titan_uranus

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

The good news: We gained, what, 8%? We're now two games and 19.6% clear of 3rd. Yes. 3rd. Not 9th. Pickett backed up last week with an incredible performance The bad news: West Coast is appalling and, honestly, we should have won by more We would have won by more if we'd kicked straight - far too many easy goals missed and low percentage shots taken when they shouldn't have been Harmes' injury Chandler's tackle - not because there was anything wrong with it (it looked like one motion to me, just unlucky), but because it clearly impacted him.

This will put Gold Coast at 4-5, with three wins against top six sides (Carlton, Sydney, Fremantle). They have the Dogs, Hawthorn and North before the bye. 6-6, if not 7-5, is on the cards. They then have home games against Adelaide, Collingwood and West Coast, and road trips to Essendon, Hawthorn and North. That's another six winnable games right there. Finals set? Not yet, surely.

Fremantle have kicked two behinds in two quarters of football. Hard to believe they came into this game 2nd on the ladder with a percentage of 153%.

We haven't won yet...

The general argument is that by Round 8, historically there are few changes to the top 8 from then on. You only have to go back to last year to find an example of a year where the top 8 changed after Round 9. At Round 9 last year West Coast and Richmond sat 7th and 8th, whilst GWS was 9th and Essendon 12th. Obviously the latter two ended up switching with the former two come finals time. This year, there is little separating Sydney (currently 4th) from Gold Coast (currently 13th), given the latter just beat the former last week. The Dogs and Port sit 9th and 10th, both will be pressing for finals. Collingwood 2002 and then again 2003. St Kilda 2009 and then 2010 as well. No idea what the OP was trying to get at with that line.

In Victoria it's similar to Tasmania - your annual registration fee includes a payment to the TAC. Once you are registered, you are covered by the TAC for any liability you have as owner/driver of the vehicle for injuries to other people (with certain other exceptions). So, as has been pointed out, if you drive an unregistered vehicle, you are not entitled to be covered by the TAC if you injure/kill someone.

Agree, although the key words really are "on paper". Barrass, Kelly and Darling have had terrible years by their prior standards.

As much as we are on solid ground joking about the gap between us and West Coast, the reality is we need to take this game seriously, and if percentage is on offer, we need it. Brisbane and Fremantle are both ahead of us on percentage, in part because they've both already played both West Coast and North. Fremantle has West Coast again this year, whilst Geelong has West Coast twice and North again. Our fixture post North gets really tough, so now is the time to fill our boots if we can.

Just watched the replay. Saints were good. Which makes this win really good. They brought heat and we spent fair chunks of the game under pressure. To kick 9 of the first 10 goals against a side that isn't rolling over is no mean feat. They got some momentum in the third but as is common with us these days, and other than the Dogs game in Round 1, we minimise the damage done from opposition momentum and then capitalise when they inevitably waver. May is unbelievable but I was really impressed with Brayshaw's game. Blending defence with attack perfectly.

Running on the theory that the emergencies will come off the extended bench, you would assume that Jackson, Sparrow, Pickett and ANB will all play. That would mean Weideman misses out, along with Dunstan, Bedford and Laurie.

In: Jackson, Pickett, Sparrow, Petty, ANB, Laurie Out: Smith, Melksham, Chandler Weideman named on the extended bench; TMac named in the starting 18. Although not sure if that means anything these days.

Round 21, 2017. Sunday, 1.10pm. We drew 53,115 to a home game vs St Kilda. That was when both sides were pressing for finals. It was the game, IIRC, where we mocked St Kilda about us making finals instead of them. Then the following week we blew valuable percentage against Brisbane when led by 32 points 5 minutes into the last quarter, then conceded a stack of goals and only won by 13. And then lost to Collingwood, thereby missing finals by the smallest percentage ever recorded. Having mocked St Kilda about making finals three weeks prior. Sigh. Those were the days.

Of all the ridiculous things you've said since you opened your account on here, this might take the cake.

My seemingly all too regular comment: the system is broken. Larkey tunnels a completely defenceless player. He was in complete control of his actions, was not under any pressure, and was effectively pre-medidated. One week. Cotchin kicks Walker. No weeks. Players execute bumps or tackles crudely - weeks are thrown around like we have so many to dole out it's not funny. Don't get me wrong: I am in favour of suspending players who elect to bump but then make high contact (i.e. not Lewis Young). But the system continues to over-penalise the wrong conduct, particularly by focusing on the outcome and not the action, and under-penalise disgraceful conduct such as that of Larkey and Cotchin.

