deanox

6 Bowey 5 Pettacca 4 Oliver 3 May 2 Jackson 1 Sparrow Might be a bit controversial but Jackson was probably BOG in the first half but didn't touch it in the last. Sparrow played his role well with very few mistakes and stayed involved the whole time,and was involved in a lot of forward thrusts. Bowey though was sublime. 34 touches at 79%DE, 16 intercepts.

His father is a pretty funny comedian too!

This is one of the reasons that if I was North Melbourne, I'd be calling out Daicos not Horne-Francis. Collingwood have already committed, so it's a no risk. And Daicos will be a gun even if they do get stuck with him.

https://afltables.com/afl/stats/coaches/melbourne.html I'm assuming you've got Chadwick ahead of him based on win %?

My understanding is that it is the same rule that was followed when it was a substitute before the introduction of the interchange (you got credited for the game whether on field or not), and that I think I heard the players were consulted on their thoughts. Surprisingly my biggest gripe is that is mucks up the "ave per game" statistic collumns.

I think if possible clubs should always force other clubs to upbid IF they are willing to take the player. If North would genuinely prefer Daicos or Darcy then they should bid. There is one other factor though: I think the no. 1 pick gets stuff (a share portfolio from NAB, maybe other things). Do NMFC want their player to get that, or Collingwoods player? Conversely, is it better to bid on others so that those players have the pressure of being number 1, and the NMFC player flies under the radar?

I don't understand why they didn't keep the NGA as is (discount and matching) for "after first round" (instead of top 20) and then for any "first round" bids, the academy club could still match the bid on the proviso that: a) there was no points discount; and b) if the bid came before the academy clubs first allocated pick (original pick based on ladder position and before trades) then the matching bid had to include a first round pick in the points. It is still worth developing players as you get a bite at them. Most clubs would only be jumping ahead a few picks in round one at expense of their round 2 pick. And the extreme scenario is a club will spend pick 18 to get pick 1 but also lose pick 36, 54, 72 and go nearly 1,300 points into deficit the following year (pick 12), effectively selling the farm for one player.

I wonder if the reason he is moving up in the ratings so rapidly is because of the impact that Jackson is having? Ie trying to get a very mobile tall ruck.

We effectively got around pick 30 for free in that trade. Great outcome.

Daniel had a lot of the ball, a lot of intercepts and a lot of turnovers. I felt like we were happy for him to be the one we let of the leash. I think we put a lot of work into a bunch of Dogs players, including Weightman, Liberatore, McCrae and Bailey Smith who were all kept much quieter than usual. Assuming we didn't put work into him, then I'm not sure that Goodwin could have him 3rd best on ground (because he did what he thought he would, and would probably rate our defensive efforts to stop key players a bit higher), so I think it has to be Bevo who gave him the votes Treloar is the other one we allowed to run around a bit.

And I reckon Gawn coulda got one after Daniel threw him over the line. But I thought it was a really well umpired game.

Oliver is my favourite. He is a big game, pressure player. If it is a tough contest he usually rises to the top and is a big part of us getting to the line. But if the heat goes out of it early, then it will be one of the more outside players. Petracca an obvious choice, Brown not an outside chance if he gets on the end of a few he could finish with 5. Smokey for May or Lever. They'll probably deserve it. But as key defenders it would need to be a close game in which they dominate in the last quarter to get the nod I reckon. Edit: Surely Gawn couldn't play like that 2 games in a row?.

We can actually cross off the last two on this now!

So since 1964, 3 of our 7 prelims have been played in Perth!

Great post. I do wonder what would have happened if this was a young or expendable player like Thomas Bugg had done this? I think the year long suspension seems more likely.

The push looks to his back, not his front, in this screen shot. I'm not saying it's not soft, and I can't guarantee it's in the back and not in the side, but it is pretty clearly two outstretched hands pushing him, not tackling. I can see why, depending on umpires angle, that may have been paid

Perfect, looks like my interpretation was relatively correct. Accidental collision, caused by not realising he was about to run into him. Saw him last moment and tried to minimise impact. Chalk and cheese to Toby Greene. Honestly I can't believe anyone could be defending Greene's action. His intent is so clear. His body language, demeanour etc. Everything about it was aggressive, intimidatory and disrespectful. Anyone trying to claim plausible deniability should have a good hard look at themselves.

I could see where they came from with the push. Umpires are relatively trigger happy when aplayer pushes someone in the back just as they go to kick the ball. I thought the same thing happened to Weightman while handballing. I haven't seen a slow enough replay to confirm if it was back or side, but I think that's what they were paying.

It's a still shot that without context appears to be an accidental collision during play. Without seeing video my guess is: The Essendon player is moving didn't see the ump coming the other way, they bumped into each other. The Essendon player's right hand instinctively grabs the umpire to stabilise because he realised he bumped into him. A bit like how you might reach out if you bump into your child, or someone in a hallway. Now that could be wrong, but I'd be surprised. Toby Greene did the opposite. Eye contact, new where the umpire was standing. The ump was standing still but Greene chose to walk through him, should to chest, forcing the umpire to move voluntarily or be knocked by the force of contact. Greene didn't reach to stabilise or balance, implying he had "set himself" for the contact. So based on that, this gets nothing and Greene is still in the gun for 2-6.

Just had it out to me like this: How would we feel if instead of Stevic it was Eleni Glouftsis that Toby walked through? As a society we would be screaming. And Toby would be staring down a 10+ week suspension. The rules shouldn't be any different: violence and threatening behaviour should not be tolerated.

I think "intimidation" is relevant too. It was a power move, designed to force Stevic to cower and back down.

Back in the day running into someone like that (shoulder charge, off ground, marking contest, no eyes on the ball, no arms up to spoil) would have been called "charging" and he would have got 4 weeks.

@deespicable meI just looked back and saw my issue! I meant to have ANB in the one vote slot!

The MFC match report gives the best as: Oliver, Petracca, Lever, Viney, Fritsch, Neal-Bullen, Gawn.

If this was Oliver I would be saying the same thing. It is a deliberate and intimidatory action towards the umpire.