Bystander

1 hour ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Casey are really missing Moose and remember that many players who played last season (and even this one) have either moved on, injured or now playing AFL....

Chandler, Baker, JVR, Dunstan, Weid, Mitch Brown & Bedford.

Reckon we did ok without Dunstan & Moose.

And while this most likely wasn't the difference, the umps did pay some insanely rediculous 'hand-of-god' frees on at least 3 to 4 occasions which helped keep Werribee within touch and pushed them ahead at times.

If you need any convincing of this check out the holding the ball against Woe straight in front of their goals early in the 4th.  Was literally tackled as soon as he took possession and taken to ground /sat on.  Ventured to try and handball it but no way he had any prior.

The other must see miracle free was at the 17 minute mark of the last against Roan Steele.  He tracked the ball from a Werribee kick off HB through the middle, picked up, turned on a tight arc quickly to boot the ball back into our 50 or find a target.  Slipped over, got straight back up (no oppo touched him and if they did it was a finger tip trip anyway) and the ump paid HTB!!!!

I hate being critical of umpires as it is such a hard  game to umpire...but there were some remarkable free kicks Werribee's way in the last quarter...including the Steele one you mention. Your description is accurate. There were others.

Jefferson is a worry...never seen a less imposing player.

Woewodin has some class...but not quite ready yet, in my amateur opinion.

Moniz-wakefield has ability but will need to do a lot more to warrant promotion.

Sestan has some good attributes, but I think you can pick the absence of the usual pathway in his game...another year of professional coaching may fix.

Ben Brown gave at least one goal away.

Great game here at Werribee.

3 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

two of them usually would stay until the AFL game has started. In theory they could be at Werribee and warmed up in time to come on in the second half. This would mean Casey would be two players short for a half.

All in all I can't see it happening

Would be a shame if 2 players don't get a run at all.

Do the emergencies not used go to Casey game at Werribee, which is starting at same time?

10 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Dees premiership hero Kye Declase no doubt set for a big game 

I'm confused. I'm pretty certain he didn't play in the Melbourne or Casey premiership team.

With both games starting at same time, does that mean there will be a couple of players stuck in no man's land ?

Perhaps Gleeson and the AFL advocate could demonstrate what the hell they are talking about.

21 hours ago, D4Life said:

100% Hunter gets there first, Rozee is late and reckless of his own safety!

What is Hunter meant to do step back and say take the ball!

Jump

8 hours ago, jacey said:

Moniz Wakefield was someone who looked promising last year n hoped wouldve developed more than I thought. 

Agree. But Woewodin showing improvement. Non listed players George Grey and perhaps Roan Steele showing more than Moniz.

7 hours ago, old55 said:

Tight timing for the sub with a 1:35pm start at Casey.

Not really. Plenty of flights on Saturday morning to get them to Casey on time. In the past they have been prepared to cut it pretty fine...but tomorrow wouldn't be a problem.

Munro back ?

Club statement seems to be saying it is temporary. ?

He might as well have pulled the hawthorn players shorts off as he went past...same penalty.

More importantly, I might be in trouble here as well. I was sitting near the boundary, shouted and flapped my arms at the hawthorn player. I'm hoping to get weeks rather than a fine if identified. Will be getting JVR to represent me. He spoke well recently.

29 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

watch it again.

he didn't swing him around. day swung around himself against the momentum to handball backwards. sparrow just pulled down as he was already off his feet

probably all moot now as no sign of club going to tribunal

I think daisycutter has nailed it.

What starts off as a pretty meat and potatoes tackle changes in .001 secs because Day elects to turn whilst being tackled.

He can do that, but the loss of balance that results was the cause of the injury. Had Day stayed the course he was on...no problem.

Day could have protected himself by handballing forward, or not getting caught.

So, just another example of the difficulty the AFL has in tinkering with the Rules to try and reduce risk. This tackle would not have resulted in a problem if players didn't run so fast, tackle from an angle other than directly behind, change direction once tackled or swivel to handball back. Perhaps touch football? I don't think so.

