deanox

@DeeBloodhas the opportunity to do the funniest thing ever and leave a 5 star review, but in the review complain about @binman's ums so that @Demonlandneeds to read it out on the pod.

1 hour ago, In Harmes Way said:

If the AFL were serious about handing out weeks' suspensions based on potential, then Fogarty from Carlton should have got considerably more than 1 week. He could have caused significant damage to Fyfe. Completely agree with your comment on consistency.

And I think the issue is "how much duty of care is enough?".

In this case Kosi could have hit him hard (or medium) but did lots of things to mitigate it to a low impact glancing blow.

On one hand, that's exactly what the AFal want to see: potentially dangerous situation reduced to low impact due to the actions of the offending player.

However maybe the AFL goes further and says "regardless of how much you mitigated it, you could have mitigated the risk more by running the other way (for example) so you could've done more.

11 hours ago, Jaded No More said:

I also cannot see how we downgrade Kosi’s charge in the current environment and I’m comfortable with him missing a week, independently of what else has happened this year. 
He has to know that he’s now going to be looked at closely as someone with a history and he needs to be exceptionally careful. 

I am comfortable with it being a week because I feel it is about time that potential for injury is considered. But I do think the AFL needs to take a consistent line on what mitigating factors are sufficient to show duty of care.

The wording of the rule appears to allow the potential to cause injury clause to be mitigated if the player is shown to have tried to minimise the impact, including through body position. (Effectively saying if you demonstrate you have exercised a duty of care but contact was still unavoidable then you can get off the hook).

In Kosi's case I suspect we will argue he didn't intend to make contact, and expected to pass behind Soligo, but once he realised it was inevitable he did the following to exercise duty of care as best as he could:

- he brought his arm down to protect his own ribs as he was in a vulnerable position too

-he pulls up as much as possible, minimises contact force

- he brought his arm in to make sure he didn't lead with the elbow. Note it looks like his elbow flicks up (reflex action, like looking at a tree while riding a mountain bike) but I think he actually controls it and drops it back loosely.

- Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, he doesn't actually brace for contact. You can see his arm is slack and his hands are open wide, in a soft body position ready to absorb impact, not tensed and tucked ready to dish out contact. 

The reason I believe the last is most important is because the tribunal has previously discussed hands open v clenched, and the tribunal rule specifically describes body position that affects impact.

To be clear I'm not making a position here that he definitely did all that he could do to mitigate it. Just describing what I think we will argue.

I do think he attempted to mitigate and reduce impact - he could've run through him, he could've hit him firmly, but in actual fact he barely touched him, which means he was successful in applying his duty of care.

I don't know if he did all he could be reasonably expected to do in the circumstances or if it still crosses the line of where we want to be. Given he did successfully mitigate the impact, do we truly expect more? What would that look like?

Careless/low/high = fine apparently but medium impact would be 1 week.

Also here is the wording of the new smoother rule. I truly believe they could just have charged Maynard under existing rough conduct rules.

Footage on the AFL app if you missed it.

Gut and heart says he has to go. We've got a duty of care to protect the head and he did get him.

Ironically it was close to the Maynard rule, jumping to smother and then caught him high.

There are actually some technical aspects to it:

Will they charge him under the specific rule for smother that they brought in? Or regular old high bump? Or rough conduct (they then don't need to prove it's a bump).

First look he almost pokes the elbow out but then tucks it in. Does that make it worse? Or is it actually evidence of him trying to tuck in to avoid elbow to the head.

Also, one mitigating factor for Kosi is that he had open jazz hands not clenched fists when the contact happened. The tribunal has used clenched fists and tense muscles as a proxy for bracing and bumping, as opposed to open hands, which they claim demonstrates a you didn't expect the contact and tried to show a duty of care to the played in an accidental situation. Bizarre but they've written that multiple times in their official adjudications.

One to watch.

1 hour ago, Chook said:

Incredible effort. Surely we've just done something no club has ever done before - knock of both of a non Vic state's sides over there in consecutive weeks.

Actually yeah @Chook

9 hours ago, radar said:

There was a famous 60s training photo of Alan Aylett, taking a chest mark, jumping forward, “with his boot thrust forward to discourage any oncoming player”. 
 

This was in an ANFC skills manual for boys. 

Toby Green must've had a copy.

3 hours ago, roy11 said:

Funny trade looking back at it.

