Akum

This is the point to me. Viney slowed enough that he was knocked backwards by the force of Lynch & Georgiou coming in the opposite direction. It's not like he put his shoulder down and "ran through" him. It's simple physics - the main force of the impact was from Lynch's direction, not Viney's. MFC should argue "accidental contact" and stick to their guns - no compromise deals (i.e. "negligent"). Fully expect the Crows' doctor to provide another catastrophic medical report that includes brain damage and permanent facial disfigurement.

Two points: Three Crow mids - Sloane, Wright, Petrenko - got 10 frees between them, at least half of which were by ducking their head (plus another for getting away with ripping off Jetta's head). Second point: watched the Hawks very closely - you almost never see a Hawk sprawled on the ground with the ball trapped underneath them. It seems to be something they deliberately avoid, by only one player attacking the ball at a time and by keeping it moving. On the other hand, when they tackle, their objective is to get their opponent sprawled on the ground with the ball underneath them. It means that when the inevitable fickle umpiring decision comes, it's always in their favour, never against them. That's the way to do it.

One thing about both Watts & Scully is that neither of them have physically developed much from the day they were drafted, compared to their peers. That's nobody's fault, they just don't have that sort of body. It's something that couldn't have been foreseen at the time. And with the "rolling maul" style of 2014 footy, there has never been more emphasis on physical strength than there is now.

This game is now a golden opportunity for anyone who is able to really bust this game open. There will be at least two places up for grabs in the Dees next week. Plus another two if Jetta is injured and Georgiou gets a holiday. Will be interesting to see if any of them are up to it.

No need for anything but the barest-essential changes. Watts & Howe can't possibly stay in. Even if Jetta is injured and Georgiou gets given a holiday. Their places are up for grabs depending on who does well tomorrow. Possibilities are Garland, Clisby, Riley, Strauss, or even Blease, Tapscott or Gawn as outsiders. Over to you guys.

Always thought we'd get better as the season went on. I thought we'd get better structured & organised as time went on. We're nowhere near getting our midfield right, especially at stoppages. We still don't block or shepherd, and we need to move the ball on quickly after taking a mark when the opportunity presents itself, instead of stopping, trotting back, thoroughly checking out every option before rejecting every one of about half a dozen leads, waiting until the opposition has set up, then being called to play on and having to bomb it to a contest down the line. But there have been times when we've actually got these things right and we've managed to dominate periods in the game, and even win quarters. There haven't been a lot of injuries, but the ones we've had have been critical. Dawes in the past 2 weeks has shown what a difference a decent tall forward can make, even though he hasn't set the world on fire, and has allowed us to go more direct instead of chipping it sideways & backwards. Clark or Hogan would have been even better. And Spencer, despite all his energy & effort, is our 3rd string ruck & doesn't help the mids much. Oh, and I think we'll get smashed by all the top few teams this year. Hawks, Cats, Freo, WCE, maybe Dons & Pies depending on how they're going. So considering all that, and my low expectations for early in the season, it's not too bad. But really, unless we do improve a lot over the rest of the season, it will not be enough. We need this to be the foundation, not the pinnacle, of our season.

The thing about Spencer is that our mids find it impossible to read where he's hitting it to. The stoppages in the last quarter (except for Jones' goal) absolutely killed us.

I think he was better when he was running at the ball. He tired in the last half and kept positioning himself behind his opponent, wanting it to be bombed over the top, rather than leading hard towards the corridor. That should improve as he gains fitness.

... or without $!!!

It's a Thursday-afternoon-just-before-the-squad's-named elevation.

This thread's developing a massive cloud of unreality. Consistency??? Logical discussion???

Thank God. For a moment I thought you were talking about Jeremy Clarkson!

Couldn't have said it better!

Demonland? Yeah, good luck with that!

Not only that, he got tagged by Carazzo, who's got to be right up on the top level of taggers in the game. It shows Malthouse's opinion abut Tyson's quality.

Consistent. Mindless, but consistent.

I probably didn't express it right, because I meant it exactly as you've described. In the absence of definitive evidence of a fracture, they had to make a judgement call, and though the course of action they chose was reasonable, it just turned out to be wrong. They responded in a reasonable way to the evidence available at the time. At the time the decision was made (i.e. after the first scan), the only other alternative was to keep Trengove off his feet altogether - completely non-weight-bearing - until the pain stopped completely. This would have been a huge intervention that would have taken most of the season, with a very hard-to-determine end-point. Once the decision to intervene to that degree had been made, they'd have to follow it through to the end (in the face of what would have been extreme player frustration) with no objective markers to go by, only Trengove's reported levels of pain. To justify intervening to this level, you'd want pretty solid objective evidence to back you up, and it wasn't there. So this was the far less preferable decision at the time, although in hindsight it would have turned out to be the correct one. So it wasn't by any means an unreasonable decision to let Trengove keep playing and keep reviewing the situation.

As my dad used to say ... (and I'm sure he wasn't the only one) "Ex" = has-been (or never-was) "spurt" = drip under pressure.

Well, it's obvious. Boink is thicker than blood or friendship.

I thought I noticed him & Jack saying something to each other after he nailed that goal. Great initiative by Roh Bail to seek out the best set shot in the club & ask him how he goes about it.

Webber, I think you're getting a bit too defensive about posters asking what would seem to be reasonable and intelligent questions about this. Some posters who are health professionals, others who have experience of this or similar injuries. Note that "asking questions" does not equate to "witch-hunt", and nobody is suggesting the latter. Yes, it is an inexact science, and you don't always get the definitive evidence you need. But their index of suspicion must have been high enough to get "scans" (doesn't say which) earlier in the year, and you'd expect Trengove and his injury were discussed among the medicos & physios over that period. Yes, it had to be a judgement call, in the absence of solid evidence; yes, it all makes much more sense now in hindsight than it would have at the time. But, although the decision to keep Trengove playing was a reasonable one, on the evidence they had at the time, it was the wrong call. It happens. I'm sure the medical staff would be doing a thorough review here. If there is any relationship to Trengove's injury from 2012, it's not insignificant that there's been an overhaul of our medical staff over that time, and the question must be asked about whether this loss of continuity was a factor. And it does seem to contrast with a much more cautious approach that they're taking with the likes of Hogan, Gawn and others. They will be picking through these issues and more. And I stress - that's not to say that the staff aren't up to it. Again, I don't think anybody's suggesting that.

If a career was ever judged by highlight reels, NikNat's would be one of the best of all time.

Here's hoping that this is a blessing in disguise, in that it allows him to get himself 100% fit and show what he's capable of.

Yeah, but playing in our forward line for the past two years would have killed anybody's career. He was recruited as a hard-hitting forward, but came with an overdeveloped upper body and had hip & groin problems. For such a strong player he has good skills, but lacks both pace & height. He's another, like Strauss & Jetta & Blease, who need to string at least 10 or 12 games together (either for Dees or Scorps) without injury, which none of them have been able to do for the past 4 years. If they can't, they're probably gone. If they can and they don't impress, they're definitely gone.

Something I can never understand. If you're run down from behind (e.g. the Cripps & JKH situation), seems that you're pinged as soon as you're touched, even if you manage to get a boot or hand to the ball (OK, Cripps didn't, but I've seen quite a few where the player getting run down did dispose of it OK). But if you're running at the tackler, decide to take him on and get nailed (e.g. the Yarran & Spencer situation), it's just about always a ball-up. I'm not aware of any part of the HTB rule about this; it just seems to be how it's interpreted. Totally agree with the poster who says it's broken.