deanox

Exactly. This isn't a crude spoiling attempt or a mistimed bump executed at 30km per hour. We're aren't talking body on body bumping or pushing. We are talking about deliberate strikes, irrespective of to the body or head, that are designed to hurt, intimidate, incapacitate and have no other relation to the game. Hawkins on Fritsch. Rance on Watts. Steele on Oliver. None of these acts were football related and if they are accepted, it isn't surprising that occasionally one of these goes horribly wrong. These guys are peak physical specimens, taught to play on instinct and aggression, making split second decisions rather than pausing to assess consequences. It is a fine line between a pec bruise and a broken jaw. The problem is the act not the outcome. And the act should be punished regardless of how bad the impact is.

I think getting out of WC and starting fresh is probably good for him. But maybe not into the Melbourne media fishbowl. Personally I'd have him at Melbourne still. But I'd want to seriously consider his mental health in the fall out of this incident.

I'll defend Bugg here. He doesn't have a bad record. As far as I am aware, last year is the only time he has ever been suspended. I can't find any info about any other suspensions. Only fines (for making contact with an injured Nick Reiwoldt, and for "saluting" the richmond cheer squad). A lot of players have been suspended for hitting him though. He gets a bad go from the media. He might be annoying but he has never over stepped the aggression line on the field before, and he wasn't looking at Mills when he hit him in retaliation to bring hit from behind. https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/an-extensive-rap-sheet-from-gws-giant-agitator-to-melbourne-enforcer/news-story/4bb65be2b05db80227ef6907c5bf4d95

Out of interest, what was the context of these words? Can you provide a link?

I'm not sure I agree because he was facing him. I don't believe you don't understand the difference between this and a jumper punch. When the two players are both actively involved in the tussel, the minor, low impact events dont require external attention. When someone is unexpectedly struck to the face off the ball doing damage that requires hospital and surgery, that can be looked at without damaging football. The rules of victoria apply on the football field and outside a night club. The rules of Saudi Arabia do not apply. A tackle is legal, it went bad. A punch is not legal anywhere. Not vicious???

That's ridiculous. Intentionally assaulting someone 50 m away from the ball is not "the nature of contact sport". An overly aggressive hip and shoulder while contesting the game falls in that category.

Worse than Buggs effort.

Yeah, like Jones!

Basically all the negative stats are readily explained by the positive stats and mean nothing. What would be interesting is the differences in these types of stats from 2 batches of games. Batch 1: Collingwood, Richmond and Hawthorn. Batch 2: Everything else. What stats change from our averages in the only three games we lost by more than 10 points?

Ok so now you want the time to say "you can't block or bump after disposal unless the player is involved in the play"? Isnt that what is says? "You can't make prohibited contact to a player after they dispose of the football." I don't understand your confusion. This isn't a new rule!

@daisycutter are you saying the quoted rule is not a real rule? As written you can bump a player after he kicked it. I promise you that 5m rule has been in place for at least 20 years (I can't confirm before hand but pretty sure 5m had been the Aussie rules standard forever). What has been added is the "not involved in the play" and "unexpected" or "unreasonable" force type clauses, which are intended to stop sniping. "Late" in your description may refer to "the ball was disposed of, the player is now no longer in the contest and therefore not reasonably expecting contact" ie he was expecting it but you were late to the contest and now it is unexpected. To clarify further, a kick is a method of disposal. It may go 50 m or it may be a dinky dribble kick so that a player can run on and collect it. There aren't different contact rules for both cases. If the ball is within 5 m and the player is still in the play they should expect to be bumped off their line by an opposition player.

@daisycutter, did you check the rules before saying that? To be a free kick the contact must be "prohibited contact", which means more than 5m away, overly rough or unexpected. "Lateness" has nothing to do with anything, and never has. Once the ball has been disposed of, the player is now like any other on the field, who is subject to contact.

