KozzyCan

Oh dear

It's always tough to know the full extent of an assistant coaches influence. They are restricted by the system they work within. I do remember when Yze got the job at Richmond Brendan Gale quoted him. Something along the lines of "if you live in the past youl die in the present." That was something that felt pretty resonant with where we were at at the end of 2023. I like what I can see he's doing with Richmond though. I think he'll turn out to be an excellent coach.

I'm not the one calling people imbeciles and bogans mate. Have a great day.

Incredibly, this thread is about the coach. Clearly I've touched a nerve.

Who instructed him to be on the bench? Seriously, who actually told the senior coach to get our of the box? Surely you have a source for this? Happy to wait. If you're not talking about this year than what relevance does it even have to our current issues?

Source? Keep up youself. Good to see you continuing to revert to childish insults whenever you get called out on your bs. Have a good one.

Think this might be it. Dennis Pagan claims he was pushed out by North in 2002. Fox SportsDenis Pagan reveals he was forced out of the club he coac...Kangas forced me out: Pagan

Off the top of my head maybe Robert Walls Malthouse got sacked a couple years BEFORE he won the flag haha. Guys like Roos, Thompson and Hardwick all left of their own accord. Clarkson and Simpson got 6 years each

What are you on about? Goodwin publicly stated he'd be in the box this year. He chose to go back down to the bench during our 0-5 start to the year. Who on earth has the power to 'relegate' the head coach to the bench? What nonsense.

Can't believe anyone is sooking about the media today.

Would love to know our win-loss in close games since the flag. We'd have to be worst in the comp by a long way.

Remember in the preseason when we did those up/down by 8 points with 2 minutes to go exercises and we literally did nothing differently?

Exactly right. Nothing happens on a vacuum. A well coached side doesn't lose in the manner that we do so consistently.

I think you are going out of your way to miss my point.

Lol this is ridiculous now. How much more can we put up with? Get rid of him already and let the club move on.

They moved on Treloar in 2020, Grundy in 21, made a prelim in 22 and a flag in 23. So no it didn't hurt them and the cap space opened up allowed them to get guys like Bobby Hill in, for example. They managed themselves very well after a mini disaster, yes. That's the point. They adapted and didn't sit still. Macrae's a great coach, I agree. They knew their old coach was cooked and moved him on. Maybe we should too.

They obviously didn't expect to move Treloar and Grundy on when they signed them up on those deals, but when they bit the bullet and moved in a different direction they managed their list very well. Keep in mind my initial response was to someone who was citing Collingwood as a reason to back in our coach and highly paid stars. Collingwood moved on key players and their coach and have reaped the rewards in the aftermath.

Gleeson chaired the hearing. Woods represented the AFL.

The TDK one is funny. Basically because everyone loves a speccy, duty of care gets thrown out the window in a marking contest.

So the Tribunal's argument for the reaction time hinged on the fact that Evans was able to adjust to collect the ball once it bounced his way and began to change direction. They basically said if he had enough time to do that, May had enough time to do something to minimise the impact. May argued that he attempted to slow down in that moment but the Tribunal didn't accept that. I don't think he tucked his arm in or braced. His arms maintained the same position as when he was going for the ball. Your point about the fact May's foot was off the ground is interesting though, it would help May's contention that he attempted to slow down. I'm not exactly sure how the appeals process works but I know you have a much narrower scope of argument than at the Tribunal. IIRC you can't enter new evidence in and have to argue that there was either an error of law or the tribunal was unreasonable. I think we will argue the latter.

This was a great editorial from Whateley. I think there are a few areas where the Tribunal's ruling can be disputed. The tribunal concluded that May should have known Evans was 'highly likely' to get to the ball first before he began his approach. This is disputed by both May and Evans and is not consistent with the evidence. It also presumes that May should have known the ball would bounce back towards Evans before he even began his approach. I think that is a ludicrous proposition from the Tribunal. They are basically saying that before you approach a contest you need to be sure that you can reach the ball first even accounting for the unpredictable nature of the bouncing ball. That is an impossible threshold for a 'reasonable player' to satisfy. The harder part to contend will be the Tribunal's contention that May did not make any attempt to minimise contact once it was clear he could not win the ball. May argued he attempted to slow down once Evan gained posession, so that will be up for the appeals board to determine.

Will be interested if we appeal. There's a good argument to be made that the Tribunal's decision was based on opinion rather than evidence.

He's also citing precedent on the Archer case which I thought was a big no-no in the AFL tribunal. I could be out of date on that though.

I don't think Woods' arguments are very strong. Will be interesting how the tribunal sees it.

Good stuff