No10

14 hours ago, Heart Beats True said:

https://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/38941517/afl-draft-2023-top-10-draftees-had-say-night-harley-reid-jed-walter-colby-mckercher?platform=amp
 

PICK 7 - CALEB WINDSOR (Melbourne)

"It's bloody awesome. I can't believe it. I did not expect to be a top 10 pick. I'm so grateful for the opportunity they've given me. Probably the best feeling ever when all my best mates jumped on me when I got my name called out. Half of my family goes for [the Demons] so I know a bit about them! Obviously want to play my first game, stay in the team and win a premiership. I play on the wing and I pride myself on my pace and my defensive pressure."

Love this quote “stay in the team and win a premiership”

He has a personality. Sure, needs to back it up, but I enjoy when they display some ambition and honesty.

14 hours ago, demoncat said:

I tend to agree, although would be more than happy if they took our current offer

But surely they need to split pick 1 right?

Totally understand them holding out for the best offer - as they should - but at the end of the day I think they’re in the same position as North in needing as much high end talent as possible over the next few years

The only way they get that in this draft is by splitting 1 

Their fans might disagree, but I’d still be taking ours or Norths offer come draft night…

 

Spot on.

No doubt WC are holding out for us to trade with North. I’m guessing a leak of our offer for pick 3 comes out before the draft. And it’ll be a deal North will refuse.

Maybe we’ll find a way to move up slightly. Geel or Hawthorn with our f1.

Either way, I agree we’re more likely to benefit from a single elite pick than WC or North who need many to build.

10 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

Pick 3 will end up at 4. That won't get us Duursma, but it will be enough for McKercher 

I believe if WC trade to 2 the idea is they’d take Curtain.

Leaves both Duursma and McKercher.

8 minutes ago, Redleg said:

I think North will get 1 but it will take getting 6 off us for 3.

2,6 and more will give WC a guaranteed Curtin and another high pick plus more.

WC won’t reject that.

However we must keep 11 to get another good player.

6 and F1 is plenty for 3 and should get that deal done, which will see North pass it on and be part of deal for 1.

We should keep 1 and ask for one of North late first rounders back and bundle it with 11 to get a bit higher.

This would effectively be North giving 2 and 3 for 1.

Don’t think they can do that.

We’d have to give 6+11. Imagine we’d ask for 15 back as well. Which they won’t do.

So if we get to draft night, what are the chances of WC accepting our offer? What compels us to deal with North before their pick 3?

This is maybe a brilliant strategy. We’ve put our best offer. North are low balling.

Why our position is so smart imv, is that WC are naturally holding out for the best offer from North.

The question is: what’s North’s best offer without us trading with them? I’d say it’s 2+15+17 for P1

Is that better than 6, 11, 42 and F1? Perhaps slightly but also depends on what players WC want and where they think they’ll fall. And I doubt North would give that up, given their huge delisting numbers.

It’s a brilliant play because we’ve given WC our best offer.

But we will have undoubtedly simultaneously made an offer for 3. This one however a low ball. I’d guess 6 + 11 for 3 + 15.

North need our 6 and 11 to make the deal they want with WC. Which you’d assume is what everyone has floated here many times.

But we’ve made the squeeze play.

WC have our best offer, eventually North will stop low-balling and give them theirs.

But we can squeeze, we can hold out on facilitating the 3 club swap.
We can even hold until after WC make their No 1 selection before we budge on our swaps with North. If we want 3, wait to then. It’s smart.

2 hours ago, Dwight Schrute said:

In my view the best 4 players in this draft are Harley Reid, Zane Duursma, Colby McKercher and Riley Sanders, the fact we can almost certainly get Sanders with our pick 6 does make just keeping those picks appealing. if we could bring in Sanders and add some key back depth with Murphy i think that's a really solid outcome with these two picks. 

having said that i think trading up is a very real possibility

In that order? You’d take Duursma over McKersher?

I have no idea, but they seem the likely two we’d choose from.

I also don’t mind holding 6 and 11. It seems a fairly even trade going to 3 and 18.

11 hours ago, bandicoot said:

You have rocks in your head if you think dees will trade 6+11 for 3

Wasn’t my suggestion.

However, I think it highly likely this will happen, but with p17 or 18 also included from North.

But the question is if McKercher or Duursma are worth it?

23 minutes ago, old55 said:

The top end trade I could foresee is:

WC give 1 get 2 + 11

North give 2 + 3 get 1 + 6

MFC give 6 + 11 get 3

But I'd prefer to keep 6 + 11

Agree Old.

The hardball from us should be asking for North pick 17 or 18 as well.

