titan_uranus

We will lose next week. After that, the next five are at the 'G, where we always play better. Carlton is over-rated and thus beatable, we play well against Essendon but they're a better side this year, not a chance against Collingwood, more than a chance against Freo and Richmond. If over the next few weeks we get some of Scully, McKenzie, Trengove, Bail and Jamar back that will help too, as we'll be able to cut players like Dunn, Bennell, Jetta and Newton who are not best 22 material. If we can also get back to putting in a half-decent effort and extracting some life from our senior players, we are a chance to win three of them (Carlton, Fremantle and Richmond). It goes without saying that if we don't put the effort in the results won't come.

Green was woeful today. I mean that. He just didn't look like he was running anywhere near hard enough. Mind you, I'd like to see him playing forward, but even then, he looked like he'd found some form last week, and he threw that away today.

6 - Frawley 5 - Tapscott I really have no idea who comes next. 4 - Martin (I thought he wasn't that good but there's no one else really) 3 - Maric 2 - Bail 1 - Garland (both Bail and Garland, IMO, gave us more effort and skill when they were on than most others did). People with Jones in their votes need to consider the incredible amount of turnovers he created. Jetta was not hard, he was slow and ineffective.

Let me start by re-iterating the title: I AM NOT CALLING FOR BAILEY'S HEAD! However, I was disappointed with his coaching effort today. Newton started the first quarter really well. He was leading brilliantly, taking strong marks, chasing and tackling, and generally looking like a FF. So what does Bailey do? Puts him in the ruck, which sapped his confidence and momentum and he was hardly sighted after his second goal. For those who say he had no other option, we had Dunn who has rucked before, who was already reported, and so could have been the 'sacrificial lamb', if you like. There's no way you could argue that Newton gives us any more in the ruck than Dunn does, and Newton proved it by continually holding Goldstein and giving free kicks away. Bailey should have realised that Newton was on song at FF and we should have left him there. Secondly, when the going got tough, we reverted, once more, to the loose man in defence. This never, ever helps us, and again failed to help us today. When we go a loose man in defence we end up playing the game in the opposition's forward half. Last week we employed a forward press so well that we had the ball in our half most of the game. Today we let North Melbourne get the ball forward of the centre far too much, and we didn't have 6 forwards so it was harder to get the ball out. I hate the tactic. I also hate that we used Watts as the loose man. He didn't do that badly, in fact he looked OK, but we need him to continue to play CHF. That is how he is going to develop best. Again, this is not a thread for those of you who want to sack Bailey. This is a thread for people who, like me, think we were out-coached today.

Out: Garland (inj.), Bail (inj.), Dunn (suspended, if not then dropped), Jetta In: The five fittest/best performers from Casey, but there must be a ruckman (so one of Gawn or Campbell).

As bad as the West Coast game. Good Frawley Tapscott Bad Everything after quarter time Newton being put in the ruck Newton when in the ruck Jetta Bennell Ugly Dunn (doesn't deserve another game this year) The injuries Going from 31 points up to 41 points down

My gut feeling is that we'll lose. Everything points to it: North Melbourne, at Etihad, without Jamar, Trengove or Grimes. Having said that, if Moloney can still compete in the middle without Jamar's assistance, if Sylvia, Davey and Green play like they did last week, and if Petterd, Jurrah, Watts and Wonaeamirri attack the ball the same way they did last week, we can/will win. As is the case every time we play North, we are more talented and play a better brand of football at our best, but we never seem to get close to our best against them.

You're going down the right track, but there are issues here that you've missed. The first is that this is a sporting game, in which players consent to various actions which, off the field, would be assault/battery/negligence. So it's too simplistic to just apply the regular notions of negligence to a sports game. When footballers talk about a 'duty of care' you should not necessarily equate that with a legal 'duty of care', it is more a duty to protect fellow players from incurring injuries that are outside of the spirit of the game. Assuming Trengove did in fact owe Dangerfield a 'duty of care', to determine a breach requires an assessment of what he could have done to avoid the alleged breach and how difficult it would have been for him to take alternative action. It would also involve an assessment of what a 'reasonable person' would have done in the circumstances. All in all, though, the phrase 'duty of care' is being bandied around the AFL without its proper meaning. What people are referring to is that players need to excercise a standard of care towards each other, and when they don't, they become liable to suspension from the MRP/Tribunal/Appeals Board. It's not really a legal term, and thus applying legal principles isn't terribly appropriate.

This is something that some people on here would be interested in: Hutchy on Twitter notes that the Appeals board is open to the AFL as well. So the option is there for the AFL to appeal this finding for the benefit of the players. Not something I would advocate, nor do I think it is even remotely a chance of happening, but I'm sure that some people here would say that the AFL has to do this.

