DeeSpencer

15.12 FREE KICKS AFTER DISPOSAL (a) Subject to Law 15.12(b), a Free Kick will be paid against a player who makes Prohibited Contact to a Player who has disposed of the football or Prohibited Contact to a Player who is Shepherding a Player who has disposed of the football. The Free Kick shall be taken by the nearest Player to the location where the football touches the ground, or crosses the Boundary Line, as the case may be. If taking the Free Kick at this location will penalise the Team awarded the Free Kick, the Free Kick shall be taken by the Player against whom and at the location where Prohibited Contact was made. 15.4.5 Prohibited Contact and Payment of Free Kick A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player where they are satisfied that the Player has made Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player. Laws of Australian Football 2018 49 A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if the Player: (a) makes contact or attempts to make contact with any part of their body with an opposition Player in a manner likely to cause injury; (i) above the shoulders (including the top of the shoulders); or (ii) below the knees. (b) pushes an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football; (c) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football; (d) unduly pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football; (e) pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player when the football is further than 5 metres away from the opposition Player or is out of play; (f) Charges an opposition Player; (g) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by the use of hand, arm, foot or leg; (h) kicks or attempts to kick an opposition Player, unless contact is accidentally made whilst the Player is Kicking the football; (i) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by hand, fist, arm, knee or head; (j) holds or throws an opposition Player after that Player has disposed of the football; (k) engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable; (l) Kicks or attempts to Kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury; or (m) bumps or makes forceful contact to an opposition Player from front-on when that Player has their head down over the football. 15.4.4 Charge or Charging (a) A Charge means an act of a Player colliding with an opposition Player where the amount of physical force used is unreasonable or unnecessary in the circumstances, irrespective of whether the Player is or is not in possession of the football or whether the Player is within 5 metres of the football. (b) Without limiting the general application of Law 15.4.4 (a), a Charge occurs when a Player unreasonably or unnecessarily collides with an opposition Player: (i) who is not within 5 metres of the football; (ii) who, although within 5 metres of the football, is not in the immediate contest for the football and would not reasonably expect such contact; (iii) who is attempting to Mark the football or who has Marked the football or been awarded a Free Kick; (iv) after that Player has disposed of the football; (v) who is Shepherding another Player on their Team; or (vi) before the football is brought into play.

Nah Curnow was always seen as a key forward, but one who could play midfield. Roughead comparisons. I didn't rate his midfield play and though up forward his kicking was a bit dodgy and big defenders could lock him down. Turns out I underestimated just how athletic he is and how good his marking is. Not sure the drink driving thing had much impact. He was a bit of a lad but from a good family which usually means no long term issues.

Bit early to say Weideman, Oscar, Mitch King, Hulett, Filipovic equals a disaster. The 2015 draft dropped off in a hurry so King and Hulett were more like rookie picks. Hulett was a roll of a dice that a guy without athleticism due to injury would find it in an AFL system, he didn't. King and Flippers, young rucks, the majority of them don't amount to anything. The overwhelming majority certainly don't amount to anything within the first 3 years on a list. I can't see the coaches putting serious pressure on a recruiter to draft Oscar. Taylor had to make that call. And I think you're reading a lot in to the ANB stuff. You pick a guy rated higher first and then see if the brother is available at a later pick. If Roos or anyone else was pushing against that they'd be mad. Weideman isn't Curnow and no doubt there will be regret there. Not sure anyone was projecting the small ball football that the Tigers play now and the rules are about to change back so we'll see if that makes an impact. The only thing I've ever heard Taylor say about talls is that he favours big guys with the requisite physicality - which is hard to judge at 18 - and I agree with that. Come finals when the game tightens up I'd take the big guy who can use his size over the athlete. I'm not defending Weids over Curnow, but I'd take Tex Walker over Josh Jenkins if that makes any sense. With Hogan locked and loaded to play CHF they might've been seduced in to taking Weids who can crash a pack rather than a mobile running athlete like Curnow.