Another problem the AFL has is that after the jvr incident, it seems the rule needs to change. If the rule doesn't, the liability issue has worsened. The AFL helped create that problem. Presumably they have a QC looking at that problem. Hopefully not Gleeson.

Play on.

1 hour ago, Superunknown said:

MRO process needs to be a committee

Or else Michael Christian needs a new job , or some performance management 

 

 

Very very harsh treatment to expect someone to leave the AFL. He/She would only be paid market rates, would not have a product that sells itself and basic competency would be expected.

6 hours ago, DeeVoted said:

Reasons from Appeal Board chair Murray Kellam:

Law 18.5 refers only to incidental contact and makes no mention of unreasonable contact.

These laws and the drafting of them, in our view, support the contentions of the appellant (Melbourne) that law 18.5 must be read in its terms.

We recognise that the concerns expressed by the Chair of the Tribunal about an extreme characterisation of incidental contact have validity and that concern is, in our view, well justified.

However, that does not permit us to interpret rule 18.5 as containing additional words, or to introduce exceptions into the meaning of law 18.5, which is not supported by the text nor, as far as we can ascertain, the spirit and intention of law 18.5.

It's not for this board to redraft the laws of Australian Football in circumstances whereby the meaning of the law is clear on the face of it.

Accordingly, we conclude that ground one of the appellants notice of appeal succeeds. It's not necessary for us in those circumstances to determine ground two.

I will interpret that for you.

The chairman, Gleeson,  was completely wrong. But he is still a nice chap.

In the penultimate paragraph of the above quote there is an important typographical error. "Whereby" should be "Where".

6 hours ago, Winners at last said:

Whoever drafted the rule/s in question will get a 'please explain' from the AFL!! 

No problem with the Rule.

The problem is Gleeson decided he would wrongly add a bit in where the Rule was clear.

37 minutes ago, picket fence said:

Wednesday Adams has just taken the stand for the Dees talking about Vicarious Intent and pure Accident. Seems her logic is impeccable!!

Who is Adams?

I don't think having a lawyer/QC as chairman is helpful. You just need someone, preferably a former player, who is literate and fair. ( The rules here were simple and jvr's actions were within those rules ).

We lawyers, on the other hand, have the capacity to distort plain words to get a result.

This is more important than jvr missing a couple of games. If this decision stands there will be 20 plus players a week there on Tuesdays plus a radical change to the way the game is played.

It would be interesting to hear how coaches are explaining this ruling to players today! Don't spoil if the opposing players head is near his outstretched arms? Arms are attached to shoulders upon which the noggin sits.

1 minute ago, Graeme Yeats' Mullet said:

2 minutes condemning JVR

45 minutes sculpting a narrative to sell it...

Saw David Rhys Jones during the week...very nice bloke. Big nick, jezza, Rene kink there as well.

21 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

Just said the same to a mate. They are trying to apply civil law principles to a contact sport. There is a voluntary assumption of risk that comes with plying this game. The duty of care argument is a bunch of bulldust. You could argue that the duty of care is breached in every tackle. The aim of the act is to physically challenge an opponent. It’s just outrageous 

I think it is called volenti non fit injuria....it's been a while

9 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Who is this Woods? His statement is moronic. 

Correct...JVR is also allowed to take into account the laws of physics and flight and nearly 20 years of catching balls.

47 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

When all the boys lined up at school for a scratch match and the two captains took turns in picking players for their team,  you get the feeling that little Ralphy was the last one to get selected.

That team selection method would definitely not be permitted now.

22 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

If last year was any indication, it's a hard no from me.

Should play 2 to 3 Casey games and then come into the seniors. 

I would say 2 or 3 Casey games and see how he goes. 

On 4/8/2023 at 9:46 AM, Stiff Arm said:

BT is about the only commentator that I mute the tv for. He and Dermie. Both are incredibly painful to the ears

I don't mind dermie. But I learn a lot from Richo.