titan_uranus

Oh come on Nasher, it was hardly laughable to question whether he had a good game last week. Just because you disagree doesn't make it a ridiculous suggestion.

Anyone else's MCFSS got them irrationally worried about how much of a bake West Coast is copping in the media this week (e.g. Yeo talking about his dad calling him up to point out how bad he was) and the potential for it to spark them against us?

If that video was taken in Perth (and it looks like it, as the training facilities don't look like our usual ones in Melbourne), then Weideman is over there, you can see him in the footage (same with Chandler, Sparrow, Hibberd, Daw, Melksham, vandenBerg and Smith).

There was also a rumour on Demonland that he was injured but seems as though it was just a rumour.

New case in WA, new case in Vic. Stand by for more disruption...

And Henderson, Atkins and O'Connor too, I think. I agree they're the best side in it, but I also don't think they're so far off us that we're no chance in Round 23 or in the finals.

I don't know how highly the club rates someone who hasn't played a game in the seniors all year. Agree his game on Papley last year was good but that's one game against a side who at the time was bottom 4. Hibberd was out of form before he got dropped but has shown more this year in that role than Smith ever has, so I'd much prefer we go with the player who's demonstrated more solid recent form in a role that's closer to what we get from Salem. Hopefully the Salem rumour isn't right though and we don't have to worry!

Interesting OP theory.

No it wasn't. Charges laid: Jack Viney, Melbourne, has been charged with Serious Misconduct against Sam Collins, Gold Coast SUNS, during the fourth quarter of the Round 20 match between the Gold Coast SUNS and Melbourne played at Marvel Stadium on Sunday August 1, 2021. What happened was Gleeson got up and and said it involved contact to the neck/throat. Viney pleaded guilty to the charge, not the submission/description placed on it by Gleeson. The description of it provided by Gleeson does not equal the charge. As above, the charge was Serious Misconduct. Gleeson's description of it doesn't change what the charge was, and as the Tribunal hearing played out, Viney was entitled to plead guilty to committing Serious Misconduct but to challenge the nature of that misconduct (i.e. he said the misconduct was pressure to the jaw, not to the throat/neck). We know there is no requirement for a Serious Misconduct charge to cause serious damage or even have the potential to cause serious damage - one of the players who has been charge with it in the past was Ben Stratton for pinching Fantasia. There was no suggestion pinching was going to cause the same level of damage as an elbow on a throat might. If anyone made a mistake, it was the Tribunal chairman for rolling up Gleeson's description into the charge. Your attack on Anderson was in my view unfair.

The Tribunal is entitled to conclude it was contact to the throat, given the footage and their impression of Viney and what he said today. The Tribunal could also have penalised him for making contact only to the jaw, so it may not matter. What might matter is if they give him 2 or more weeks for something that inconclusive (at least when I watch the footage, I don't know how anyone can tell that was contact to Collins' throat as opposed to jaw).

Again, what Gleeson says isn't determinative of anything! He's arguing for the AFL, not setting the charge or defining it. Gleeson submitted to the Tribunal what they should find. It turns out they've agreed with him, but when Gleeson gets up and says "this was contact to the throat", Viney was entitled to deny it. There's no "spin" here and for you to suggest Anderson didn't "check" something is in my view seriously misplaced.

What was said other than "Serious Misconduct"?

Again, not correct. Gleeson for the AFL is asking, not telling, the Tribunal to treat Viney's evidence as "nonsense". That's a submission on behalf of the AFL, which the Tribunal is at liberty to accept, or reject. Gleeson doesn't "tell" the Tribunal anything. Viney has given evidence the contact was to Collins' jaw. The Tribunal will consider that evidence as well as the footage and will decide what it thinks about where the contact was. It is relevant, but not necessarily critical, that Collins has not been heard from. It will also be relevant as to what was in any medical report (e.g. does the medical report say anything about throat contact?).

Ease up Lucifer, you don't know what you're talking about. Serious Misconduct is not defined in the AFL's Tribunal Guidelines. There is nothing within that phrase which requires a player to make contact to any particular part of the body. The charge against Viney is that he committed serious misconduct. He pleaded guilty to that. Without the benefit of a "charge sheet" (if such a thing is given to a player) or otherwise the transcript of precisely what he was asked to plead to, I reckon you and anyone else criticising Anderson should ease off.