The tactic of leaving a forward deep, behind our last defender (whether that's May or Petty) is a good one. But it requires the opponent to then be able to match us up the ground. There's no benefit to having someone that deep if you can't get the ball to them. Hawthorn did well to get the ball to that deeper player more often than I would have liked. But, we were 6 goals up late in the third quarter before tiring. And we missed a number of simple shots in the fourth. The summary being: yes, that tactic might be a good one, but like any tactic deployed against us, if you can't do it for four quarters, and we're even close to being "on", you're in trouble.

He's played four games in a row once (Rounds 15-18 in 2020). That is the one and only time he has strung more than three games in a row together. He's managed three a few times, including Rounds 1-3 this year.

The injury report suggests all five COVID protocol players are ready for this week. But I recall Brown was "ready" for the Port game but we chose not to rush him back. Wonder if ANB will fall into that category. Lever's not on the injury list but I'm not convinced he's fully fit. Anyway, expect him to stay. Would expect to see Petty, Jackson, Sparrow and Pickett straight back. Smith, Melksham and one of TMac/Weid make way for the first three. As for Pickett, I wonder whether we might give Bedford another game - if so, Dunstan's the likely player to miss, but could become the sub in place of Chandler. If ANB is also fit, and we bring back all five, it might be moot. You would expect that Bedford and Dunstan will both make way, one of them moving to the sub role.

Was in the third quarter on the members' wing. He was pushing for a spoil/mark, from memory, landed a bit awkwardly and then reached down for his ankle. That was that, I think.

I continue to believe MFC supporters just aren't used to night games. We've spent the majority of our supporting lives attending games at 1.10pm, 1.45pm, 2.10pm or 3.20pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Even a Saturday twilight game at the MCG is uncommon, let alone Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights (we've had games on all five of those timeslots). Of course, our first day game for the year is this weekend on Mother's Day, which doesn't help. Our next two MCG home games are a Saturday twilight game and a Saturday night, so we won't get to test my theory for a while yet. Whilst night time and prime time games are what the club wants from a marketing/sponsorship perspective, I reckon if the club polled its members it would find that, for attendance purposes, members would be asking for day games.

Almost no chance at all given 6-6-6. We won't be using one of our six defensive spots at a centre bounce on a midfielder who pushes up into the stoppage. That will leave us with an outnumber in defence and as Trac won't be getting first hands on the ball, we gain nothing in terms of the initial stoppage. If the three mids in the middle don't win it, a quick kick goes straight over Trac's head into an outnumber situation.

Fremantle IMO are definitely the real deal, along with Brisbane and Sydney. Fair call on the others. I keep thinking the Dogs will get going but their three wins to date include North and Essendon, and they are yet to leave Victoria. They really need to show something against a better side soon. Their run to the bye is Port (away), Collingwood (MCG), Gold Coast, West Coast (Perth) and Geelong. They'll belt West Coast by 100, but they probably have to go 3-1 from the other four games at worst given how tough their post-bye fixture is: GWS (away), Hawthorn, Brisbane (away), Sydney (away), St Kilda and us all in a row, followed by Geelong (GMHBA), Fremantle, GWS again and Hawthorn again. Richmond IMO are far too inconsistent and belting West Coast means little in terms of their ability. I'm interested in whether Toby's return for GWS sparks them. Three straight home games for them - if they can beat Geelong this week, then knock over Carlton and West Coast, they'd be 5-5 and right back in it.

I love the optimism but I highly doubt 12 or 13 wins will be enough for top 4. Brisbane, Sydney and Fremantle are going to be pretty good all year, I think. Geelong are 4-3 but only have four more games against the current top 8 (compared to our 10), and still have 7 games at GMHBA. We're 7-0 but we have a tough fixture to come and with interstate sides in contention for top 2, the pressure will stay on us until we've locked away top 2.

So if the bottom 2 are West Coast and North, who are the bottom 4? Essendon and Gold Coast? Adelaide perhaps? Port and GWS might be finding some form. Suns finishing bottom 4 will surely cost Dew his job. Essendon finishing bottom 4 might cost Rutten his job.