Demons3031

I'm from Moyhu.....unfortunately my footy credentials don't quite stack up against those two! :)

Darn it-I thought I fixed the "Harem" spelling error! Oh well-good for a laugh. :)

Yes there were a few errors - but she made some good calls too - including Langdon's blatant push. Rather a courageous call. Trac would be a bit cheesed off at Langers rather than the ump for that one after he saw the replay. To be honest, I was a bit more concerned with the 50 metre interpretations of the other ump rather than her performance which I thought was Ok overall despite some errors. On most occasions she gave very very clear explanations and instructions. Thats my take on it.

Just like their namesake, they both were very capable in multiple roles. I'm sure Harems would enjoy the name tangle. and comparison. Wonder if he would also appreciate the statuesque representation? :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes

Could be quite a composed player under pressure?

Me too-that makes three.:)

I live in Moyhu near Greta

The ruckman in question was John Winneke. :)

I do remember him being switched to full forward on one occasion during a match and kicking several goals. He had the skill and being a good mark and kick, as well as perhaps playing the famous decoy full forward role.

There was an incident in one game I seem to recall, involving Brendan Edwards, the Hawk centre player?

Spot on..and not only that he was nudged in the back several times in marking contests as was Tom McDonald. See Gerard Healy's article. https://www.sen.com.au/news/2021/07/09/the-only-steve-hocking-rule-change-gerard-healy-strongly-disliked/

Yes I noticed that-it would have meant he played those games at the age of about 42!

As well, he didn't back out of that contest when he kept his eye on the ball and got crunched..despite being hurt he got up and played on.

Spot on..and not only that he was nudged in the back several times in marking contests as was Tom McDonald.

I agree Wrecker. Sometimes you need someone to take the game on..admittedly it did not come off today but that wasn't all Hunt's fault. Even if one of them had it could have lifted the whole side as well as adding to our score to be within a kick.The great Ronald Dale Barassi was known for this.. He turned games with this kind of thing. At times he tried to do too much (much to the angst of Norm Smith). But his sheer passion and effort was a what made him such a good leader and nine times out of ten these efforts lifted the side. Sometimes trying to get the balance between taking it on and on the other hand being composed and disciplined, is a very fine line.

Though both have weaknesses, two proven goalkickers in B.Brown and Mitch Brown can't get a game. Lack of pressure is sometimes quoted as one of their downsides, but I wouldn't mind seeing both of them in the team..albeit using some creative rotations. Maybe Mitch Brown off the bench for spells especially in creating match ups that work in our favour in the forward 50. He has the ability to mark, kick goals and also play further up the ground if needed. In an earlier post I suggested Bowey as an In to the back pocket which moved Hibberd onto HBF and Salem into the centreline. Bowey could also play wing and Salem and Hibberd go back to their normal spots at times during the game too- I just believe we need to get games into players like Bowey who add so much with their effective disposals..and this allows Salem to bring more penetration kicking into the forward kine. I admit I am a bit hesitant in taking him out of defence but if Bowey and Hibberd do the job it can still allow him to be in our best-albeit in a different position.

I wouldn't mind some fresh faces and some change to midfield to give it more spark and oomph. This isn't perfect but food for thought. Bowey May Lever Hunt Petty Hibberd Salem Vandenberg Langdon Petracca McDonald Melksham Spargo B Brown Fritsch Gawn Brayshaw Oliver Int Jordon Jackson Rivers Neal Bullen Emerg Jones In Bowey Vandenberg B Brown Melksham Out Pickett Harmes Viney Sparrow Emerg Jones

Good to see the AFL making a call on this. It doesnt change my mind but I'm Ok with their action. I guess my view is that players have to have an option- the problem for me is that any action he took could have been deemed wrong. To me he took a reasonable action to go sideways where it could have stayed in play(when he could have handballed it straight forward) So I disagree with the AFL that the deflection was unimportant. To me it changed the whole situation. But thats just my view.

Hi Sue I guess my view was that he was handballing sideways and not in the straight ahead direction in which it ended up going from the deflection He was much further from the boundary on the side and the slight upward direction too giving players a chance to touch it would also have cast doubt - he could well have been vaguely aware of the Crows player on his l right ,though we will probably never know. To me the deflection(which could easily have not been noticed it all happened so quickly) and the subsequent bounce of the ball in such a split second could easily have been seen as deliberate. Thats why I felt the video helped clarify things-for me at least. Bet we each can see the same thing and see it differently. Cheers Sue :) P>S I am still aggrieved by the decisions in the final against the Hawks-against VIney and Brayshaw I think? I'm glad we won that despite those ones :)

Sorry Sue, but the slow mo videos may cast light on whether it was deliberate or not. And I feel they definitely do-others may disagree but my view and opinion was t hat the ball started t omove sideays and slightly upward then took a sudden dive south toward the ground. Thats a deflection off Spargo to me. Thats my view anyway. What evidence do you have that almost everyone who saw it in real time had no doubt? Are you referring to Melbourne supporters? Adelaide supporters? those who were at the match on the other side of the ground;? those who were behind the goals or viewing from the pocket or half forward flank? the players? supporters who watched it on tv? Who exactly are these "almost everyone who saw it live?