1st round picks: Salem, Petracca, Brayshaw, Oliver, Weideman 2nd round picks: ANB, Spargo, Fritsch, Petty 3rd/4th round picks: JKH, Hunt, Stretch, Oscar, Mitch King, Hulett, Hannan, Johnstone, Baker Notable Rookies: Harmes, Vanders, Wagner, T Smith, Maynard, J Smith I'm a big Salem fan and Gus is right back in form so I'd say he nailed 4 of his 5 first rounders. Recruiters have to do that to keep their jobs. ANB was the last pick of the 2nd round. We really traded out lots of 2nd rounders to get immediate improvement. Roos was big on that with the deals for Tyson, Frost, Vince and it continued with Meklsham and Hibberd. I'd give ANB a tick, although not a big one. Spargo and Fritsch have been excellent and are signs of a recruiter showing what he can do with those important picks. I was really glad we went after getting a couple of 2nd round picks back in this year, especially after giving up the two first rounders. Later rounds of the draft haven't delivered as much, although some of that is targeted recruiting. Hunt can still be a star, Oscar can make a reliable full back and then it's about finding bits and pieces with the other picks.

He made strides against Freo as well. Still a bit tentative to really run and jump at the footy and open himself up to contact which is a concern but it's much better than the few weeks before that.

64.5% DE - good enough in the slip slop and for his position and most importantly only 1 clanger on the weekend. Not to be too harsh on the guy but he had a team high 6 clangers against the Saints and was caught out defensively as well. So it's nice to see him bounce back big time. Cutting out the lazy kicking mistakes that happened a fair bit at training over summer where he'd be finding the ball with ease but kick off one step or bomb the ball. It was why I understood that he was left out of the side. Still, he's bounced back really strongly from the injury interrupted years and from being left out at the start of the year and I still think he's got a heap of improvement left.

Eyes off the ball is a cue for the umpires, its not in any way illegal. Stupid commentators repeat it like it's a law and then fans pick up on it. It does my head in. For what? If the Melbourne player hadn't marked then all Hibberd did was use his body to take front position at the drop of the ball. Perfectly legal, he didn't hold, didn't shepherd his opponent out of the contest by taking him out. It wasn't "an unreasonable block that prevents an opposition player from contesting the football". What the umpires should look for when it comes to blocking is whether the player would've contested the ball if not for his team mate. And Hibberd had every right and the perfect position to contest the mark if his team mate didn't take the ball in front of him. Anyway, to get back on topic, Hibberd failing or not failing to execute a good team play isn't comparable to Lewis giving away a really stupid and selfish 50m penalty out of frustration.

You mean where he positioned himself between the ball and his man in a perfectly legal spot with legal body contact but was called for blocking because the umpire is an idiot and/or the rules have lost the plot? Punishing teams for having more players at the drop of the ball has to be one of the dumber rule interpretations of recent times.

What mongrel? A cheap shot 50 that didn't hurt and cost a goal is not mongrel. Neither is looking to hack the ball off the ground or punch it wildly because you won't put your body on the line. We need mongrel for sure. But it comes from the players who are willing to go when it's their turn. I'd like to see Vanders in the team for just that reason, but otherwise Lewis isn't provide any form of intimidation when he's the one who's running scared

Fantastic post.

The missed punch of the ball that went for a deliberate when it was 3 on 1 was one of softest things I've seen on a footy field this year. Of course Derm and the rest of the crew covered for him but any Demon fan who has been watching closely knows he was afraid to gather that ball and to get tackled.

Happy for Stretch to be trialled again. I don't see ANB as a wing at all even with his fitness. If we are to play a guy purely for fitness on a wing it should be Bugg. Did the job there under Roos. Fritsch is quick enough, lovely skills. Fitness is good but not great, should improve in future years. A lot of our problems come from just not having the experience in our midfield group. They all have to get fitter.

