titan_uranus

I don't think this is right. Whether or not something is "likely to cause injury" is not the same as "will cause injury". Bedford's tackle is the perfect example - it's not a type of tackle that is likely to cause injury because that type of tackle occurs 100s of times a Round without any injury occurring. Put legalisms to one side. Do you really think Bedford deserved suspension for his tackle?

What's being missed in all the outrage tonight is that the Appeals Board is all about "getting off on a legal technicality". It's almost impossible to win an appeal without showing that the Tribunal applied the rules/guidelines incorrectly. The only other option is to say that the Tribunal's decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable Tribunal could have come to that decision, which is such a high bar. There should be outrage at the entire system of course. The MRO box-ticking exercise has been unfit for purpose for years. The Tribunal is far too inconsistent and doesn't explain its reasoning in a way which anyone other than lawyers can properly understand. The rules have been patchwork developed year-on-year to have become bloated and unworkable, with convoluted definitions and concepts upon concepts which are not capable of easily being understood and therefore ripe for legal debate. And the AFL, overseeing all of it, is too scared to admit what we all want it to admit - a certain amount of concussion is going to occur in this sport unless we fundamentally change it in a way that no one actually wants. The AFL media make mountains out of molehills all the time, and I can't stand what is often confected outrage (e.g. May's play for a free). But I'm all for it here - this off-season, the AFL has to completely revamp the MRO/Tribunal process.

I'd be all in favour of bringing Houston to the club but suspect this is like the Clarry story and is another one of the AFL media's attempts to drum up interest where there isn't anything actually happening.

Who have those been in the past? Watts? None of them have the career that Oliver has to this point. People throw around this concept of clubs needing to be "ruthless" all the time. I actually think it's exceedingly rare that clubs force out proven talent.

Source? Or just your opinion? I don't know if it's a rule but I thought that the sub and emergencies come from the extended bench. Petty not on the extended bench which tends to suggest he's playing. Fully expecting one of Billings or Laurie to play, and be sub. Personally I don't think either are part of our future and I don't think either are going to make us better in 2024, but I also appreciate the importance of rewarding VFL form and I understand both were very good last week.

I enjoy the debate @Deespicable but as others have said, it’s indefensibly bonkers to give us a 6/10 when we found three players who each played their own critical role in 2021, and none of whom were before pick 29.

This is true, and worth us all bearing in mind (some rate Essendon but I don’t). But it’s not so much the opposition but the fundamentals in our game since the bye that excite me. The fourth quarters vs North and Brisbane aside, for 14 of the last 16 quarters we’ve played, we’ve looked markedly better than we did pre-bye in most facets of the game. We’re more contested, pressure feels up, we’re transitioning the ball better, and there’s a bit of an intangible vibrancy coming from the kids (Kolt, AMW, JVR, Windsor, McVee, Woewodin).

I agree with this. Can’t go 0-2 the next fortnight. Has to be 1-1 minimum. And we have to go back to our 2020-23 ability to minimise the damage if we are losing - cannot afford Fremantle, West Coast or Collingwood style big losses on the scoreboard. However, being written off or not rated is what I want. One of the players mentioned that we embraced the “backs to the wall” mentality going into the Essendon game and I want us to harness that for as long as possible. A win this week will change a lot of people’s perceptions but staying underdogs as long as possible suits me tbh.

This is AFL trade media at its absolute worst. "Other clubs think he's gettable", but Melbourne says he's not going anywhere and he accepts that it's incorrect to say he's on the trade table. All he's reporting is that other unnamed clubs apparently think he's gettable. Which may be true, but would of course be in their interests to say to a journalist. Of late, we've seen Clarry connected with Goody, connected with Gawn (social media), small things like his connection and care with Kozzie's family in Quairading, and (whether people liked it or not) being spoken about by the club as trying to do the right thing by the team when under pressure from the tag against North. The phrase "where there's smoke, there's fire" doesn't apply to AFL trade media. People can, and do, fabricate smoke wherever they want. Journalists, managers, clubs, anyone can start a rumour which can spread. This is just that - other clubs think he's gettable, despite this story featuring not a single thing coming out of Melbourne or Clarry himself which would suggest the position now is any different to what it's been.

Sorry! You can see I get very worked up about this.

Today is the best example of how utterly [censored] the MRO system is right now. Bedford gets 3 for a tackle gone wrong, whereas Rosas gets 1 for intentionally elbowing someone in the head. Just completely and utterly broken.

I don’t know if a side has ever missed finals with 13 wins. If we become the first, IMO it won’t be the Brisbane loss that grates most. For me, it’ll be losing to Fremantle by 90 instead of “just”, say, 60. Just an enormous outlier margin-wise for the last 5 years. Losing by a kick to Brisbane in the form we were at that time in wasn’t anywhere near as galling.

