titan_uranus

This isn't as good a result for us as people think. If we go 2-1 from here and the Dogs go 2-0, the Dogs will finish above us - even with this loss, we still have to win all three games, and/or the Dogs have to lose to Hawthorn or Port (in Melbourne), for us to finish above them. It's certainly possible (Port's in form, for example), but it's still not that likely. But Essendon's win puts them in pole position to finish in the top 8, particularly if we beat West Coast tomorrow (Essendon has the percentage buffer over all their competitors).

Odd that J Smith was an emergency until yesterday and now Hibberd's replaced him. Injury to Smith? More concern that Salem will be a late out and Hibberd is.a closer replacement? I'm OK with Melksham getting Viney's spot, but he sure as [censored] will want to play well. If he lifts to 2018 levels he could really improve our forward half efficiency. If he plays at 2019-21 Melksham levels, we're screwed. It's not that bad recently, actually. We've lost the last three, one of which was the disastrous prelim. But the other two were a Friday night in 2019 where we led at three quarter time (and should have led by more, but Garlett ran into an open goal and missed), and Round 1 last year, where we got jumped early but then matched them with 7.5 each after quarter time (and that was a weird game as it was played after the announcement of the season suspension). Prior to the prelim we won back-to-back games in Perth, and the one before that in 2016 was a six point loss, again where we led a three quarter time. And in the middle of all that, we also played a reasonable game against them at Alice Springs in 2019 - again, a game in which we led at three quarter time.

The Sydney win is enormous for us. We only need to win one more game for the season to ensure we finish top 4. I'd dearly love for it to be tomorrow, so that we don't have to take that pressure into next week vs Adelaide, a game with "danger" written all over it (albeit I reckon Adelaide spent their last emotional tickets on the Showdown last night). Not sure I can barrack for Essendon today. For one, a loss pretty much rules them out of finals, but a win puts them in pole position. For another, a loss to the Dogs opens the door to Port finishing top 2, which could mean our first final is on the road.

Actually in my mind I was thinking about the Bulldogs game, not sure why I referenced the Hawthorn game (two consecutive MCG games in front of no crowd, they all blend together I guess). And yes, against the Bulldogs I thought the wet football made us even more fumbly than we are otherwise at times prone to be.

Still some doubt over TMac: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/demon-mcdonald-in-race-to-be-fit-for-monday-night-clash-20210806-p58ghb.html

It was wet vs North Melbourne too, another home game they lost. But it did hurt vs Hawthorn just three weeks ago.

My concern is that WA opens the border, Victorians head over to Perth, but a subsequent outbreak means WA says "if you've been in Vic in the last 14 days you go into quarantine" or similar.

I would agree with this if I had more confidence in our ability to bring our best football in the wet. But having seen how we've played of late in wet weather, whilst West Coast certainly might be impacted, I'm equally worried we will be too.

The last 48 hours has certainly stripped me of any confidence or excitement about finals being played in Melbourne. It will be hard for Victorians to get into WA with the confidence that they won't be subjected to 14 days of quarantine even once they're already there. Ultimately I'm sure the AFL doesn't care who is in the crowd provided they can play finals in front of a crowd. If that means 50,000 WA people sit in a GF played between Melbourne and Geelong for example, I doubt the AFL will care.

Salem's all good, we're all good, it's fine. I just can't stomach the thought of seeing Smith flying up unnecessarily in front of May, Lever and Petty repeatedly.

Meanwhile West Coast has made a big statement by dropping Xavier O'Neill and putting Waterman, Hutchings, Rotham and West on their extended bench... But seriously, if Vardy plays (and I think there's a fair chance he will, to provide ruck support for Naitanui who will blow up after 15 minutes of trying to follow Gawn and Jackson around the ground), I hope we're into him from the first bounce. For whatever reason I cannot and won't forget him mocking Gawn after Ryan took mark of the year on his head in 2019. Also means no Barrass, Ryan or Shuey for West Coast this week.

I'd go Jordon for Viney and vandenBerg the sub. But it wouldn't be ridiculous to try Melksham in Viney's role, with a greater portion of time spent in the forward line. Weideman the late call up if TMac doesn't make it. J Smith named just to frustrate me.

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?).