Rhino Richards

Fair comment on both points.

Oh yes mark of the year in 2007. And yes he did put in 4 tackles on the weekend. We have a find then. I notice you couldn't answer the question either DL. You have had six years to work it out now. What would you expect Mahoney and Schwab to say in public? I have been watching Newton closely for about 5 years since he started in Sandy 2nds. I was excited once by hints of natural talent. But he has not shown the fundamental where with all to actual make it happen at AFL level. I d love Newton to make it...(Said that 5 years ago too). Still waiting but I dont think he will. And he has delivered little to date.

Remind me what are Newton's strengths at AFL level? If people are pleased with what Newton has served up to date then they have low threshhold of acceptance. From viewing both games he has absolutely no impact on the game and unless there is a quantifiable improvement in him, he is out when Watts, Jurrah are ready. As for his ruckwork, it is credit to Jamar that we have not had to exploit him there too often and that neither Fraser nor Tippett made him more accountable. He has a last chance (of many) to make it in AFL and has not yet grasped it. I doubt he will. And if he does blow this chance there will still be posters who will state he needs a further five games at AFL level to see if he is any good. If he cant do better against Richmond, his cards are marked more heavily IMO than they were before.

The AFL will not reduce the interchange numbers to slow the game down. All the rule changes recently have focussed on preventing coaches from controlling or frustrating the tempo. As for "substitutes" I would like to see a clearer description of how it will work. I agree with concerns about manipulations. If you have 4I/Cs and 1 or more substitutes, are the AFL going to expand Club list sizes to accommodate this?

Thanks for the Tapscott pick up. I overlooked it I agree on Jordie. Fair enough. If you deal with the media that much I can understand your general frustration

I just wonder is there a timing issue between being able to elevate and the return of Morton.

McKenzie is a rookie listed player who got elevated when Morton was injured (Is that correct?) However if Morton returns then there needs to be someone to go off the main list back to the rookies? We have three elevated rookies (Spencer, Newton and Jordie at the moment and two players on LTI (Gawn and Jurrah)). I would think that would have to be Newton demoted. I cant see Jordie going down. I am with Mikey J on the unnecessary and somewhat typical anonymous swipes at journalism.

Well said Graz. Bruce and McDonald are on the wane or in the last season. If thats where Deledio and Tambling they have problems. Deledio is very good but fights a lone battle. Tambling is a moderate player who has yet to breakthrough on the confidence shown in him to be drafted at No4. Cousins is another player whose best is behind him is in his final year (if he lasts) and he is a disaster off the field (The Tigers have alot of them). Given our list I think we have Newman covered. Foley on the LTI list is a loss for them. After the top 6 to 10 its ordinary and it reflects 5+ years of carp recruiting and trading under Wallet. Aside from Foley they dont have any big guns to come back to bolster the list from injury. And the player culture is abysmal with at least 6 ot 7 problems on their list that they need to quickly straighten out or get rid. They may be trawling near where we were in 2007/2008 but I cant see a ready solution through a re build in the draft like we have. No its quality and its spread thin atm.After the first six or so players there is little. They have depth in abundance but its all ordinary. They merely replace NQR with NQR

Thanks for the heroics Moose. Just makes your whole bleat about "Why are they looking at the D'field incident" look even sillier. But I am sure you have already worked that out. B)

I saw Newton kick 5 or 6 at VFL level. I have seen PJ win the Liston at VFL level and neither are AFL standard. I hope Jetta does prove me wrong.

It was not a consequence of the third tackler. You are trying to fantasise the fact to fit your proposed. And the Watts incident happened in front of where I sitting. It was a high tackle by Maxwell and not the consequence of three tacklers. And your perpetuating the Watts issue only further dims your grasp of the matter. Your gridiron reference is once again irrelevant because the three MFC did not lock arms and charge at D'field. FFS, the reason for the D'field was that his head hit the ground before his body. It could have happened with one tackler let alone three. There was no gang co ordinated tackle by MFC players and its got nothing to do with why D'field was injured. I know youve been around because you seem to pine for the old days.

A good player will struggle to get away from one tackle correctly applied, There have numerous incidents of that. The facts dont correlate that there is any higher likelihood of injury in a 3 tackle as opposed to 1 or 2. How many congested packs are there in a game of football? And how many injuries have come out of them? The burning issue is where the head connects with another hard object where the arms are pinned. This is particularly the case where the head strikes the ground initially before the rest of the body. They have outlawed spear tackles and taking the legs out from underneath a player leaping for a mark for that very reason. Now the issue with D'field was not the number of tacklers but the fact his head struck the ground first with his arms pinned. As we both agree the tackle was correctly applied with no malice. I am still not sure what the relevance of Watts is. The issue with him was that one of the three tacklers Maxwell tackled him high and a free was given. The issue was not danger of the three tacklers.You seem to dislike a younger player being welcomed to AFL football with little more than a handshake. And we dont have scrums in AFL like in rugby so once again you are bringing a set play from another sport that does not occur in AFL.