No he doesn't. Pet peeve of mine. Being "good" doesn't mean you "need" or "deserve" a lower jumper number. Let him be 42. Let him be what he was given and make it his own. (Rant over).

St Kilda under Ross Lyon never won a flag. Geelong in their Danger/Cameron/Stewart era have just one. Carlton with Cripps, Walsh, Curnow, McKay, Weitering haven’t won one. Brisbane have been up for 5 years with no flag. Sydney with Buddy for a decade didn’t win one. West Coast with Cox, Cousins, Judd and Kerr only won one.

That wasn't the only decision in our favour. TMac cannoned into Langford's back in the third but no free was paid. Ridiculous non-decision, was clearly in the back, probably high too. Just awful umpiring last night.

If they can't beat Adelaide, St Kilda and GC (all at Marvel), they shouldn't be playing finals to be honest. They're where they are on the ladder because they haven't dropped any of these sorts of games all year (the only loss to a side not in the top 9 was when they lost to GC up there, and to GC's credit they are undefeated there). They could easily be pumped by the other three (Fremantle, Sydney and Brisbane) and finish with 13.5 and a percentage under 100%, and make finals on that basis.

Agree with this but query the last paragraph. The fact that it worked this week vs Draper doesn't mean it's going to work next week vs Darcy/Jackson. The threat they pose at stoppage with their clearance work, and around the ground (both are much better than Draper), means the task next week is a step up at least. Plus it rained last night, which I'm going to assume won't be the case next week. Plus JVR's just played a game in the ruck and has to get on a plane to Perth. There are plenty of reasons why, despite it working this week, we may need to reconsider it for next week.

It won’t get a mention because we won but if we had lost this should be getting the same level of attention as the NM- Collingwood non-50. I cannot fathom any reason for the umpire not to pay this.

Far more excited to go for the biggest upset of the year x 2 in Richmond or West Coast today. Either of them winning, and taking four points off GWS/Brisbane, would do wonders. GC beating Port helps, but keeps GC close to us. Reality is our fixture means if we get to 13 wins we're likely to make finals because that will require us to take four points of three of our rivals for finals spots.

Just noticed that Rivers had 29 touches (second most for all players, behind Langdon), but only 67% TOG. Incredible, really.

Salem - contest work underrated Put his body on the line repeatedly tonight.

He's a genius until we lose, following which he'll be a stubborn coach who is wasting a list. And so the Demonland cycle continues.

We need to think seriously about whether we can afford to ruck JVR against Darcy/Jackson. If that means dropping Petty for Fullarton, or even Tomlinson, I'd consider it. Bowey's out of form but I don't know if Woey's an improvement.

6 - Langdon 5 - McVee 4 - Rivers 3 - Pickett 2 - Windsor 1 - ANB

Great win. Not so much because of the opposition (I don't rate Essendon. They're fraudulent). But because of how we played. That's the way we need to play, and if we bring that more often than not for the last 6 games, we're right in with a chance. Windsor's skills on a wet night were insane. Pickett played with a focus that makes him so much better. McVee continues to play like a 200-gamer. May was better (but still a major problem with ground balls). Disco is really developing his positioning and leading (and the kicking is *chef's kiss*), and Melksham makes us a much more dangerous proposition forward of centre. JVR's job in the ruck bailing out Petty, ANB's job on Merrett, and Oliver's ability to get into the game and put his usual skills on show in the wet were, IMO, key reasons we turned it around after going down a couple of goals early. Loved Clarry's game actually - not a stand out dominant midfield performance but a role played really well when he clearly isn't at 100% Clarry power. The JVR thing is a positive and a negative - Petty in the ruck just didn't work and I don't like rucking JVR into oblivion. If Darcy's back next week, he's a Draper body with a brain and he could really smack JVR around. I don't like that match up, personally. I really liked AMW's game early, but he was flagging and I think the right call to sub. However, Bowey is just right off as well. Not sure whether Woey can grab that spot off him. Disappointing to lose 2% from when we were 41 up, and more disappointing to have let them back into it, but that was partly due to umpiring and surely partly due to them having an 8 day break compared to our 6. Also we were on average a full year younger than them (25yr 4 m compared to 26yr 3m). I said pre-game that this season is up for grabs. The Dogs winning doesn't help but Carlton losing means, as has been pointed out already, that we're now 1 game out of 2nd and just a draw out of 4th. Funnily enough though, we're a good chance of not even being in the 8 by the end of this round (Port, Brisbane and GWS win and we slide to 9th). Next week is, though, really tough. We're Fremantle's bunnies and they'll be smarting from their loss today. But a win next week...hoo boy.