I want us to appeal. First ground for appeal: there is no discretion in a rule that needs it. We don't want players to be slung to the ground maliciously, but we shouldn't be penalising players for laying tackles such as this, which have no malicious intent, and are executed exactly as is taught. Second ground: Dangerfield contributed to his injury by continuing to attempt the kick, rather than attempting to protect himself. Weak grounds, but from the footage I reckon you could argue that he chooses to go for the kick thinking he'd be OK. He is, after all, a very courageous and brave player. Third ground: the length of the penalty is OTT. 3 weeks for this, but Campbell Brown gets 2 for a deliberate elbow to the head, off the ball, out of the play. I don't know the rules, but surely the Appeals board has grounds to change penalties at their discretion. Our case has enough meat on its bones to warrant the cost of going to the Appeals board. At the very least we'd be giving fans and the other 16 clubs some clarity.

With the forced changes: In: Martin, MacDonald, Morton/Evans Out: Jamar (inj.), Grimes (inj.), Trengove (susp.) Martin has to play first ruck, we have no one else with Spencer out injured, Gawn nowhere near it, Fitzpatrick not good enough, and Campbell only just recovered from injury. Dunn holds his spot as the second ruck. This is an awful situation IMO, but what can we do? MacDonald plays Grimes' role. Hopefully we can appeal Trengove's suspension (if anything we should appeal the length, Campbell Brown got 2 weeks for deliberately elbowing Ward in the head FFS!), but if not, Morton may get a reprieve. However, there is a lot of talk about Evans, who I don't know a lot about. Maybe he will get his chance. Howe looked good a couple of weeks ago too. I'm not entirely happy with Morton coming straight back, but our hand is somewhat forced until Scully and McKenzie are fit.

I can't believe it. We win after playing some great football, in a fantastic response to a terrible performance one week earlier. Then... Grimes does his navicular, out for the year. Trengove cops a ridiculous suspension, out for three. Spencer does his ACL, which didn't seem so bad, until Jamar did his PCL. Brilliant.

They did actually. Second quarter, they kicked 3 in very quick succession. Mainly because we couldn't clear the ball after the first two. It's still an issue.

Do you know what 'unsubstantiated' means? You came on here, told everyone that Grimes had a navicular break, but you had no source. That made your rumour (as it was then), wait for it, unsubstantiated. The fact that it has been proven correct does not change that. Next time, give a source, or shut up.

Reasons. Add to that the fact that were were insipid the week before. It all pointed to a shocker.

All those waiting for apologies/having a go at WJ: You are all fools. At the time it was posted it was nothing but an unsubstantiated rumour which served no purpose but to get people worried. The fact that it turned out to be true does not change that. WJ's job, as a moderator, is to watch out for such unsubstnatiated crap and make sure it doesn't permeate the board, because when the false stuff starts spreading this board gets even worse.

Some salient points on One Week at a Time: 1) The MRP is totally inflexible and is forced to apply points where there ought not be any. 2) We are penalising tackling which is a legitimate part of the game. Trengove didn't do anything other than poorly (arguably) execute a legitimate tactic. 3) Campbell Brown elbowed Callan Ward in the head, off the ball, and got 2 weeks. Trengove tackled, and got 2 weeks. 4) This kind of thing happens repeatedly (Redleg above indicates it has happened in tonight's match too).

This is such rubbish. The reason he has been suspended is because Dangerfield got injured because of it. If that's the basis for being suspended, why then did Kennedy get off for breaking Sylvia's jaw, or Judd for cutting Pavlich's cheek open? That was a tackle with no malicious intent whatsoever, he pinned the arm as he was told and tackled to the ground. It was an unfortunate accident. Reprimand at worst.

Me too. Could have been the start of a really big stage of development in his career. Hopefully if when he comes back he goes back into the middle.

Meanwhile we stole 15 minutes of air time on Footy Classified last night getting praised by Garry, Caro, Hutchy and Thommo. You win some, you lose some.

I think that's a fair enough comment. After the first two wins I don't think anyone would have looked at us and said 'they're a finals contender', and certainly not if they'd seen the second half against Hawthorn or the West Coast game. But we showed yesterday that we can play at a level that will be good enough to make finals. The key is to maintain that level, or close enough to it, for the rest of the year, and not to regress into the form we showed for much of the first 5 matches.

If Rivers is fit, he takes Warnock's place. Warnock for mine was nothing special, and Rivers has been playing well this year. No need to get sentimental about it, Warnock only played because Rivers couldn't, and I didn't see anything from Warnock that made me think he ought to stay in the side. I also think Martin should come in. IMO he should never have been dropped, and with Goldstein and Petrie waiting (decent rucks), I don't want Jamar to have to do it all himself again. Because of those changes Bate stays, but he didn't play well and doesn't really deserve much more of a chance. In: Martin, Rivers Out: Warnock, Grimes (inj.)

Can't, even if we wanted to. Sends the wrong message. He's doing just fine as is. He knows his role. He can stil be a leader without the VC, and that can be something he works towards next year. His carrot and stick situation.

If we play like we did today I have every confidence in us breaking the hoodoo. North are crap. But if we don't, we will lose. Pure and simple.

Hopefully it's gone for good. Next step is to get that trumpeter out of there...