Just like I crossed a line through Isaac Weetra after 2 games... I dont think he has the sufficient level of skills to cut a career in the fwd pocket at MFC and I think we will have better options to run through the midfield in the future.

Watts has got nothing to do with the D'field incident. Talk about sticking to the topic... First game highly ranked player gets physically pushed around by opposition. Shock horror. Watts incident was not in the least dangerous. The tackle was crude at worst. The intent was no worse than the intent on the D'field tackle. The issue with D'field was the manner in which the tackle applied resulted and not the number of tacklers. The incident can happen with fewer involved in the tackle. I have seen bigger tackle groups and the risk to D'field hasn't happened. I am all for rules that actually protect the head the neck and the spine but not rules that appeases torch lighters but does not address the risk.

Bate was 4th in the Bluey last year in a crippled forward line. Try again. Some players have stalled because of the player themselves. Bartram in the past two weeks is better than Bennell down back and I am not sure why Cheney is breathing down his neck. Not sure who Cheney reasonable matches up on as I dont see him with any strong skill out of his bag of tricks that makes him an AFL player. I cant see Bennell going back too soon given his past efforts there . Nor can I see either Wonna or Maric challenging for a while. And Jetta IMO does not cut it at the higher level. As for development no matter how you want to spin it, Newton and Dunn are in their sixth year on the list and have shown little to date that they are not warming the bench for others to return or better youngsters to develop.

Rather than hyperventilate on the issue, please explain in the context of the situation that actually happened how this incident could have been prevented? And Watts tackle has nothing to do with this...oh that right there were 3 tacklers... Its stupid because the incident did not occur because there was a third tackler. I note you have not address the issue if one of the other players is a player for the opposition. The same issue could arise with two tacklers. And it will do little to quell the ugly packs at all. If you want to slow down the movement of vast numbers of players at the fall of the ball then you must reduce thenumber of interchanges a side can have during a quarter or match. What dangerous behaviour of the coaches is there and what injuries were at risk? Lots of hyperbole ...little fact.

Bartram was good the last two weeks. He has improved his disposal and decision making significantly. At that form he is a keeper for mine. Bennell is better up the ground.

What sort of injuries were they? And the old days...hmmm they kicked drop kicks. Given where the game is and the speed at which it is played there is little chance in the world that an undermanned AFL team could beat a fully fit team where both sides were even at 3rd time D'field injury is potentially the worst injury this year. Just because I said it was unfortunate does not undermine the seriousness. I will make it simple. If there are rule changes that address these matters then make them. Banning the third man in the tackle wreaks of the nannyism you clearly oppose.

And Bruce goes where? I think Riewoldt will be too quick for Rivers. Garland to Riewoldt and Bruce to Nason. You are right. Its easy.

If If If. We are 1 win from 3 games. It was a great win but one we struggled to achieve against an underdone and injury riddled opponent. Lets look at Rd 9 when we get to it. Worst case of cart a mile ahead of the horse I have seen. No tell me it isnt true. You must be lying. You mean we dont have a forward line....where do you get such information from? This is a revelation. I said... You will miss the irony of your use of the word "realistic" And for the record I love a good curry and beer ....but not when its so undercooked.

It was not the number of tacklers that were the problem. It was the way they fell. It could happen with only two tacklers. What if one of the four in the tackle is a teammate? Why was it cheeky? Adelaide were at complete disadvantage when exhausted players could not be rotated off. It was a huge benefit to MFC. How could Neil Craig make realistic assessments of players welfare in the heat of battle in the last. How exposed were thay beyond just physical fatigue. The issue is that fatigue players are at greater risk of injury that non fatigue players. Whats the solution? Take them all off! If Neil Craig pulled one player off for a rest, the player would be villified and Craig should be sacked for flying the white flag.

As I recall, D'field was tackled by 3 players concurrently and the players fell awkwardly. In that case it was not the third person in that caused the problem. So making rules about that is unworkable and does not address the issue. I dont think this incident is referable for rule change. It was an inconsequential and unfortunate outcome.

Yes Umpires do give howlers in the belief that it squares up some perceived howler to the other side earlier in the game. Some of supporters thinking about umpiring is so naive and ridiculous that it really beggars belief. And its good to know people in the crowd get a batter view than at least three umpires in more central and strategic positions. Gives me great comfort indeed.

Bennell has alot of skill and should be persisted with. Newton is a beneficiary of consequence and would not be there if there were half decent options. Newton was put on the rookie list at 2009 year end. I have seen nothing to suggest he wont be gone at the end of 2010. I am not sure what Dunn has delivered to date but has confirmed the question marks that surround his performances in now his sixth year. Flaky at best.

Agree. And it would be good for those that also state that Cheney and McNamara deserve a spot. Barring injuries or suspensions can someone give a plausible explanation as to how? And if they do come in what types of players do they match up on?