tiers

It is said that the real issue is to protect the head and to protect the game and the AFL against future litigation. But, the real issue should be not the tackle but the recovery if an injury to the head occurs. There is already the concussion protocol and maybe this needs to be enhanced eg. 10 days first time, 20 days second time, one month for three or more times. Our great game of footy cannot eliminate hard tackles and subsequent unfortunate footy injuries. Good tackling means pinning the arms and rotating the tacklee. In the hustle and bustle of the game, accidents can happen. Deal with them in the recovery, not in the game. BTW Neita is one of the tribunal members.

Kick straight and there will not be any behind kick ins. Problem solved. Or Kozzie can run wider than the receiver and track the kicker in.

A difference of 76 between best and worst is not right. Time to rethink umpiring and rules. We were down 9 frees against the lolly blues - 13 to 22. Could it be that we were ahead of the doggies?

+1.

Is Judd one of the new breed of young footballers who start at half back - Daicos, Sheezel, McVee this year, Bowey and Rivers for us in 2021. Smart footballers who face the ball and can read the play, win the ball and make good decisions.

The way we move the ball forward, leading patterns would be of little use. However, JVR has the football smarts to overcome this apparent deficiency. Let him have the freedom of the forward line and he will shine. We screwed up Jesse by continuously dropping the ball on his head, let's not screw up this kid.

It will all be to no avail if we don't hurry up and find a settled, reliably performing forward line. Using Maxie and Grundy as key forward targets will not get it done in finals and JVR is proving to be a better roving CHF type than FF type.

I would take Jesse Hogan back in a heartbeat. One of the smartest footy players I have seen who was both badly affected by personal maters and by the inability of the coaches to use him for maximum value. Even so, he was great.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I recall that it was Lachie who won the ball was starting to leave the contest. To suggest that he was not contesting the ball is wrong. If the ball is free between two players, both should be entitled to contest for possession. If the ball is on the ground, then both should be entitled to adopt whichever method suits - either scramble along the ground to reach the ball or to stand and bend over at the right time. That the two players adopted these two alternative methods does not make it a reportable offence if one player is inconvenienced by the body of the other. What have I missed?

Lachie was the hittee (not the hitter) and still managed to win the ball. What could be wrong with that?

Didn't Angus finish high up in the Brownlow playing as a midfielder? Hasn't Rivers played exciting, tough midfield style footy playing as (but not starting as) a midfielder with his run and strength? Is it time for Sparrow and JJ to be given a chance to step up and show their wares? If Goody can experiment with the forward line, then can he not experiment a bit with the midfield? When will Clarrie get better and does he need a rest? Why are there so many questions? Because we lost on a rainy, wet night by only 4 points with an arguably poor performing not-best-22 team and Clarrie's hamstring decided it wanted a rest.

James Harmes has achieved the greatest success that anyone could dream of - winning a premiership at the club that he grew up supporting and being drafted to. Who amongst us would not give anything to achieve this? If it is true that he can no longer command a place in our best 23-24 then the choice is his - remain a one club demon and play a lot of VFL or go elsewhere seeking opportunities at AFL level. Given his contribution to the dees, I would support whichever decision he makes. He will not be forgotten by the dees and I am sure that his heart will remain with the dees..

The reasons from the appeals board are quite simple and straightforward - it is not for the tribunal or the board to insert the word "reasonable" into the laws of the game. Accordingly, van Rooey could not be found to have breached a law that does not exist. It took 2 HOURS to decide this? Nuts.

Probably trying to craft a Supreme Court challenge proof decision that saves face for AFL and tribunal. All we want to do is save Jacob. Get on with it.

Let's hope that they don't get this as wrong as they did with cripps.

Where is the appeals' board duty of care to demon supporters? Making us wait for an acquittal is cruel and unusual punishment.

We mostly understand what a so called "duty of care" means in a legal sense - the ability to foresee the outcome of potentially hazardous actions and the duty to avoid those actions. Overwhelmingly, there is time and space to consider actions that might fall under that duty. How could this possibly translate to a dynamic, fast moving and physical contact sport where decisions and actions are made in microseconds? It can't. Only a genius lawyer could concoct such an argument. It's garbage in this instance.

BS, garbage, rot and unspeakable nonsense. Whether or not he made contact with the head would depend on so many variables, even in the split second before contact, that the desire to spoil would have overcome any possible (??) doubts. According to the tribunal, any "reasonable" player would have (could have) had the time and the inclination to weight up the risks of contact to the head. I am staggered that the former players on the panel did not see through the fallacy of this stupid proposition. Only a legally trained person could run this argument, not a former player, and so the lawyer prevailed. Time to remove the lawyer chair from the decision making panel. At the moment there is a severe conflict of interest between him as interrogator and as decision maker.

I don't want to lose any clearances, poor delivery or not. At some point our forwards will be able to anticipate where the ball is going and make position. The name of the game is possession of the ball and territory. Clearances provide both. GO DEES

From all the comments by the so called expert commentators and those on 'Land, it seems to me that the AFL, to save face, should withdraw the charge. There was no sensible basis for charging van Rooyen.

From an eye witness (me, on the Punt Rd hill side of the ground almost directly opposite the play) RDB did not touch him. RDB was tackled with the ball from front on, tried to punch it away, could not because Dean had his hands on the ball as well and Dean threw his head back to stage for a free kick. It was all a phony report. Hurts till this day. RDB was tough, fearless and unrelenting but he was a pure, clean scrupulously fair footballer. A belated pardon would not go astray.

Why can't we do both? Whilst it seems to me that we get our hands on the ball first at centre square stoppages, we don't seem to be able to convert possession into forward thrusts. Why not? Solve this r4iddle and we enhance our chances greatly.

How about a hit out to the oppo's advantage? They have learned how to shark Maxie's hit outs better than us. A better definition would be a hit out that, even if not to a team mate, does not allow the oppos to have an opportunity for a clear disposal.

As has been noted before, Maxie's main problem is his run up to kick. If he runs straight, he kicks to the left. He should be reminded that he must run at an angle to the goals to allow for his left hook. Not too much to give the umpire cause to call play on, but just enough. His ball drop is not ideal but it does not seem to adversely affect the direction of his kicks. Practice will make perfect.

The dees kicked 8 goals to one. And only 4 poi8nts between the teams on pressure?? What gives or are the pressure stats problematical?