titan_uranus

I'm watching Sydney fumble in space, be led to the ball, get walked through in tackles and continually lay tackles too high or in the back. There is plenty about this performance that is on Sydney independently of Carlton. Carlton are good, don't get me wrong, but Sydney are not in form, having lost two in a row before beating a sub-VFL side in Essendon.

https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1130811/viney-to-miss-roos-clash

Fair points these. Fremantle's on Friday night in Round 19, so the AFL may not be keen to double-down on the Dockers in prime time. Geelong v Bulldogs and Richmond v Brisbane are contenders for the Friday night. We could easily be Saturday night, though (far preferable to Sunday twilight, particularly for the following round). Round 21 is the Collingwood game. There are plenty of contenders for prime time that will come before that if Collingwood is, as you'd expect, no good by then (Brisbane v Carlton, Geelong v St Kilda, Port v Richmond, Bulldogs v Fremantle). Agree that a Saturday afternoon game is a good chance. Round 22 is the Carlton game and as you've identified, there are three Marvel games. Unless Thursday night games persist to that point, we can't be the Friday night absent some whack Marvel double-header. St Kilda v Brisbane likely. If the above three games don't get us into prime time then surely Round 23 vs Brisbane gets us there. If not, we'll have had one single Friday night game for the entire season, surely a record low for a Victorian reigning premier?

A shocker. At least Geelong is on the same five-day break.

It's probably not as surprising as it first seems. Melksham is a closer fit for Harmes' spot than Bedford, even if Bedford has been on the cusp of selection longer than Melksham has.

My rudimentary analysis: to Round 19, the Dogs will have been on free to air TV in 16 of their 19 games to that point - 10 Thursday or Friday night games, four Saturday night games, and the season opener on a Wednesday night to Round 19, the Dogs will have had zero Sunday 1.10pm or Sat/Sun twilight games. to Round 19, we will have had four Thursday/Friday nights (three Thursdays, one Friday), four Saturday nights, and the season opener; we will also have had six games in the Sunday 1.10pm or Sat/Sun twilight slots.

The Dogs' prime time and FTA exposure is getting out of hand. This confirms that, to Round 19, the Dogs will have been on FTA in 16 out of 19 games. As for us, this is to be expected really. The Port game on a Sunday is at least on FTA, but is the reason the Dogs game is on the Saturday night and not the Friday night. You'd expect our final four games (Fremantle, Collingwood, Carlton and Brisbane) to all be good chances of prime time.

We're also not on FTA next week when we play Fremantle on a Saturday twilight timeslot. That will mean 5 of our first 11 games have been on pay TV, and 3 of those 5 will have been our home games (vs Hawthorn, St Kilda and Fremantle). By comparison, the Dogs will have 3 of their first 11 games on pay TV (they've started with 8 of their first 9 on FTA, so they've been all over the TV so far).

Out of interest, which aspects did you prefer? I struggle to identify a way in which the McIntyre system was better than the current system.

It's not just Hawkins v Chandler, too. What about Tom Lynch getting nothing for his elbow to Impey's head, but last year Toby Greene got 2 weeks for his elbow to Dangerfield's head? Again, like Hawkins v Chandler, I can find no material difference between the two. How are players supposed to know when something is a reportable offence and when something isn't? The MRO's statements do nothing to assist - how does this explain why Lynch got off? The incident involving Richmond's Tom Lynch and Hawthorn's Jarman Impey from the third quarter of Saturday's match between Richmond and Hawthorn was assessed. Lynch takes possession of the loose ball on the wing. Impey approaches to tackle from side on and high contact is made by Lynch on Impey. It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Lynch's actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken. There's nothing in that paragraph which explains why Lynch's elbow was "not unreasonable in the circumstances".

The thing about their fixture though is that of those three hard games, two of them (Geelong and Richmond) are at home. They currently lead the competition for wins over current top 8 sides (they have three, tied with St Kilda). If they can sustain that sort of football for long enough this year, their fixture presents them with a golden chance to make finals. Agree re: King. Chol-Casboult is doing surprisingly well for them, but if they had King they'd be a seriously difficult force given they are, I think, the AFL's number.1 side for time spent in forward half.

Whether sub-consciously or overtly you are focusing on the outcomes. How can you call the tackle "crazy dangerous" but the bump "clumsy" and "happens regularly" (the latter of which is irrelevant, indeed tackles happen far more regularly than off-the-ball bumps)? Even accepting the tackle was dangerous, the bump had equal potential to destroy Bowey's head/jaw. It didn't, and for that we should all be grateful, but of the two actions neither is more dangerous than the other. At least Chandler's is part of the game. If anything was clumsy it was Chandler's tackle.