Petracca, Oliver, Brayshaw clearly have a way to go with their fitness. As it lifts that will help our midfield transition. God knows the forwards and backs should improve as well. As far as the wings go though - I think we need to just pick who we will play there and back them in. Fritsch was looking really good. Now suddenly he's a forward again? He's a very good forward but moving him around robs peter to pay paul. Gus and Harmes have been tried. Both like to hunt the ball too much IMO. Gus too slow as well. Lacks sustained speed. Maybe now Viney is back we commit to Jones playing wing and train him as much as possible to be the outside player. The inside mids were obliterated against Port, so we put Tyson on a wing to boost the stoppage play and provide a hard worker with a fit, capable body. But with no pace he doesn't help. So we all know that is only a stop gap. From here I'd go: Jones and Fritsch on the wings, maybe Harmes rotating wing/mid/forward. Add Spargo, T Smith and maybe even Baker or Bugg to the forward mix.

Enjoyed his farewell goal when he finally found himself in a decent position. Otherwise it was 120 minutes of turnovers, being pushed around, refusing to bend down to gather the ball, trailing his opponent to contests and doing little if anything at all to set up the backline.

Your 1 example of me being wrong was when I said I was done with Tom McDonald, who is now playing a completely different role. I wasn't going to delist the guy on the spot, I would've sat down with him, worked out what's wrong in his game and quite possible played him ruck or forward years ago. Instead he played back with diminishing returns week after week until Gawn got injured and they bit the bullet to put him forward/ruck. Like most people on here I have varying opinion on a number of players and have been wrong on lots of them over the years. But I don't believe I've started a thread or maintained a constant position against any players besides Tom McDonald (as a defender) and Lewis. The only players worse than Lewis last night: Hogan (rough couple of weeks), Petracca (but a big first term), maybe Vince and Joel Smith who both spent a lot of time chasing after Lewis' opponent for him. As well as Oscar's poorly timed lapses that undid a lot of good work on Dixon.

I don't see them as a pairing. Vince does anywhere between 3 to 30 ridiculous things a game but otherwise he's just Bernie but a little slower with less penetration on the kicking. The guy will still go most of the time when it's his turn to go and he often takes a taller opponent given we aren't playing a designated 3rd tall (or even a designated 2nd to be more correct). With Lever and Hunt injured the replacement for Bernie is either Wagner - who doesn't inspire confidence or a first year kid in Petty. I understand why the coaches are reluctant to chuck a kid in, even if I think it's time. Lewis is completely different to me. He's playing as the loosest defender - a prime position to get a lot of the ball and impact games. And yeah he's solid enough with the ball in the uncontested kicking game, and that's important, but I'd love to see Salem or Fritsch in that role, both guys with more kicking penetration and the speed to take it on. When it gets close in tight Lewis won't turn left. He can't even handball on his right hand, so he's always looking to go in one direction. Can't break a tackle so we throw it away before it comes to that. His kicks often end up wild up an unders. And the defending. The awful awful defending. If he's not in the perfect position he just can't offer anything.

Another awful performance from Plugga Lewis. To all the people who said mean things about me in this thread, don't worry, I'm not angry. Will gladly accept any and all apologies.

I can't imagine a max exodus from the MCC bars to pack in to a modern version of a social clubs, those days are long gone, but I can see the club offering post game drink invites to certain select members, most of whom have reserved seats in Northern Stand or are MCC members and it's the perfect location for that. I've often thought extending over the Richmond rail corridor near the tennis centre when the Southern Stand was redeveloped was our best chance to build an MCG adjacent facility. Jolimont is just as good and surely a simple proposition building over 2 rail lines instead of the 12 or so that run to Richmond!

With a minimal amount of landscaping those pathways should all be protected, certainly the long stretch from Richmond Station to the G won't be even close to impacted and the walk down from Jolimont should also be untouched. The area is already used as the AFL Live site/ Grand Final parade finishing spot. It's not nearly as steep as people thing.