I actually think we spent big on a guy who covered our biggest hole. The hole was not personnel but strategic positional. We want to defend up the ground and play the backline as a zone. We know that means defenders will be caught out with fast out the back ball coming at them. We spent the equivalent of pick 5 on the best reader of the play, zone defender and intercept marker in the competition who was also only 21.

When I first saw the footage on the weekend, I was actually very surprised at how Curnow left himself open, which I feel contributed to the issue. He should have braced protected himself from contact, instead it looks like he didn't even realise May was there...

Thanks DeeSpencer, looks like my description was a pretty good lay explanation of those detailed rules!

"As a testament to his standing within the team, Neal-Bullen has been given a leadership position in the forward line, with Misson saying the unofficial title was indicative of his attitude." Can we stop slagging him off now?

This is fantastic news. This was always the rule of Australian football and had been overlooked in recent years. In this case Iagree, because May's bump was designed to stop Curnow being involved in the next part of the play (ie a handball 1-2). The "late" rule applies to a kick where the ball has cleared the area and a) is no longer within 5m or b) because the player is now far enough away from the contest that he couldn't reasonably have expected contact. Long live the bump.

5th least time on ground for MFC with the following stats: 22 disposals (4th for MFC) 1 goal 1 behind 12 tackles (BOG) 5 intercept possessions (=3rd for MFC) 30 pressure acts (=1st for MFC) 393 m gained (5th for MFC) 12 contested prisons (5th for MFC) 3 clearances (=6th for MFC) 4 inside 50s (=3rd for MFC) 112 AFL fantasy points (1st for MFC)

This is nonsensical. "Gaffs defense isn't good enough so get Steven May" as if they play similar positions. Add Lever and Hibberd back into the side and our back 6 are fine. We play a zoning defence that requires all the defenders to leave their man and run up the field to defend/hold up/pressure/spoil the next free player, while the midfield is meant to push back hard to cover the overlap that is created. Our problem is not defenders. The best one on one defender in the competition will lose the majority of contests when one out and unassisted by team mates and OMac is a good zone defender. Our problem is two way running by midfielders who are meant to run back hard to cover space and run back hard with their direct opponent to make sure that don't pop up out the back. Our mids don't cover this kind of ground they only run forwards. We don't need Gaff to defend, we need him to gut run. PS you're not going to get much peace because Omac will be in this side for the next 5-10 years unless he asks to be traded. The quicker you accept that, the easier watching footy will be!

I think the nature of our losses this year indicate demonstrate how valuable Gaff could be. He covers a lot of ground and is regularly in the eagles top runners. That two way effort is something we miss. It was visible in the last play against the cats, it was massive against the saints and has played a part regularly as we watch teams stream past us and we don't follow. Put him in for JKH and we win this week. We need to be all in.

We have the best ruck in the competition who loves to ruck all day. We have two gun KPFs. We have a young third KPF whom we're grooming as a back up ruck but we're can't fit him in. We've shown a reluctance to play a second ruck and have even preferred to pinch hit smalls. Which AFL ready ruck is stupid enough to come and play at Casey in the hope that we get 4 injured talls? Anyone who fits that description will be looking to move to aclub where they get more game time, not less.

This weekends results have really helped us with respect to the other teams' runs home.

So you're suggesting his improvement lifted the team? He was leading the tackles at half time. 1st game this year, and only 7th in 3 seasons at AFL level. He deserves a chance to work his way into the speed of the game, the same way we would for a senior player returning.

Well obviously. But from player 15-30 is generally depth. You need those to be readily replaceable on form or in injury and be able to perform. If they are much better you won't be able to give them game time or $ and they'll leave, worse and you lose. We don't want players 23-30 to be kids, we're wanting competitors who can play a role without leaving us a man short. Can he become that for us for the next 2-3 years? Perhaps. He's shown alot of improvement at VFL, shown ability to find the ball and competitiveness and tackling. We still have a number out of contract who aren't performing to that level. So it'll come down to JKH or a very low pick. Today was a pass, let's see how he goes the next few weeks.

Currently leading our tackles...