titan_uranus

I doubt we add another tall forward. If Petty isn’t fit, I’m not sure who gets his spot. Goodwin mid-week didn’t sound too positive re Brown. TMac was an emergency tonight but isn’t in form. Schache was most recently in the side but struggled. Smith’s unpredictable and unreliable.

These sorts of wins are what should set our H&A season up. If you’re expecting flawless football and 100-point wins you’re not thinking right. We are winning games by comfortable margins while actively experimenting - we are trying new things forward of the ball with personnel and structure and we are learning how to score from sources other than stoppage. Imagine what happens when we settle. Yes, we need to show that we can produce good football against Port (and Collingwood, and Brisbane, and Geelong), but to be banking wins whilst developing in front of our eyes is precisely what we should all be demanding from this part of our fixture. Not 100-point wins.

Great news; this was, IMO undoubtedly, the right result.

The GWS game in Alice Springs is going to be on the Sunday, I'm pretty sure. Week after is St Kilda, the week after that is Brisbane. You'd expect the AFL will want our Brisbane game on the Friday night which means the St Kilda game should be on the Saturday, for back-to-back six-day breaks. I reckon the Adelaide game will be a Sunday, Richmond and North Melbourne Saturdays, then Carlton a Friday night or Saturday night.

You're essentially making my point, just in a different way - this system is flawed too. Why rule out a third of the comp for the last 6 weeks of the season? Are they all just going to stop playing? Or are we going to have a third of the matches every single week as dead rubbers between sides whose off-seasons have already started? Meanwhile the first 17 rounds won't be consistent - some sides will, for example, get Brisbane or Adelaide on the road, others will get them at home. Is it fair to cut off the side in 7th who might miss out to 6th by percentage if 7th, for example, copped Brisbane, Adelaide, Port Adelaide and Geelong away, whereas 6th's road trips were to West Coast, GWS, Gold Coast and Fremantle?

The critical issue is the Tribunal's elevation of the foreseeability of harm above the reasonable action of the player. This is a contact sport. Suspending players who engage in reasonable football actions simply because it is foreseeable that the action might cause injury is antithetical to the sport. It is also, I expect we'll argue tonight, an error of law because the AFL's Laws of the Game make it clear that players should be entitled to reasonably contest the ball. Once it is accepted that JVR reasonably looked at Ballard for the purpose of contesting the ball, and reasonably attempted to spoil, it should not matter that it was foreseeable he might hit Ballard in the head.

Lost in the JVR focus this week was Goodwin's comments during his presser yesterday about team selection. He said, clearly, we're keeping Petty forward. The FD like what they see there. Similarly, they're not quite happy with Brown and have him working on things at VFL level. Goodwin didn't want to comment on who gets JVR's spot if the appeal fails but I suspect it won't be Brown; probably Smith, knowing how the FD think. Regardless of Brown's form, I don't like Petty forward and IMO I think we're barking up the wrong tree there, but the FD have a view and it's going to be persisted with. Hibberd sounds like he's coming straight back in, probably for Turner I'd imagine, and then it's hard to know if Spargo gets his spot back.

What made Round 1 the "best time" to get the Dogs? Sydney in Round 3 were as close to full strength as they've been all year.

Really interested to hear that it seems Smith is now in front of Brown in the selection order. Brown went from two of his better games for us, ever, to an innocuous back injury, to completely out of form and now apparently not really that close to selection. A really disappointing two months for him. I've never been a Smith fan. I'm still not. We can't trust his body and I'm not sure he's smart enough to play forward. But I'm happy to be proven wrong - he was starting to prove me wrong in the first month last year as a defender before he got injured.

You know they're on the bottom of the ladder with one win (vs North) and a percentage of 61.6%? They are below West Coast who have about 25 fit players, half of whom should be nowhere near AFL selection.

Want to actually give that a crack? Yes, the current system is flawed, but I am yet to hear of another system that isn't also flawed in some other way. Aside from a 34-game season, there is no magical answer to this question and there are only flawed options. Waiting until everyone's played 17 games to get the top, middle and bottom 6 and then fixturing based off that has major issues - why bust a gut to finish 6th by Round 17 when you could "tank", finish 7th and get a massively easier fixture? It's also hard enough for fans to not have dates/times locked in if you're not even going to schedule opponents, let alone venues, until, what, a week out? Yes, it's nuts that we get North twice this year. But we were also given Sydney (runner up), Brisbane (preliminary finalist), Richmond (finalist) and Carlton (expected finalist) twice. We also have the most interstate travel of any Victorian side other than the two who sell home games to Tasmania. We also have to go to Geelong. We've also had a number of short breaks so far (next week into Port Adelaide will be our fourth 5 or 6 day break so far, I'd wager that's as much as anyone's had this year).

The other possible error of law is the Tribunal's reliance on law 18.5, which as far as I can tell talks about free kicks. I can't see that it sets the boundaries for reportable offences. But I agree with you. The Tribunal found: JVR's objective was to spoil It was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation Those two things IMO mean his actions were reasonable, and the contact was incidental to his reasonable objective. I find it nearly impossible, as you do, to reconcile the above two points with the Tribunal's further finding about the inevitability of a forceful blow to the head. I'm livid with this decision. I think it's genuinely legally unsound. I think it's incredibly harsh that JVR misses two weeks whilst Lynch's charge was thrown out and Fogarty didn't even get cited. It's yet another example of the system being broken.

