jnrmac

The conflict here is breathtaking. If you choose to bump out or tackle and get someone in the head you're suspended. But somehow spoiling is now a free shot at an opposition player. Only the corrupt AFL could come up with this bastard of an interpretation

Read this on Twitter.. Apparently the Collingwood lawyer is now arguing the twin towers veered into the path of the Boeing 767 on 9/11

"I jumped straight into the air" More like "I launched myself at Brayshaw like a scud missile"

"I didn't see him" Who or what did he think was kicking the ball? FMD what a moron. Witness coaching gone wrong

Carlton players 190cm or over last week McGovern Cripps TDK Pittonet McKay (wont play) Weitering Kemp Marchbank Curnow Acres Melb players 190cm or over last week Gawn May JVR (Wont play) Lever TMac Smith We look short

Im going out on a limb here but maybe consider Thommo as a defensive fwd on Weitering He's a good kick. can run in straight lines. And good one on one.

Because they were playing catch up all night most likely. I would have had Riv in there. And maybe even put viney fwd because he did nothing in the middle.

Sadly he had a game to forget. I wonder whether he too affected by the damage to his mate...

There is a reason the AFL has brought in the front on contact rule. Its dangerous. Maynard was a fully fledged front on charge. The closing speed of two players was very high. Damage was always going to result. Trying to claim it was a spoil attempt is disingenous, obfuscating and actually irrelevant. You can't do anything you want on the football field. If he does get off I hope Gus sues him.

Yes but if he goes down we only have TMac or Joel Smith to ruck. Grundy has to play And it should be said Grundy is an 2xAA Team member and a 2x Copeland Trophy winner. If he is picked he will go nuts wanting to play in a Prelim and a GF He is primed. If he isn't picked that will tell us a fair but more about Goody

They had an opportunity after the first bounce to establish what is acceptable in a ruck contest. They squibbed it. Cox is a dirty dog

You can't get away from the fact he ran at full pace and jumped at Gus's body and then shouldered him in the head. The behind the goals footage shows he was nowhere near the ball nor was he going for the ball. In fact you can see him run straight at Gus It is malicious, dangerous and reckless. So much so it hasn't happened in the last 20 years that I am aware of (except for maybe the Cripps incident which we all know was a joke because he was Brownlow favourite)

As if that gives you a special insight. FFS Best you leave now.

I want the tribunal to bring up Maynards own words last week when asked Who he wanted to hurt. All of them was his reply. Get the dog out of the game

This 'debate' about a football action is irrelevant. If you choose to tackle or bump or smother and KO someone you are out. Doesn't matter what your intentions are. [unless you are from 'big' club and its a final] So corrupt

That was damning and showed a real structural problem May and Lever pushed high up the ground Hill or the other Coll fwds would sprint as soon as the Pies won possession and outnumber us in our D50. They had multiple players free on many occasions and they kicked straight. We let them use the corridor and we were stagnant and refused to look inside. they showed vision where - a number of times - we had multiple players free in the middle but we stopped and then kicked long down the line. Absolutely to instruction. We are out in straight sets again unless he changes something.

I think there were 92000 people at the ground who knew Cox would do that. Max seemed to be the only one unaware..... Real potential for damage Cox is a dog and the Umps do him no favours

She also made mention of Maynards comments in the lead up to the game which I presume was where he was asked who did he want to hurt - All of them.

All of them was the answer

You only have to look at the Brisbane game when gawn went down to see how players are affected.

And they talked about how Maynard was quoted in the lead up as saying they would come out hard. He stuffed up and must pay the price.

Last year when tackled Langdon - after the all duck no dinner comment - he smashed his head into the turf and won a free kick Unbelievable.

And its so blindingly obvious. That we continue to do it says it is our strategy. And how f*ing dumb is that

Don't mind this. Start him in the middle and he can even move back after the bounce.

The question for me is by playing Grundy as first ruck we lose the dominance of Max around the ground. But Grundy is likely to at least break even and has the talent and drive to be outstanding. Max fwd loses some of his dominance BUT creates a huge problem for oppositions and opens up opportunities for our small forwards. Goodwin has a habit of not making big changes and will justify our loss v Coll as 'we won 2 and half qtrs we just couldn't kick straight.' But again we started slow and allowed the Pies to bang on 3 goals. FFS we have to change things or we will have the same result and be out in straight sets two years running. For a start we need to fire them up before they get out on the ground. CHange the routine. This is big and we need them firing from the frst bounce. We can't afford to give other teams a 3/4 goal head start. We are fit and our final qtrs are strong so jump out of the blocks and bring the heat. Oh and we have to move the ball quickly. Our stagnant movement kills us.