. -Viney was pretty solid and Sparrow did a few good things. Sparrow is just a brick outhouse - both in the upper body and the legs - you wouldn't want him hitting you at full speed. -May and Lever were really solid with their positioning and understanding of where to be, rarely if ever allowing any easy inside 50 marks. Tomlinson also did some good things and it was great to see him play the full match sim at full intensity. -I probably noticed less of the Red team, given Blue had more of the ball and the vantage point wasn't great. But I liked the look of Howes - he is still quite thin but when he got it he made really quick decisions, which is not always typical of young players adjusting to the increased pace of the game. JVR showed a bit but it was a tough day for Red forwards up against AA defenders.

My first thought is this is a prank. If I'm wrong, then Darkhorse perhaps explain to your son that tens of thousands of Melbourne supporters, who have been going to the footy week in week out to watch the Dees (some for as many as 50-odd years without seeing a premiership), many a time knowing we would not only lose but be belted, going home upset/frustrated/despondent, and doing this over and over again, all the while retaining the dream of seeing their side win a flag at the G, have been denied entry to the first ever Grand Final in Perth where their team has finally saluted. And then couldn't even celebrate it properly with a party atmosphere because they were subjected to some of the strictest lockdown rules anywhere in the entire world. I think in that context, you guys will consider yourselves incredibly fortunate to have experienced the grand final build up, ability to go to the game and winning the premiership without any restrictions whatsoever, and not getting a signature from a player is about as trivial as forgetting to record an AFL-X game.

BUMP One of the great things about winning a flag and hopefully being a successful footy club is reading the articles about the positive things the club has done and is doing, almost setting the example for the rest to follow. This is especially so after all the negativity we have had to endure for so long. While a lot of the negativity during the 2007-2013 period was justified (even though it still hurt us to read it), I thought it was fairly unjustified at times after that period while we were rebuilding, especially with some of the key decisions we made in drafting/trading and the over-reaction to losses last year. The easy analysis from the journos was "Melbourne stuffed up their first rebuild in 2007-2010, they'll just do it again" and there was a failure by many of them to appreciate a strategy that was smart, creative, innovative and brilliantly executed. So let's lap up the positive articles now and enjoy it more by remembering comments like these in the article in the first post of this thread. David King - "They've gone May and Lever as part of their big spend, who are very good players, but what influence can they really have on winning games of football?" I do like King as he does try to provide some insight and he was not the only one who said this at the time. But it's too good not to use!

Agree completely on Oliver being severely underrated - both by opposition fans and commentators. Trac is a sensational player and gets deserved recognition as such but Oliver doesn't get the plaudits he deserves. I think this year commentators have finally caught on to him, but some of them suggest that this has been some kind of breakout season or that he has gone to new levels. The bloke has been performing at an exceptionally high level for years. I can't remember exactly who it was but a Melbourne player was asked about Oliver's incredible year earlier this season and he just laughed and said something like "Clarrie has been doing it for years". Not only is he brilliant at his craft but he has an incredible will to win. How often does he have a huge last quarter in a close game to try to drag us over the line, winning some critical contests along the way. He did it last night with that centre clearance with about 1:20 left and the Eagles throwing everything at us. 28 possessions last night while copping an extremely tight tag for 4 quarters from a seasoned tagger. He is a truly phenomenal footballer.

The AFL in their "explanation" didn't use a lack of vision from the umpire as an excuse. Now I'm not for one minute saying the AFL explanation of "he thought there was a player in the vicinity" is the truth - we all know it's just a massaged message to avoid the obvious reason why the free wasn't paid - but if in fact the umpire was too far away or had his view obstructed they would have said this. It's the easy out. The fact they didn't shows it wasn't a case of him being out of position.

He wasn't. He was in the right position, well inside 50, not too far from the action. He saw it but didn't pay it.

I understand your exercise of trying to find out why he didn't pay it, but I think it's a futile one. Of course we don't know the subjective reasoning of the individual umpire, but I think it's pretty obvious that he froze in the moment and was scared of making a game-deciding decision in front of the home fans. I don't believe there's any other rational conclusion that can be drawn when a free kick so blatant and so clear is not paid. If you were looking for a video to demonstrate deliberate out of bounds 101 this would've been a good example.

You can try and look for "outs" on why the umpire didn't pay the deliberate, but the truth is he just bottled it and failed to pay the clear free kick he observed. Doedee was nowhere near where the Crows player handballed to. He got the ball, looked to the boundary, and handballed straight towards it. I'd be surprised if he even knew Doedee approaching from behind his right shoulder. The only reason Doedee was near the ball when it was because he ran after it as it trickled out. As for the Spargo deflection, I don't believe a slight deflection that is not only unobservable to the naked eye at normal speed but that doesn't change the trajectory or the speed of the ball affects a deliberate decision. And even if it does, there is no way the umpire could have spotted that minor deflection. So even if it was technically correct, which I don't believe it is, it doesn't change the fact that he failed to pay the free kick he observed. The outcome doesn't justify the flawed methodology. Not sure if it has been mentioned elsewhere but on that final high kick forward before the siren went, Oliver was running back with the flight to either get to the aerial contest or be in a front-and-square position to crumb and gets completely blocked off by Laird. I didn't see it at the time and I can understand that umpire missing this off-the-ball free, but it's yet another one that went against us and further shows how the whistle gets swallowed for away teams in the last few minutes of a tight game.

Redleg is spot on. It's not a mistake. It's a clear and obvious free kick right in front of the umpire and he elected not to pay it. Why? He bottled it - he must have known it was a free but didn't show the courage required to pay a potential game-deciding free kick in front of the rabid Adelaide fans. I can tolerate an umpiring error (e.g. missing a hold or a high tackle in a pack of players), and I can tolerate not paying tiggy touchwood frees in a tight game, but you simply must pay a clear and obvious free that you see. It's a clear deliberate under the old interpretation, let alone the new "insufficient intent to keep it in" which is a lower threshold. And that's not even mentioning the holding the ball against Keays - one of the clearest examples of holding the ball you will ever see. So that's 2 of the 3 umpires on the night bottling it. They melted in the spotlight and allowed themselves to be influenced by the crowd and that's the message that needs to be conveyed. Fat chance of that happening though - all we will get is the AFL giving the "yeah they each made a mistake" and further obfuscating the issue.

I wouldn't have thought there'd be too many Spurs fans with the nickname "Gunna's".

This is reading far too much into a piece of vision that shows maybe 1% of what happened in the rooms post-game. You simply don't know what had occurred previously nor what occurred after it. For all we know one of the blokes could've sat down and had a chat with Rivers for 15 minutes at some stage. Just because they're not around him in this small sample of vision doesn't mean it didn't happen and it's dangerous to make these kinds of assumptions off such limited footage. The same when people say Goodwin in the box doesn't do A, B and C when the cameras probably pick up maybe 30 seconds to 1 minute's footage of the coach's box each quarter. You just can't make those assumptions. By the same token I could probably make a highlights video showing Dean Terlich to be a gun rebounding defender.

But it's not the same actus reus. The first offence is driving drunk. The second offence is hitting someone while driving drunk. It's not about outcome, it's about a separate action.