We sent out Pick 10, 2018 First Round and 2018 Fourth Round and in return we got Jake Lever, Pick 35 and 2018 Third Round Pick.

With Pick 35 we chose Harrison Petty.

IIRC Adelaide used those picks for Bryce Gibbs  which didn't exactly work wonders for them, whereas Petty/Lever helped us win a flag and now they're going to need to offer us some decent picks if they want to get Petty.
 

In draft pick terms:

Pick 10

Pick 19 (2018 First Round) (pick 15 before academy and FA compo)

Pick 67 (2018 Fourth Round)

For

Lever

Pick 35

Pick 47 (2018 Third Round Pick)

Which is the equivalent of Pick 8 for Lever. A steal - even before you consider what each team did with the picks - if you ask me.

12 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Am i reading the tea leaves correctly?

If the Kolt gets a gig this week, he has effectively leap frogged Sestan, Laurie & Moniz in a matter of one pre-season and a few games (Rnd 1 & 2 plus Praccys) at Casey.

I don't find that too surprising given he was a first round pick, and Sestan and AMW were both rookie draft players, and as such probably don't have the raw talent of Kolt. (That being said I understand that Sestan probably has a lot of raw talent including kicking skills, it's more a question of fitness capacity/ceiling).

Leap frogging Laurie is notable, but I suspect they see Laurie as more of a mid/forward, whereas Kolt and Sestan are both power forwards in the Petracca mode and are probably capable of playing closer to goal as a forward in Chins role.

Can Ben Brown play every game? (May need a medical opinion to answer that)

1 minute ago, manny100 said:

Tholstrup and Sestan could develop into bulky tough mid/ Forwards.

Both have very high ceilings if it all goes right for them.

6 ANB

5 Petracca

4 Viney

3 Gawn

2 Brown

1 Rivers

Apologies to Oliver, Sparrow and Lever in particular.

17 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Q2 & Q3

2.11

6.6

The difference is right there but let’s not take anything away from either side. The Dogs had too much strength and experience  - Lobb alone has 160 AFL games under his belt and Harmes has 153 AFL games and a premiership. Fullarton and Schache were the only currently listed AFL players in Casey’s team.

I think I prefer what Casey showed today in terms of future players despite the loss. 

10 minutes ago, Older demon said:

Sorry W-J but Tholstrup and Sestan are both MFC-listed players who along with Verrall were in the top 3 for rating points for the most possessions. Ollie was very good, Jefferson lead and marked well but kicked badly and Verrall got lots of possessions more like a mid.

This will be a development year and spots will open up for Sestan, Jefferson, Fullarton & Tholstrup

My guess is @Whispering_Jackmeant "players with AFL experience" not "players on an AFL list".

11 minutes ago, Demonland said:

They're most likely in Adelaide for the fortnight.

If they aren't carry over emergencies for tonight, you'd think they could play today and fly over this evening.

22 minutes ago, Beetle said:

“I got the feeling..” was in reference to the conversation I had, not poor grammar.

But yes, the club knew/knows how important he is to our structure and know they can no longer rely on Brown and McDonald. 

From the discussion I had, I think there is an agreement between the club and Petty that we will do the right thing by him, if he agreed to stay for another year while we are still in that window of opportunity….and yes that is most likely due to the fact Adelaide weren’t able to offer a like for like replacement.

They believe once Petty is fully match fit and McAdam is available, the forward line will be firing. 

Thanks @Beetle, I missed you're original post re a source, but I wasn't trying to suggest you were wrong either. We've got a track record of dealing fairly with players and trying to seek win wins, rather than looking after ourselves only. I actually think it's part of the culture we try to set off field, that makes us attractive for recruits. So I agree that if he really wants to go we'll find a way, provided of course Adelaide come to the party too.

21 hours ago, Beetle said:

I agree…but I got the feeling there was an agreement to “stay one more year”.

I got the feeling the agreement was "you're contracted and unless they stump up something crazy you're staying".

They wanted to slip him into the McAdam trade, which is crazy, the wrong kind of crazy.

We would have needed a ready made replacement at such short notice given our premiership aspirations this year. 

3 hours ago, deanox said:

Will he be an FA or a Restricted Free Agent?

59 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

No he’s a contracted player till end of 25. He wants to go so we’ll facilitate it. It’s going to cost the crows

To be clearer:

In October 2025 when out of contract, will he be a free agent or restricted free agent?