Which I think is possible, though I might be wearing my red and blues.

2 hours ago, hillie said:

6 and 11 for 3 and 18

3 and future 1st for 1 and future second

Except North will take our 6 & 11 for 3.

Then trade 2 & 11 for 1.

19 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Bugger..

 

No 2024 picks? I’m clearly misunderstanding this whole play.

Why bother trading back for equivalent points in the same draft?

On 10/3/2023 at 10:07 PM, Binmans PA said:

I don't think it's about being seduced by picks this time mate. It's about maintaining the culture that the club has tried so hard to foster, and maximising what is a dreadfully sorry and sad situation. 

Clarry is my favourite player, I'm devastated. But we've got the picks this year to work a deal that could rejuvenate our list.

The other thing not being talked about is the potential dramatic impact not having Clarry in our midfield will have on our game style. 

Collingwood have shown you don't need an elite midfield to win a flag. They've bucked the trend in that regard.

I trust JT, Lamb and the broader club to do what's right for the MFC here.

As gut wrenching as that is. I suspect many of us are so strongly bonded to Clarry because we waited so long for an elite midfielder and then we got him, he helped us win a flag and now here we are...

He’s a product of our culture. He’s been 4x b&f and one year ago signed a massive seven year deal. Was he a problem before all of this??

If he’s lost his way that’s the on our ‘great culture’ to correct. This is where it matters, it’s where the coaches matter. Where captains lead (Max is rumoured to be doing so).

Make no mistake, this is a huge moment. You can’t name a single other player and club where this happens. Maybe G.Ablett Jr, but that was a very different set of circumstances. Dusty is a much better example, what happened there? What will happen here?

5 hours ago, Jibroni said:

 

This seems like a poor analysis.

Still can’t buy McKay compensation p3. Will not happen.

But also don’t understand Gold Coast taking NM picks for p4.

They’re not short on points. What they want, I’d assume, is a high F1. 

Trade Grundy +p24 for Syd F1. Then 13 + Syd F1 (plus some later picks) to GC for p4.

That Bartel analysis is too basic. It’s always more complicated.

13 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

I will walk to China if it does not happen.

Can only hope North does not get Pick 4 otherwise there will be some serious outrage, but the AFL won't care.

You’ll be walking.

Frawley is the only vague comparison and the situation at that stage was insane. In no way comparable.

Yes, we both lost a n1 draft recruit. But we then went through years of drafts that were extremely compromised. They’ve had top selections that are making an impact already.

Frawley was a high draft selection (12) and was AA, etc…

Then add to all this, he went to a powerhouse premiership team. That was the BIG PR problem.

AFL House desperately needed to rebalance. And even then, it was all a stretch.

Chris Scott is doing the good work at speaking out. Can’t stand him usually but suddenly he’s a genius.

No chance of p3 for McKay. No way.

It seems the done deal is Grundy to Swans.

Must be relatively simple if as agreed upon as it appears. Do we not even know what that trade is?

Demonland intel is broken.

I’ll pretend I know something…

Grundy +p24 for p11

Oh. And no chance Nth get p3 for McKay, sets unworkable precedent.

10 minutes ago, Roost it far said:

Meanwhile the club did nothing……

Richmond last year when knocked out of the finals by a bad call……..nudda……not a peep

In fact I’m struggling to think of one club who has kicked up a fuss with the AFL over ARC…..

You’re living on a different planet.

Re. Adelaide, given that was your first example :

"It's inexplicable they didn't call for a review" said Crows Chairman, John Olsen. "The field umpire then also didn't call for a review of the decision". 

Olsen told Nikolai & Stacey, "A lot's got to be played out here yet".

13 hours ago, Roost it far said:

What unlike Adelaide….who, well, umm rolled over!

The Adelaide goal that was misjudged a point by the goal umpire? Nothing to do with ARC.

The goal umpire who was stood down?

The AFL who apologised and confirmed the error, Gil made statements about fixing the system?

The Adelaide goal that was written about in every major and minor press?

Yeah… No.

10 hours ago, monoccular said:

I still can't get an answer - did the guy who was deemed to have touched it protest that he did?  It is (conveniently) absent from the footage.

The Carlton player does signal, not immediately, only after he looks to see the ball is going through. As every player does now.

The ARC footage is shown as the broadcast footage, that’s the point of the script: “looking at this angle…”

There isn’t some other magical angle where you can see this non-existent touch.

It’s clear there isn’t sufficient evidence and likely it wasn’t touched at all.

The problem is that we roll over, other clubs do not.

3 hours ago, No10 said:

This is a nice defence of your friend in the ARC.

