titan_uranus

And again, we see the MRO system is broken. Chandler getting suspended is fine in isolation, given what we know about the AFL's position on dangerous tackles. I'll continue to argue it isn't sufficiently different to Hawkins' tackle in Round 23, but consistency is nowhere to be found in the MRO playbook. Ryan getting one week is a disgrace, but provides the latest example of how flawed the box-ticking MRO exercise is. What he did was intentional, but since no player since Byron Pickett has has the level of intent required by the guidelines (i.e. intending to knock them out, pretty much), every bump is careless. Which means the only differentiating factor is the impact. Foley does worse than Bowey, so Chandler cops an extra week. There is no justification for Ryan's action being less of a suspension than Chandler's, none at all. The AFL continues to over-penalise players who are playing the game but stuff it up (Chandler) whilst under-penalising players who do things the AFL time and again tells us have no place in the game (Ryan).

If you want to look at the whole incident, as you've done, go look at the video. Your stills don't change my view that Foley's shoulder hits the ground at least at the same time as his head, if not before. My first still shows Chandler tries to turn him side on. My second still shows him getting to ground level side-on. Both of your stills show the aftermath, in which clearly Foley's head hits the ground. Which is not disputed. But as I said at the start, I cannot see how Chandler's tackle is materially different to Hawkins'.

On this angle, I see rotation to the side and the shoulder hitting the ground at least at the same time as the head, if not before (given he's side on to the ground, it's hard for the head to hit the ground before the shoulder tbh).

I cannot see a material difference in either of those factors. Both Hawkins and Chandler grab and pin both arms. Both of them rotate slightly to avoid being in the back. Both Joyce and Foley have their shoulder hit the ground before their head. Both then have their head whack the turf and both are concussed.

Hawkins from Round 23 last year makes an interesting comparison. It's very similar: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/geelong-cats/afl-2021-tom-hawkins-dangerous-tackle-on-darragh-joyce-geelong-vs-st-kilda-video-incident-match-review-news/news-story/16452d3806dec072ea07f11b448e7d5d He was cleared by the MRO despite Joyce leaving the ground with concussion: “Joyce takes possession of the ball in St Kilda’s defensive 50 and runs towards the centre of the ground before handballing to a teammate,” the AFL said in a statement. “While Joyce is disposing of the football, Hawkins runs from behind and applies a tackle – in one motion – on Joyce which carries both players forward. “The momentum of the tackle results in Joyce’s left shoulder and then head making contact with the playing surface. It was the view of the Match Review Officer that Hawkins’ actions were not unreasonable in the circumstances. No further action was taken.” Note the reference to "in one motion". Maybe this isn't as clear-cut as I had previously thought.

I think this is the key issue. IMO the type of tackle was fine - a run down tackle where he grabs Foley around his body. But he pins both arms, and when you do that, you have to realise that you are exposing the player's head. As opposed to an unnecessary sling motion tackle from a standing start. Again, this is a football move executed poorly that we only are talking about because Foley came off the ground (i.e. the outcome is speaking louder than the action), but the pinned arms will be what Christian uses to say the tackle was dangerous.

Yep, you certainly differ from everyone else.

What exactly do you mean by "start showing our offensive side"? Do you mean score more? Did you know we are in the top 4 for points scored this year? Ahead of the media's favourite scoring machine, Carlton? Ahead even of Geelong and their power forwards?

My view is that he shouldn't be suspended, but he will be. The MRO will say Chandler had both of Foley's arms pinned, which makes his head vulnerable to hitting the ground, and so he needed to do more to avoid driving him down head-first. I don't agree with it, but I reckon it's highly likely. I'm equally interested in seeing whether Ryan gets weeks for bumping Bowey in the head, and whether McGovern gets anything for pushing his elbow into Viney's throat.

Ryan should get a week for his bump on Bowey, but probably won't because Bowey didn't get injured. McGovern should get two weeks for his elbow into Viney's throat, just like Viney got two weeks for his similar action to Sam Collins last year, but probably won't because no one cares about West Coast this year. But Chandler will get a week for a clumsy tackle, simply because Foley got concussed.

My (reliable) mail is that Salem isn't just not ready but had a minor setback. I doubt we'll see him before the bye.

