deanox

And was charged with staging during the 2nd quarter! Anyone have the vision?

1. I'd argue that what you described isn't "out on the full" because the player didn't actually kick the ball (the definition of "kick" in the rules includes both disposing the ball and contact below the knee). But instead should be a free kick against the player who handballed under Law 18.10.2 b) 18.10 OUT OF BOUNDS 18.10.1 Spirit and Intention Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play. 18.10.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who: (a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds On the Full; (b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line andd oes not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or ... 2. Handballing into space doesn't seem to be cheating? The onus is definitely on a player to correctly tackle a player with the ball, and if they dispose of the ball legally - whether to a team mate or space - the outcome is the same. I do think that if someone is tackled right as they handball it then that probably play on, not a free kick for holding the man. So this is more about umpires feel for the game rather than players cheating. 3. Blatent cheating. This is against Law 18.2.2.

I'm pretty sure one of the players (Petty?) did this late in 3rd when we had the ball deep as well. Brought back good memories.

I think I understand what you mean. The game has rules, and using them is legitimate. But I don't think this is about exploiting rules tactically, I think this is about going against the spirit of the game and rules. And the spirit is specifically listed in those Laws: 18.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT 18.3.1 Spirit and Intention A Player who makes the football their sole objective shall be provided every opportunity to do so. 18.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player makes any of the following Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player: ... (c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the shoulders) with any part of their body; When a player deliberately causes a tackler to make prohibited contact, the football is no longer their sole objective, instead their objective is to try to draw a free kick. The tackler has not - through their action - inhibited the players' opportunity to win the football. The player chose to forfeit their opportunity to make the football their sole objective, so arguably the rule isn't intended to apply. So even if it's not cheating, it definitely goes against the spirit of the game and therefore the rule.

I didn't see it anywhere else on here but I thought it was pretty amazing watching the cheer squad and surrounds sing happy birthday to Ryan on Saturday night (the printed photos were a good touch) after the players ran through a banner with his face on it as well! Wholesome reacts only everyone, what a great club and supporters!

I really think this is spot on. Comparative vs opposition, and it would be worse for shorter or 5 v 6 than longer ie 8 v 9 after a bye. Also cumulative short breaks (ie repeat short breaks) would add up too. I often wonder how much of it is also the luck factor each year. Some body soreness and injuries can be sorted with a single long rest of say 16 days. Others might need 8 otherwise they get progressively worse. Other injuries or niggles can come up fine repeatedly each week as long as they get just the right break, but if they get one day less just can't function. If players have interupted preseasons the short breaks would have bigger impacts too, as the full rest is needed, no training or fitness could be slotted in. So the type of injuries and fitness issues a club carries in any given year would really affect how the draw impacts the playing group. What's good one year might be terrible another year.

It's actually really interesting that we had terrible TV timeslots at the start of the year while in winning form but now that we aren't we are getting the good slots.

The way I think about this is trying to put my body (or imagine putting my body) into those positions. Both players are running. Redman's rear leg is fully elongated in a regular running stride, he is reaching forward to tackle. It is a pretty normal looking position, much like the 3rd from right in the image below (near the swing) and seems like it would be a comfortable position to be in when running, and doesn't involve any "non running" type body positions or movements. Ginnivan on the other hand has both knees bent in a split leg lunge position. He is landing - like the far left or right sketches here - but the angle of his front knee seems much lower. This means he has dropped his body position out of a normal comfortable normal running position and into a crouch, and is dropping/leaning towards Redman. Here, the next frame only, Redman has been able to extend his stride, and now looks like he is in the end position (far right) but at pace. Again, imaging that position it feels like a natural running position. Ginnivan on the other hand, has both feet together, so he has actually planted his front left foot and propped! This is why the first image looks like he is "lunging", because he has planted the front left foot and instead of pushing through forward continuing to run at pace, he has dropped and stopped in front of the tackler. Basically, if Ginnivan kept running here he may have gotten away from Redman, or he might have been caught and forced to handball. But either way he was a solid step out in front of the reaching Redman. It was Ginnivan's choice to try to "draw a free kick" by propping and turning low into the tackler that caused this incident to occur, and frankly it shouldn't be rewarded because it's dangerous, and also it goes against the spirit of the game. I've attached another angle, which shows just how far Ginnivan chooses to drop even more clearly. However, I'm firmly of the belief that this situation crossed the line pretty quickly as this went to ground and Redman dragged Ginnivan down and held him in a headlock. High contact was Ginnivan's fault, but Redman had a duty of care to release once he realised the potential danger. The umpire also had a duty of care to blow the whistle and stop play quickly. It should be immediately holding the ball: Ginnivan chose to duck into the tackle instead of disposing of the ball, and that is the same level of prior opportunity as choosing to fend off.