The rule is:

- Restricted Free Agent: 8 years service, and in the top 25% of players (in terms of TPP)

- Unrestricted Free Agent: 8 years service and outside the top 25% of players or 10 years service

Petty signed on in 2021 for 4 years (to the end of 2025). At the time he was a premiership defender but unsure if it was a big money contract. But assuming his salary wasnt bargain basement, in 2025 I'd expect that he'd in the best 25% of players because many of our stars will be older and in late years of contracts (May, Gawn, Viney, with Brown and TMac off the books, and Lever having extended out).

So I'm not sure if he is a Restricted or Unrestricted free agent in 2025.

Regarding whether he'll actually go, I truly believe last year was about money. We signed him on a 4 year contract and he was half way through say he was on $500k. Adelaide reportedly threw $4 mil over 5 years at him. Of course that sounds like a good deal. But when it comes to it, we'll be offering very similar to what Adelaide offer to extend his contract. And we'll have TMac and Brown and Angus salaries freed up too. He isn't from Adelaide itself either.

It might happen, bit I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

19 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

If he stays next year then walks as a free agent, and if we get band 1 compensation, then we get the first pick after our own. Which, if we are any good next year, will be mid-teens. North Melbourne got pick 3 because their first pick in the draft was pick 2.

Will he be an FA or a Restricted Free Agent?

7 minutes ago, rpfc said:

Petty has to go back. TMac, Tomlinson, and Hore can do a job but you need an interceptor and we just lost two.

This should make us lean in to our current strategy to focus on quick movement from the backline, but we need to turn it over first.

I feel this is a decision that will save our season in the next 2 months but may doom our ability to keep Petty. Bit scripted really.

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

Why? He may prefer to play defense. Adelaide are wanting him to play down there. 

Yeah I thought I read Adelaide were saying he'd be a defender for them.

I haven't heard a preference either way from Petty.

And honestly, I reckon it's about money more than position. He's an RFA with 2 years left on his contract. Adelaide were throwing crazy money over and above his current contract which we don't need to offer to keep him. Of course the offer sounded good.

18 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

We have a choice to make. We either push Petty back to defense, or we persevere with our ideal forward set up and hope for the best with a backline of Tomlinson, McDonald and Hore as the talls. 
God speed. 

Over the next couple of weeks it wouldnt surprise me if we do both.

Entirely dependent on how fit Brown and Petty are, and also Hore who may be coming off a low base fitness wise.

Personally I'd bring Tomlinson and Hore into the 22 and try to play them back for May and Lever, knowing that we can always swing Petty if it isn't working.

5 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

May went down right in front of me, and from my vantage looked like ribs. He looked very, very sore.

Just now, Jaded No More said:

Anyone watching at home; any updates on May? 

I've just watched the replay on Kayo, but haven't been following the half time updates.

It looked like rib area was hit and that's where he grabbed, but the impact seemed a bit broad (shin/leg against side of body) rather than sharp (ie knee point directly digging in).

I'm not a doctor or biomechanist but it looked more like a heavy collision than sharp rib impact. Hopefully bad bruising or stitch from impact rather than anything more serious?

Yeah that's why he came straight back in.

I wasn't sure but not many others can pack mark like that.

2 hours ago, binman said:

McAdams would be the option if fit. 

I wonder with bb playing the lead out full forward role if fritter could play a defensive forward role on Sicily.

Fritter is a bit out of form and Sicily would take him to the ball. But Sicily wouldn't be able to take too many liberties with fritter either. A danger player to sag off and leave free.

McAdams did this role against Lever last year pretty well. It wouldn't surprise me if that game either peaked our interest or solidified it. Especially once Melksham went down.

On 18/03/2024 at 10:10, pingu said:

I was looking for the CBA stats. Which app did you get these on? I could not find anything on the AFL website.

@pingu AFL app, advanced stats, but I customised the stat display options to add it in.

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They could help this by reducing the number of players on field to 16, 15 or even 14. Would reduce the congestion we see too. They won't do it though.

The ridiculous thing is that reducing the number of players to 16, would massively open up play and probably result in more fast play, more running and bouncing, more open forward lines, potentially more goals, etc.

Less players will be able to commit to the contest on-ball, creating more open play, and space to run into if they do get too close.

It could shift back to more man on man play, as zone defence gets too hard to play with extra area and distance to cover per player. 

It certainly isn't going to add congestion and stoppages.