And again, we see the MRO system is broken. Chandler getting suspended is fine in isolation, given what we know about the AFL's position on dangerous tackles. I'll continue to argue it isn't sufficiently different to Hawkins' tackle in Round 23, but consistency is nowhere to be found in the MRO playbook. Ryan getting one week is a disgrace, but provides the latest example of how flawed the box-ticking MRO exercise is. What he did was intentional, but since no player since Byron Pickett has has the level of intent required by the guidelines (i.e. intending to knock them out, pretty much), every bump is careless. Which means the only differentiating factor is the impact. Foley does worse than Bowey, so Chandler cops an extra week. There is no justification for Ryan's action being less of a suspension than Chandler's, none at all. The AFL continues to over-penalise players who are playing the game but stuff it up (Chandler) whilst under-penalising players who do things the AFL time and again tells us have no place in the game (Ryan).

If you want to look at the whole incident, as you've done, go look at the video. Your stills don't change my view that Foley's shoulder hits the ground at least at the same time as his head, if not before. My first still shows Chandler tries to turn him side on. My second still shows him getting to ground level side-on. Both of your stills show the aftermath, in which clearly Foley's head hits the ground. Which is not disputed. But as I said at the start, I cannot see how Chandler's tackle is materially different to Hawkins'.

On this angle, I see rotation to the side and the shoulder hitting the ground at least at the same time as the head, if not before (given he's side on to the ground, it's hard for the head to hit the ground before the shoulder tbh).

I cannot see a material difference in either of those factors. Both Hawkins and Chandler grab and pin both arms. Both of them rotate slightly to avoid being in the back. Both Joyce and Foley have their shoulder hit the ground before their head. Both then have their head whack the turf and both are concussed.

Hawkins from Round 23 last year makes an interesting comparison. It's very similar: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/geelong-cats/afl-2021-tom-hawkins-dangerous-tackle-on-darragh-joyce-geelong-vs-st-kilda-video-incident-match-review-news/news-story/16452d3806dec072ea07f11b448e7d5d He was cleared by the MRO despite Joyce leaving the ground with concussion: “Joyce takes possession of the ball in St Kilda’s defensive 50 and runs towards the centre of the ground before handballing to a teammate,” the AFL said in a statement. “While Joyce is disposing of the football, Hawkins runs from behind and applies a tackle – in one motion – on Joyce which carries both players forward. “The momentum of the tackle results in Joyce’s left shoulder and then head making contact with the playing surface. It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Hawkins’ actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.” Note the reference to "in one motion". Maybe this isn't as clear-cut as I had previously thought.

I think this is the key issue. IMO the type of tackle was fine - a run down tackle where he grabs Foley around his body. But he pins both arms, and when you do that, you have to realise that you are exposing the player's head. As opposed to an unnecessary sling motion tackle from a standing start. Again, this is a football move executed poorly that we only are talking about because Foley came off the ground (i.e. the outcome is speaking louder than the action), but the pinned arms will be what Christian uses to say the tackle was dangerous.

Yep, you certainly differ from everyone else.

What exactly do you mean by "start showing our offensive side"? Do you mean score more? Did you know we are in the top 4 for points scored this year? Ahead of the media's favourite scoring machine, Carlton? Ahead even of Geelong and their power forwards?

My view is that he shouldn't be suspended, but he will be. The MRO will say Chandler had both of Foley's arms pinned, which makes his head vulnerable to hitting the ground, and so he needed to do more to avoid driving him down head-first. I don't agree with it, but I reckon it's highly likely. I'm equally interested in seeing whether Ryan gets weeks for bumping Bowey in the head, and whether McGovern gets anything for pushing his elbow into Viney's throat.

Ryan should get a week for his bump on Bowey, but probably won't because Bowey didn't get injured. McGovern should get two weeks for his elbow into Viney's throat, just like Viney got two weeks for his similar action to Sam Collins last year, but probably won't because no one cares about West Coast this year. But Chandler will get a week for a clumsy tackle, simply because Foley got concussed.

My (reliable) mail is that Salem isn't just not ready but had a minor setback. I doubt we'll see him before the bye.

He shouldn't be suspended, but I'm with @DeeSpencer, I think it's highly likely he'll cop a week or two. We all know the MRO/Tribunal system is overly focused on outcome. Assuming Foley had some level of concussion from the tackle, it's easy for the MRO to call it "dangerous" in hindsight - both arms pinned, head went down fast. That's not how the system should work, but it just is how it works. It's broken.

6 - Viney 5 - Petracca 4 - Pickett 3 - Brayshaw 2 - Gawn 1 - Oliver