If you want to know just got close the pies wins have been...

I think it's reasonable for mo to give some vague info this way. He has told us that it isn't an issue with our club. Indicating it's not a player rift, a coaching argument, poor facilities, poor offer from us, etc. It's good info to share to us. It's something personal for the player that mo knows and says he won't share. Which sounds pretty reasonable.

We actually went 4.5/9 if you stretch it out as well. We are currently 3/8, so win next week make it 4/8 and it is pretty close

This year we are second with 52 points. After round 19 last year we were 3rd with 54 points and the Cats and Dogs both above us, having just lost to the dogs. I'm not saying it's the same as last year or that we are playing well now, but I think a bit of context is important. This is the second best position your football club has ever been in after round 19. Ever. In its history. There is still a chance this plays out ok.

If it is mental and not physical (injuries, lack of fitness/conditioning/match fitness, loading, etc.) then I think that is understandable after lockdown, hubs, travel etc. followes by the comedown from the buzz of winning a Premiership. Especially after winning 10 straight to start the season despite not getting out of second gear. This would also suggest that when the real pressure for a top 4 spot comes in the next few weeks and the finals game steps up, that extrinsic motivation should kick in again.

@Diamond Jimif that's the case, do you think he is competing with Spargo/ANB who have been playing further up field and deliver forward, or Pickett who tends to stay closer to goal? I'd also add that Melksham tended to stay quite deep on Sat I think, regularly starting in the square. So that could add to him being a reasonable like for like positional swap.

If they don't need to announce this, maybe it's already happened?

For all the consternation about not having a plan B (for the record, I don't think teams need Plan Bs, they typically just need to execute their Plan A correctly) one thing I do think we should give strong consideration to is this option. Brayshaw can play in the centre, no worries. This isn't a major shift. Bowie/Hunt can come in to cover his HBF role. This isn't a major shift as they are part of that group based on form anyway. Pettacca spending extra time forward offers a real dimensional change for us, and provides an alternative avenue to goal with TMac and BBB either injured or out of form. We would effectively be playing him as a medium forward to replace that tall forward role (instead of Melksham I guess?).

Thanks! I haven't seen much of Chandler, particularly lately while he has been in form. So my next question for the watchers was whether he could play that link up role across HFF and onto the wing, like Spargo has been, or cover the ground as part of our zone like ANB does.

I'm not saying Spargo is playing well - I felt his impact had been down. But other than "goals scored" his stats are actually up on last year: Stat: 2022 v 2021 Disposals: 12.6 v 11.5 DE%: 69.9% v 70.7% Marks: 4.4 v 3.4 Inside 50s: 3.2 v 2.2 Metres gained: 212 v 187 F50 ground ball gets: 1.2 v 1.2 Goals: 0.3 v 0.7 Shots at goal: 1.0 v 1.6 GA: 0.8 v 0.6 Score Involvements: 4.6 v 4.4 Tackles: 2.5 v 2.4 Tackles i50: 0.9 v 1.0 Pressure Acts: 11.8 v 10.8 I actually think that Spargo's lack of goals is a direct result of the poor performance of our tall forwards. Without TMac, and with BBB struggling to impact games consistently, Spargo has been forced to play higher up the ground to offer options. This has resulted in more marks, more uncontested possessions, more inside 50s, a higher kick/handball ratio, and more metres gained, but less shots at goal because on average he is further away from goal than last year. I'm not sure that swapping Chandler for Spargo fixes this. (As much as I think Chandler deserves a go)