I am going against the grain here and nearly every poster. I have hated the "intention rule" ever since it came in. And on Saturday we got the worst of it. However I believe in the last incident the umpire got it right. I agree with Mel Bourne. To my view, the Crows player handballs in a sideways direction and in a slight upward direction (for a split mini second). Then the ball suddenly changes trajectory into a downward motion and bounces in front of the players toward the line. That to me is not the direction to which the Crows player originally was sending it as it left his hand. He had few options. He, Spargo and the other players were all thundering in the direction of the goal/pocket and to me he tried to dispose of it in the only direction away from goal that he could. In the way I see it, he directed it sideways and slightly upward. and didn't do a bad job to actually handball it legally with Spargo bumping him almost simultaneously. The slight (even if in a mini second) upward direction followed by a sudden downward movement to me tells the story...that contact with Spargo changed the trajectory significantly. Whether thats what the umpire saw or maybe wasn't in a position to see I can't say. and I cannot comment on his motives..and I don't think we have the facts to know either. There may be some validity in the "Home crowd" pressure and non professional umpires arguments put forward- quite fairly by posters in this forum-those are things worthy of consideration. But I don't think there is any evidence available to any of us - to support some of the allegations made against the umpire in this case. Sure- if you think he got it wrong and you worry about him maybe being afraid to make the call-thats fine. Put it up as a matter of concern to you if that might have been the case. But that is a concern you have - and thats entirely different to an authoritative, factual basis to call someone a squib or a cheat.

Agree with you totally on Lockhart ..he has class speed and passion-goes 150% all the time.. Also agree on the need to bring more players through for the experience rather than waiting till later in the year if injuries occur. They need games under their belt. I would include Crawford and Daw in this too.

I agree QB. I wrote almost two weeks ago about the need to give Majak some game time now-even if only as a cover for an injury and to have game time under his belt if this were to occur.. He needs the be working with our best 22 under match conditions. We also need some unpredictability as the Opposition are working us out and preparing thoughtfully against us. Run him off the bench is we r not yet confident in him but we have tired players and need something different-at least to see if he can offer us something.

There are two key reasons I feel we should be preparing player, structure and strategy options and developing and testing these from this point in the season onwards. One is potential injuries.-the other is others sides working us out. With Tomlinson , Hore and Smith injured, we are really just one injury away from having a big hole to fill in our backline. Sure we can switch McDonald back as a last resort but as many have pointed out this can change the dynamics and effectiveness of what is currently working down forward. The backline has an effective system but i would like Majak Daw to be given some game time on and off from now on to learn to become a real positive in this area if called upon. Imagine if we lose Petty, May or Lever in Round 19-22 or the finals and Daw came in as a "Last resort" without any games under his belt in defence. A bit of game time now could translate into a much more effective replacement in a time of need instead of someone trying, but not yet fully a part of the magic down back. I also mentioned in a previous post about looking at Jackson as a potential inside/outside mid with his good contest and distribution and other skills.(whilst Gawn or Weid are rucking). Rather than only being used as a switch with Gawn or Weiderman etc then back into the forward line, this would somewhat alleviate what some see as an issue of an over tall and cumbersome forward structure. Rather, his height would add solidity and defence when the Opposition is kicking out from the backline as well as a weapon to quickly turn a posssesion into an attacking move. Opposition clubs like Geelong Richmond, Port and West Coast will be putting a lot of planning into us before we next play them-important we are able to switch between Plan A B C and D and create stress, uncertainty and poor decision making by their players and coaches.

You and In are on the same page Leave it... I have made two posts about Langdon recently although they didnt seem to get much response. Here was one on May 9th. " FWIW, I feel all the good defensive work is effective because of a most important link in the chain - Langdon. His hard running to help out in defence or to create space and options on the wing is critical and is what translates the great defence into something. If he were out of the side I would worry that we would be getting out of trouble less often and the ball could easily be rebounding back putting immense pressure on our backs who have worked so hard to clear it. Can you imagine any replacement doing what he does. He means so much to this team."