s-t-i-n-g-a

assuming garland is out we could play all 3 if we moved Martin to defence to play on vickery who has started to hit his straps. This would allow frawley to take jumping jack and river can play the third tall/cover roll that he does so well. Rivers may also struggle with vickerys height. I think Martin has shown he has the form and flexibility to play anywhere. I would prefer this than brining warnock back in if the club feels it will be exposed for height if garland misses. Having said that you don't want to mess with stefs mojo and I could live with him keeping his current role and Jamar coming in and replacing gawn. As RR pointed out there is still much benifit to be had playing the number 1 ruck role for Casey.

I have always thought there was a bit of Lenny Hayes there. Love his attitude, he is quickly becoming my favourite demon.

Their target and what they actually budgeted for could be to different things.

At the very least it was negligent, high contact, low impact.

if the AFL believe that kind of tackle is dangerous they are being negligent in allowing them to occur as part f the game many times. They are inviting the injury in allowing it and then blaming the player when it goes wrong. I just can't see how it can be anything other than an acident when such a tackle (pinned arms and slung) happens so frequently in a game. It should be about technique and process not result or as I said the AFL are inviting it and the ones being negligent. Trengove is just unlucky that dangerfield went to kick and was off balance as he was tackled. But he wasn't when he committed to the tackle and was not something Trengove could have been aware of in the 1.3 seconds it took to complete the tackle. As in most circumstances ie. Most of the tackles tonight and even the one he lays 5 seconds latter there is no problem.

Where was Hawkins duty of care for toovey? He should have known there may have been another player coming with the flight of the ball... ok I am getting carried away...

Now a varco tackle in the second...

Anyone see the tackle against didak towards the end of the first q near the middle of the ground? Very similar technique to JT

afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=109725

agree!

Gutted by this. Fu@&$$&&$$!!;!:$:7;!;!,&:@/&/,;!:&/@"... But, as much as we feel we have been wronged, we must move on. We will gain nothing by parking ourselves here and stewing over our injustice. The team need to focus now on the roos, this will have been a big enough distraction already. Put this energy into the game and do it for JT!

They did... Dangerfield's air-swing at the ball with a raised leg contributed to both players falling to the ground and left the Crows midfielder perilously off balance as he was slung with what the controlling field umpire considered a perfectly legal tackle. Dr Kevin Ball, a bio-mechanist who has worked at several AFL clubs and now consults for the Demons, stood before the jury to demonstrate with frame-by-frame video how Dangerfield's failed kicking attempt actually connected with Trengove's planted left foot. He believed the leg-to-leg contact caused Trengove to topple backwards as he slung Dangerfield to the right. And that Dangerfield's high leg action left him more vulnerable in the tackle. Video showed him put out the left arm to brace for the inevitable fall, his chest was next to hit the ground and then the head. Biomechanist evidence was prevalent before the tribunal system was overhauled for the 2005 season. It was overused and, frankly, often discredited. But this was a plausible explanation from a qualified expert.

James mcdonald was not there as I understand. Note the edit rogue...that's who not James. Some of what Tinney had to say however lacked insight into playing the game.

I noticed Ted Richards had representation from a QC. Did jack? Did we put his best case forward?

Too much force? If trengove did not turn him as quick as he did dangerfield would have got the kick away. Dangerfields arm hit the ground before his head did...he had a free arm... When he had possession of the ball, trengove had every right to tackle him...it was his choice to kick and not brace for the tackle...he was neglegent in his own duty of care! The same result could have happened if trengove didn't grab his arm but wrapped his arms around him and pinned his arm to his side

Any info to report? I cant view it...

Of course you don't...

What is the point of discussing last weeks game around here...we can't change the result...pointless...

Your right I didnt say that...and if others do that was not my intention... The OP acknowledged the shortcomings of such a thread and put it in the appropriate context...I mentioned Cook because he will be unfortunate collatoral by the short sited in such a discussion and I wanted to make it clear I like him and feel the club made the right decision at the time. I was more pondering that what Darling brings to the table may be something that could have been a vital plank to our premiership aspirations. He has looked good the lad and I like his essence...its something I feel is missing from our side. Its not a lot more than that at this stage...

It's obviously a tad early to really draw any conclusions from last years draft...and I liked what a saw from Cook in the NAB.... But I can't help but think we may have missed an opportunity to land a big bodied forward by not drafting Darling. He is the type of player our forward structure seems to be missing. I realise there were some concerns regarding him come draft day and it seems most clubs had those concerns given how far he drifted in the draft so I agree with the clubs decision to pass on him...but I just wonder if we will rue that decision in years to come...

Excelent, any stand out performers?

Great news! Go scorps! What was the reason for the turn around?

The main draw back here is the impact a split may have with our efforts to engage with the Casey community. From a football department perspective it's a no brainer. You would expect the return on an additional 250k in terms of player development to be significant.