Why would we play J Smith as a replacement for Salem? Why would we play J Smith at all? Salem is a mid/small defender who rebounds. We have one of those on the sidelines in Hibberd. At any rate, doesn't sound like the Salem injury rumour is true, as he's not in this week's injury report.

Guilty plea withdrawn. Apparently the guilty plea was in relation to a charge of serious misconduct, without admitting it was to the throat. We don't agree the contact was to the throat, we say it was to his jaw.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way defending what Viney did, but if Franklin could avoid suspension by referring to precedent, I'd be rolling out the Franklin footage along with the three other elbows to the head that did not result in suspensions, as well as Selwood gouging Dale's face at GMHBA which was also not a suspension. if those were all fines but not suspensions, Viney's should be too. None resulted in anything more than minor injuries to their opponents and with the AFL's current (misguided IMO) focus on the outcome rather than the action, Viney's is no worse.

So could well be three forced changes, with Viney, Salem and TMac all out. Would have Weid for TMac and Hibberd for Salem. Viney out would mean Harmes and Sparrow stay. Jordon for Viney? vandenBerg? Melksham? 7 years, actually. Only two home games against them in that time, both in the NT.

It's not a good look. Doesn't matter who started it, the video shows Viney putting pressure with his elbow on the head/neck region. It's a really, really bad look. However, if Buddy can swing an elbow into Luke Ryan's head and get a fine, then this should be nothing more than a fine because this is no worse. If the Tribunal is going to start looking at precedent, look no further than the Tribunal telling the AFL world last week that throwing your elbow around is fine and not going to result in suspension if the other player isn't injured. Collins was fine, Ryan was fine. If Buddy didn't get a week, there is no [censored] way Viney deserves one.

That would be a helpful side effect of the Monday night timeslot. Critical game, this. Win it and we're two-thirds of the way there (just have to beat Adelaide...shudder). But if we lose, we'll be on a six-day break (but almost really a five-day break, given we don't finish in Perth until 10.40pm Melbourne time) into a must-win game, followed by an almost-certain second straight six-day break as you'd assume the AFL will want our Geelong game on at least a Saturday.

We've had no development on this front for years. We get at least a step in the right direction and half of Demonland complains about it. At absolute worst it is a positive because it is more than we previously had. At best, as many have said, it is a sign of more to come: I would find it very difficult to accept that the AFL and the government would all stand there today to call a press conference with the MFC to announce these changes, and the MFC would tip in half a million of its own money, if there was even a small possibility we'd long term end up elsewhere.

No it's $500,000 each from us and the AFL. Explain your disappointment.

Whilst it's mathematically possible, top 2 may as well be considered impossible unless we go 3-0. If we only go 2-1, one of the Dogs and Geelong will need to go 1-2 for us to pass them, and the prospect of that happening is pretty close to 0% at this point (best chance is Geelong drops the GWS or St Kilda game, and then we beat them in the final round). Sydney have a very easy final three games but they've been up for five weeks now and away from home that whole time. A cliff might be coming - write it down as one of the greatest flags if not, though, because their best is capable of beating anyone.

11-11 is almost certainly going to be the requirement for 8th - all of Essendon, Richmond and Carlton are alive for that reason, as none can get to 12-10 (technically St Kilda also alive). It's also possible that 10-12 does it, shockingly. West Coast is also no certainty to stay in the top 8 - if they lose to us, they'll have to beat Fremantle to just get to 11 and then will need to beat Brisbane away from Perth to get to 12. Their percentage is worse than Essendon's and Richmond's, and barely better than Carlton's, so if they go 1-2 and one of those other sides goes 3-0, it's very possible West Coast slips out.

If we go 2-1, we'll likely finish 3rd - would require Port to beat the Dogs in the final round to pass us and push us down to 4th, or would require one of the Dogs and Geelong to go 1-2 for us to pass them and move up. You'd expect both the Dogs and Geelong to go 3-0 from here which means 2-1 lands us Geelong, unless they make up the 9.4% gap to the Dogs. 3-0 likely gets us Geelong too, as we'd pass them, likely finishing 2nd with them 3rd.