Id like to reward Chandler too but who would he come in for? I feel it's Pickett, ANB or Spargo he is competing with: Pickett kicked 6 last week and 2 last night. He is inconsistent but he has absolute star quality and is so dangerous, he threatens to take every game apart. I can't see him being dropped. ANB plays a high coverage, high pressure, link up half forward role. I don't know if Chandler has that sort of endurance or aerobic capacity? Spargo feels to me like he has been down on form, but I'm not sure if that is just because he is averaging less goals per game? He is actually up on score involvements, goal assists, inside 50s, disposals and marks than previous seasons. I think he is playing higher up the ground than before which is continuing to less goals. That isn't where Chandler will play. Melksham is most likely as he is the last in the team and didn't provide the obvious defensive efforts last night that he did last week. But he had 9 score involvements from 9 disposals, including kicking 2.1 and a goal assist. That isn't a bad return for a fringe player taking his chances.

Unfortunately he has already played his first game.

Definitely not dominant, I wouldn't bet the farm on us. But one thing is for sure, as a squad they understand what finals footy pressure means and they know the gear they need to get to to win them now. The prelim finalists for the last 4 years: 2021: Melbourne/Bulldogs/Geelong/Port Adelaide 2020: Richmond/Geelong/Brisbane/Port Adelaide 2019: Richmond/GWS/Collingwood/Geelong 2018: West Coast/Collingwood/ Richmond/Melbourne Richmond, GWS and Port won't be there. The Dogs might sneak in, and I know they beat us tonight but honestly I can't see them winning 4 finals straight. Brisbane played one prelim in a season everything was played in Queensland. They are a good side but I don't think they have the defence to win a flag. Collingwood have some experience and if they can sneak top 4 could be a threat come September. Otherwise Melbourne and Geelong are the only teams with that grand final experience right now. Does it solve anything? No. But it actually could help us step up a gear in September even though we've been struggling in June/July.

Had pretty solid 1st and 3rd quarters. But I don't think he touched it in the other two. Once again he leaves me confused, because I don't see the specific thing he does wrong consistently. At his worst it seems that he is useless in pack type situations, not competing, no body work etc. But most games there are at least a couple of situations where he does great work in the packs, hitting them hard, splitting them, bullocking the follow up, scooping the ball and fishing a handball, or floating across dangerously. His lead up work is perfect when on song. But then oftentimes he'll just be standing still, hands in the air, no movement. So he can do it, but just doesn't most of the time for some reason. I can't pinpoint it. Still, 3 goals and 2 direct score assists is a decent output.

I think the club would have a good idea what both are thinking, but I also think that until end of season these things are rarely done deals, for a couple of reasons: - Unless there is a very specific reason that Jackson must go home (family, friend, illness, etc), then it'll be a desire thing. - We don't know where Jackson sits on the "like to go" vs "must go" scale. And it sounds like the club don't either. Until that is known, his currency isn't known. - Freo/WCE will need to stump up appropriate trade. Until end of year, it is unlikely we will have even entertained that convo with them, plus we also know that currently neither party has available currency. So until final draft order, other trades/player movements, etc get known, it is entirely possible that it just won't happen. - Unless Jackson is willing to walk into the PSD for nothing, and probably get picked by WCE, then Freo will have to trade. - For Gus, it's similar. He is exploring FA. He'd be remiss not to meet and greet, hear an offer etc. - I would be surprised if they are giving an exact number right now, with salary cap/ EBA unknown etc - I'm sure MFC have given a good number but would also potentially have room to move if an LJ left. - So unless Angus hates MFC or his current role, and can't wait to move OR unless he is being offered an absolute godfather offer that we can't get near, then it would still be up in the air as well.

Great analysis @binman. I would love to see the Weed come back and hit the finals like he did in 2018, but this time get the medal. I think he has the ability but I'm not confident we'll see it happen.

I really don't think he'll be dropped, and even though a lot of his goals often look like easy out the back, I think he works pretty hard to be in the right position to get them. IF he is dropped, he wouldn't be dropped on form. It would be on a statement regarding team first ethos and defensive efforts, as we are a month out from finals and that is the area we need to lift.