But at the end of the day, you’re looking at the same footage as everyone else and I don’t see the finger bending or the deviation.

Honestly, I can be impartial and if the field umpire called touched I would’ve accepted that. But this isn’t even close to a standard for overturning.

@Turnerthat sounded sarcastic about your ARC friend, wasn’t meant to be. But I mean… if you have a friend in the ARC, maybe there’s something we can offer so these 50/50 calls fall in our favour next year? Demonland membership perhaps?

45 minutes ago, Turner said:

i have an insider in the ARC so i know how it works and the process was once the ball is live -so kicked out by the swans defender the arc can no longer jump in and overturn, it's that simple, they saw it but had genuinely no time to get in

the broadcast cuts at a poor time but on the wide angle u can see the ball pop off the hand and change path slightly and the finger definitely flicks on the review unfortunately, i just watched it back

coz its their fancy 4k zoom camera new toy that the afl is paying overs for so they wanted to use it even if it didn't add anything

This is a nice defence of your friend in the ARC.

But at the end of the day, you’re looking at the same footage as everyone else and I don’t see the finger bending or the deviation.

Honestly, I can be impartial and if the field umpire called touched I would’ve accepted that. But this isn’t even close to a standard for overturning.

13 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

 

I can see a deviated wedding ring or middle finger on his right hand on the lower picture. The picture above is 2 frames prior to give you a baseline.

I take no pleasure in trying to prove this point, it’s up to you whether you see the proof or not. 

 

I know, I uploaded the video. The middle finger is possible. But unlikely. If there was a touch it would’ve bent backwards and separated from the other fingers. All the fingers continue into the same motion blur direction as the ball passes and the hand moves down.

This isn’t proof. That’s why it’s a problem.

1 hour ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I’ve watched it. I see a slight flick of the wedding ring finger. It’s minor but it’s there. Easier to see if you manually scrub back and forth.

I’m sure many club personnel have seen this and would be looking at it much more forensically than i, so if they are not making noise, then I’m happy with that.

I’ve watched it, scrubbed and zoomed. Not there. Not touched.

Who at the club do you expect to hear from? The president? I don’t hear much from her at all.

Whereas Collingwood or Hawthorn in their window, I know you would.

This is precisely the problem, a winning culture. Can not accept less so easily.

8 minutes ago, GBDee said:

Some of the confusion stems from the evidence presented by Ch7 at half-time. Evidence that was flawed. I can’t upload the clip but in the first still below, the 3rd/4th fingers of Kemp’s bandaged left hand appear to touch the ball and, trust me, they did seem to wobble. Ch7 went back and forward in slowmo on this and I was taken in and posted as such on the matchday thread. (Ignore the hands at the top btw, they’re Hewett’s but he’s actually 2m from the ball.)

Shameful smoke and mirrors by Ch7 as the next shot reveals. His left hand was actually nowhere near the ball.

Indeed, the goal was overturned by ARC because it “was touched by the right hand of the Carlton defender” (although I’d argue this was inconclusive so it should have stood as a goal).  

Begs the question though, why did Channel 7 present seriously flawed evidence at HT to support the ‘touched’ narrative? 

Great analysis.

That left hand footage might be where some on here have been convinced. Smoke and mirrors absolutely.

Because the footage below, which was what ARC used, doesn’t show a touch. Inconclusive, at best.

1 hour ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I hate to say it but the ARC call saved the game for Carlton. It was touched and it was adjudicated properly. The uproar if it was later found to be touched and not called would have been merited and shown greater incompetence by the AFL.

Don't waste your energy on this. Plenty of other things to be discontent with that we can address in the off season. 

 

I’m not sure the ARC call saved the game for Carlton, we proved an impressive capacity for capitulating under pressure.

But to say this was adjudicated correctly and definitively touched is wrong. The ARC footage is locked to the broadcast and when they say “looking at this angle” the footage is in context. I don’t see any touch on the ball.

Extreme to callback a goal, the uproar should be now. But it wasn’t in Q4. And it was Melbourne.

19 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

In super slow mo frame by frame and blown up very close it looks touched for mine.

I can rest easy on this one at least

Frame by frame, zoomed in, I’d have to say not touched.

Doesn’t matter to me in regards to the result, we lost for many other reasons.
But I do care there isn’t the kind of aggressive pushback that would happen if this was a different club. That’s twice in a month (against the same team) that we’ve lost by less than a goal and ARC has made a critical decision against, with questionable evidence. Zero discussion in the media.

Would this happen to Carlton or to Collingwood?

ARC said this angle determined the overturning