Last year we averaged 1.1 clearances more than our opponents each game. That came entirely from stoppage clearances, we were even on centre clearances. This year we average 1.8 clearances less than our opponents each game. That again comes almost entirely from stoppage clearances, which are -1.9 (centre clearances are +0.1). I looked a bit further and found that then stoppage clearance numbers are down this year - our opponents this year are averaging fewer of them per game than they did last year. The issue is that we are too, and proportionately more. We're playing a game with fewer stoppages because our ball movement is more direct and aggressive. We're also prioritising stoppages less because we're setting up in a way to score of turnover (I'd love to find the data on scores from turnovers so that I could compare but I am confident that our proportion of scores from turnovers in 2023 is up on 2022).

You know that Goodwin is 50% of these votes, right?

Also, it's foolhardy to compare the Cripps decision. Cripps got off on a legal technicality. Not because it was ultimately decided that his action was OK.

Correct call from the club to appeal. It seems the only things in the AFL's favour are: The vision which suggests JVR took his eyes off the ball; and The need for a stretcher and what I assume will be a minor injury from which Ballard has recovered (as opposed to no injury at all). There is not, and cannot be, a blanket rule that taking your eyes off the ball means your actions become a reportable offence. The onus on every player is to exercise a duty of care to other players. In some instances, the duty of care requires you to look at the player before you contact them. We cannot say that players must lock eyes on the ball in all instances. Here, in attempting to spoil, JVR checks the ball's flight, then looks at Ballard to try to spoil his marking attempt. As others have already argued, it is eminently arguable that he was trying his best to look out for Ballard, rather than the opposite. So, taking your eyes off the ball might be evidence of a reportable offence in circumstances where, for example, you're at a stoppage and you strike your opponent (the player might defend themselves by saying they were trying to get separation but if you're not looking at the ball it's more likely you're trying to strike your opponent). But in this instance I can't accept that makes JVR guilty of an offence. The stretcher showing up we can hopefully deal with to say that either the contact ended up being minor enough to fall below a reportable offence or, as a back-up argument, was only "low" (which would be a fine), or even more alternative was only "medium" (one week). But I'd like to not get to that point.

The OP is misguided IMO. We have lost the clearance count three times this year - to the Dogs, Brisbane and Gold Coast. Those sides are ranked 1st, 2nd and 3rd for average clearance differential this year. If we are less dominant at clearances this year, it is IMO for three key reasons: We are rotating a lot more players through the middle and are resting Gawn, Oliver, Petracca and Viney far more than we did in 2021-22 We are trying to be a more varied and diverse side that doesn't rely exclusively on clearance/CP dominance to score (it's working so far) We've played half this season so far without Gawn

My thought on reading @CHF's post exactly. I would agree that our forward line is not quite right at the moment (mainly because I steadfastly do not support Petty as a forward), but "dire situation" is a ridiculous thing to say given we're the 2nd highest scoring side, and only 3 points behind Geelong who have Hawkins and Cameron.

I maintain my view that this wasn't a reportable offence. I want us to appeal. There are a number of things I'd argue in this order: It's not a reportable offence. It's an attempt to spoil gone wrong. Fogarty did the exact same thing on Murphy last week and (correctly) wasn't penalised. It's not a strike. Wrong charge laid. If those two fail, then at the absolute least we need to look at downgrading the impact grading from "high" to at least "medium", if not "low". The reports are Ballard's injury was minor. That's not "high" impact. It's not the sort of action which, like a bump or a sling tackle, can obviously lead to catastrophic injury. This is an outstretched arm trying to spoil a ball and contacting the head. It's "medium" or "low" and should stay that way.

I read your post. It’s based on what strikes me as flawed logic. So I said as much. It’s not good reasoning to argue that our kick ins being the same means we’ve made no changes to how we play. And funnily enough, you may need to re-read my post to see I agree that our set shot kicking has improved this year. But we are also taking easier shots. So it’s multi-faceted.

This Twitter thread shows examples of how some spoils can cause high contact but are not reportable offences:

Fox's coverage of interstate games isn't great because they're not at the game. David King's attempted defence of that a few weeks back was limp AF. They don't have full coverage of the ground. They can't see and therefore can't comment on things that aren't caught by the camera in front of them, hence they missed King's shove of Petty to give us the Gawn goal. They also are at the mercy of cameras to go look at things off the ball. So it's no surprise they don't give good or accurate reflections of what is going on. I've already posted in the post-game thread that there were some bad umpiring decisions against us in the fourth quarter alone, let alone earlier, that have been overshadowed by the Chol non-call. Anderson not being called for HTB when he tried stepping around JVR, got caught and failed to handball was IMO as egregious as the Chol non-call, but anyway.

Because merely saying "that's careless, high contact with high impact" isn't how the analysis works. The first step is whether it's a reportable offence. Last year Junior Rioli cleaned up Matt Rowell. No suspension because it wasn't a reportable offence. This year Brayshaw got Libba high in a bump-style move. No suspension because it wasn't a reportable offence. Both of those involved careless conduct with high contact.

Come on, @djr gave you a whole host of areas in which we've changed on last year and you picked one he/she didn't even mention, kick ins? Your logic that we got beaten by Brisbane and Essendon, ergo our game plan hasn't changed, is so incredibly flawed I don't even know where to begin. What are you trying to argue here, that if our game plan had changed we'd be undefeated? Your middle paragraph is only partly correct. Our set shots are better, no doubt, but we are taking more shots from the centre and fewer from the pockets because we're not always prioritising long kicks to Brown/McDonald/Gawn in the pocket.

I think what I'm trying to say is that we're moving away from this, to our benefit. Contest is key to any good side. But it was too much the key to us in 2022. This year, we're more resilient structurally, both in offence and defence, if we aren't on top in CPs, and that is a good thing.