The Pullman and other buildings opposite the station are 10+ stories, and the RACGP building directly opposite the proposed site is 6 stories. If the Government gives the approval to build above the train tracks I don't see a reasonable argument against a 6 story building. Covering over the train lines should mean increased pedestrian access. I don't think this piece of land slopes nearly as much as some of Yarra Park but it would be a challenge. It's a matter of selling the oval as a part of the park and as a community facility. I know East Melbourne residents are a certain type but there's Fitzroy Gardens, Treasury Gardens and the rest of Yarra Park to be enjoyed as purely park spaces. With apartments going up all over the city of Yarra and population booming the strong argument should be made that they need ovals. Council's can create parks from acquiring properties or re purposing car parks. Unless they have a huge vacant area they can't do that for an oval.

A professional quality oval for community use would be a huge win for the council. Especially with the rise of Women's footy. They'd have no problems finding clubs to allocate it to. The development over the train tracks comes down to whether it will be approved for apartments next to our site. You put a few apartment buildings and you've got a council rates bonanza. That's the income councils love. Shutting down the trains for a select period of time to build over the eye saw that is exposed tracks and create useful community space and housing. That's a win win. Then Melbourne build next door with a community oval, medical facilities, maybe even make the gym public use outside of certain hours, some form of Indigenous cultural centre - pretty much you are doing the council a favour!

You can run it across that corner of land and pretty much fit it in without losing many trees. The trees that would be lost could be replaced with native varieties. It would stop an area being used as a car park (a dying trend anyway) and replace it with an oval that can be used for a functional purpose whilst still maintaining a park feel. Pretty much all you are doing is levelling an area of grass, fencing it and painting a few lines. With the right approach it should be allowed to happen. Getting the funding, planning and design of the building over the train line should be the harder part of the project!

Restricted free agent, I can't see how we wouldn't have to trade for him. Eagles would match the deal, or do what Adelaide did with Danger and threaten to match whilst they worked on a trade. The only exception to the Eagles matching - It's the perfect situation to rort the system. They take the first round pick compo. We trade them a bunch of stuff at cents on the dollar to make up the rest of what's needed - ie. a couple of 2nd round picks they can package up to move up the draft and a nice depth player (Tyson, Kent, both?) for a guy they are about to delist and a 4th rounder. We just have to sing the praises of how much we love unwanted Eagle (ie. back up ruck Fraser McInness) and get the AFL Integrity department to tick it off.

I don't care about 1-3 and 5-6 Saty but on point 4 Gaff has been an ultra consistent and very solid wingman for years. His increase in form this year I'd put down to: 1. The return of Nic Nat meaning he can play inside mid and get spoon fed the ball from clearances. Nic's hit outs and ground level pressure makes the job of his midfielders so much easier. Gawn would provide the hit outs, if not the follow up. 2. Confidence - the increase in West Coast's form in general - confidence is infectious 3. Maturity - he's just turned 26, we expect too much from AFL players too early, a player should keep improving on weaknesses through their mid 20's. 4. West Coast's general skill level improving meaning Gaff's unrewarded running becomes rewarded running I've really liked Gaff since his draft year but his Grand Final in 2015 stood out to me, not because of the result or how well he played, but the style in which he played. I was superbly impressed that under the weight of massive Hawthorn pressure he kept going contest to contest and willing his side on. If he came to us his work rate - either on the wing, on ball or maybe one day even at half back as he ages - would make the team better and make the other mids better. He'd run hard to provide an option which makes ball movement so much easier and he'd work back hard to block off options or help the backline. At this stage I actually think the contract and trade will both be too much for us to get Gaff, but I certainly hope we are trying.

Watching Wallis this year I don't think he would. Struggling big time to get contest to contest as a half forward, and for all his faults ANB is constantly moving. Obviously the Dogs aren't moving the ball at all well but I'm not impressed. Remember how nasty his leg injury was. If we were to get Wallis I'd play him as a tagger and make the other mids rotate more forward or outside. I think that's his best role. Given other teams like Essendon are interested I'm not sure how much money I'd commit towards a tagger. Might not be too may other Tim Kelly's out there but there's surely some state league or delisted players who could do a tagging role.