He shouldn't be suspended, but I'm with @DeeSpencer, I think it's highly likely he'll cop a week or two. We all know the MRO/Tribunal system is overly focused on outcome. Assuming Foley had some level of concussion from the tackle, it's easy for the MRO to call it "dangerous" in hindsight - both arms pinned, head went down fast. That's not how the system should work, but it just is how it works. It's broken.

6 - Viney 5 - Petracca 4 - Pickett 3 - Brayshaw 2 - Gawn 1 - Oliver

The good news: We gained, what, 8%? We're now two games and 19.6% clear of 3rd. Yes. 3rd. Not 9th. Pickett backed up last week with an incredible performance The bad news: West Coast is appalling and, honestly, we should have won by more We would have won by more if we'd kicked straight - far too many easy goals missed and low percentage shots taken when they shouldn't have been Harmes' injury Chandler's tackle - not because there was anything wrong with it (it looked like one motion to me, just unlucky), but because it clearly impacted him.

This will put Gold Coast at 4-5, with three wins against top six sides (Carlton, Sydney, Fremantle). They have the Dogs, Hawthorn and North before the bye. 6-6, if not 7-5, is on the cards. They then have home games against Adelaide, Collingwood and West Coast, and road trips to Essendon, Hawthorn and North. That's another six winnable games right there. Finals set? Not yet, surely.

Fremantle have kicked two behinds in two quarters of football. Hard to believe they came into this game 2nd on the ladder with a percentage of 153%.

We haven't won yet...

The general argument is that by Round 8, historically there are few changes to the top 8 from then on. You only have to go back to last year to find an example of a year where the top 8 changed after Round 9. At Round 9 last year West Coast and Richmond sat 7th and 8th, whilst GWS was 9th and Essendon 12th. Obviously the latter two ended up switching with the former two come finals time. This year, there is little separating Sydney (currently 4th) from Gold Coast (currently 13th), given the latter just beat the former last week. The Dogs and Port sit 9th and 10th, both will be pressing for finals. Collingwood 2002 and then again 2003. St Kilda 2009 and then 2010 as well. No idea what the OP was trying to get at with that line.

In Victoria it's similar to Tasmania - your annual registration fee includes a payment to the TAC. Once you are registered, you are covered by the TAC for any liability you have as owner/driver of the vehicle for injuries to other people (with certain other exceptions). So, as has been pointed out, if you drive an unregistered vehicle, you are not entitled to be covered by the TAC if you injure/kill someone.

Agree, although the key words really are "on paper". Barrass, Kelly and Darling have had terrible years by their prior standards.

As much as we are on solid ground joking about the gap between us and West Coast, the reality is we need to take this game seriously, and if percentage is on offer, we need it. Brisbane and Fremantle are both ahead of us on percentage, in part because they've both already played both West Coast and North. Fremantle has West Coast again this year, whilst Geelong has West Coast twice and North again. Our fixture post North gets really tough, so now is the time to fill our boots if we can.

Just watched the replay. Saints were good. Which makes this win really good. They brought heat and we spent fair chunks of the game under pressure. To kick 9 of the first 10 goals against a side that isn't rolling over is no mean feat. They got some momentum in the third but as is common with us these days, and other than the Dogs game in Round 1, we minimise the damage done from opposition momentum and then capitalise when they inevitably waver. May is unbelievable but I was really impressed with Brayshaw's game. Blending defence with attack perfectly.

Running on the theory that the emergencies will come off the extended bench, you would assume that Jackson, Sparrow, Pickett and ANB will all play. That would mean Weideman misses out, along with Dunstan, Bedford and Laurie.

In: Jackson, Pickett, Sparrow, Petty, ANB, Laurie Out: Smith, Melksham, Chandler Weideman named on the extended bench; TMac named in the starting 18. Although not sure if that means anything these days.

Round 21, 2017. Sunday, 1.10pm. We drew 53,115 to a home game vs St Kilda. That was when both sides were pressing for finals. It was the game, IIRC, where we mocked St Kilda about us making finals instead of them. Then the following week we blew valuable percentage against Brisbane when led by 32 points 5 minutes into the last quarter, then conceded a stack of goals and only won by 13. And then lost to Collingwood, thereby missing finals by the smallest percentage ever recorded. Having mocked St Kilda about making finals three weeks prior. Sigh. Those were the days.