DeeSpencer

In my mind (and yours might be different) that is because I think he's fully deserving of a long stint on the sideline but not nearly as deserving of some of the media hounding and vitriol he has received. It should mostly die down now but it won't. It's why I think a fairer punishment would've been until the end of the season, not a number of weeks, which would allow him to start fresh next year. I'm not sure that helps him or Andy Brayshaw given I bet the incident is replayed repeatedly before his 'comeback'. Unfortunately the tribunal revolves around outcomes and the number of weeks. There's this focus that somehow 5, 8 or 12 weeks means something in particular and that it had to be 'x amount' of weeks. To me that isn't justice at all really. When you commit a crime the justice isn't only the sentence but the acknowledgement from the judge of the factors involved and a path to rehabilitation. It might just be the reporting but it would've been nice to see more focus from the Tribunal in a case like this that they'll punish Gaff with x amount of weeks, but also he has had a clean record for 174 games, it was a split second incident and he's welcome back in the game at the end of his suspension.

TBH I think a fairer penalty would've been to rule him out for the season, whether that be 5 or 7 weeks, missing finals with your team a live chance is very harsh. Tribunals should have the power to enforce a time sanction not just a week sanction. Oh well, 8 it is. Just think he'll now have to sit between 1-3 weeks next year when he would've served enough time this year. There's no need to overtly punish the individual. Gaff knows what he's done. There's no need to deter the rest of the comp. It's happened once in nearly 200 games this season.

I don't like it as a defence but I think it's reasonable to explain his actions. I can give a guy 6-7 weeks who didn't aim for the head and was trying to whack a player in the chest who was blocking him out of the play. I'd have to give someone 10+ who randomly walked up to any old opponent and aimed straight for the head. In my mind the vision is reasonably conclusive that it was the former not the latter but it's his job to explain it. If he's made an error it's asking for 3 weeks or half the 8-12 range. I would've stated that 6-8 with a discount for a good record and guilty plea back to 5-6 would most likely see a result of 6-8. Asking too low just insults the intelligence of the jury.

Copying soccer's red card rule and taking a team down to 17 a side would be stupid. Soccer invokes a send off with a red card because harsh punishments are needed for dangerous plays - to avoid leg and head injuries mainly - and for plays that kill scoring chances given how few there are in a game. Plus it's a game based on 3 substitutions and not rotations. Making the game 18 on 17 doesn't' make sense for AFL football. You can't defend and counter attack with 1 short in AFL footy like you can in a soccer game. I'm against red cards/send offs because these incidents are so rare (only about 3 in this whole season) so I don't see the point, but if you were to bring it in you'd start with sending the player off and allowing them to be replaced. That's enough retribution.

Punching receives a fine from the MRP. Or sometimes no fine at all if minor force. Unduly rough tackles receive suspensions as well. Players are constantly belting elbows in to each other, throwing swinging arms in to tackles and crunching don't argues in to the chest or head. Gaff's was worse than that but I don't agree it was a simple stand and deliver punch. It was a wild lashed out round arm. I'm not saying Gaff shouldn't get a lengthy suspension but I thought it was an in game incident and not a completely vicious one that had no context in the game. Barry Hall's was worthy of criminal charges. Bugg's wasn't and I don't think this is either. If you watch the replay you'll see that it wasn't 100m from play. Gaff was right near the play and you'll see the umpire calling play on to the player with the ball. That's what I mean by getting sucked in to Ross Lyon's emotions. Of course Ross is emotional, but that's why we have a tribunal and why courts have independent judges and juries and it's not people with close relationships who get to decide on the punishment of someone else. I criticised Goodwin last year for being too harsh on Bugg. I though he and the club should've done more to defend Bugg as a good guy who made a costly mistake. Instead we went down this line of Bugg having to earn trust back from other players.

Brayshaw was blocking Gaff from running. Under tribunal rules that's in play and it makes sense with how this occurred. If the ball was 1m away he wouldn't have been blocking and scrapping. Don't get fooled by Ross Lyon's emotions. 175 games for West Coast without incident and Adam Simpson clearly holds him in high regard. If he wants to stay there they won't change their offer to him one cent. Joel Smith was dumped in a crude and possibly illegal tackle and is currently having reconstructive collar bone surgery. Should that be a case of assault as well?

Kid? He's 18. He's a man. If he's not maybe he shouldn't have entered the draft or should be playing WAFL. It wasn't outside a night club though was it? It was on a footy field and context matters. He was blocking Gaff's run on the field. Gaff was barely looking at him. Brayshaw wasn't either and you can see him dip down to move away from Gaff. Gaff took a swing for his chest to whack him away and smashed his chin. Gaff has played 170 odd games and never hit someone in the head before. That, and the vision, counts for something with me. More so than a hypothetical.

Of course any mother would be distraught. I don't expect Gaff to be on her Christmas list but I imagine in time she'll come to forgive him. Especially once Andy is back healthy which I hope is sooner rather than later. As for Ross - well it's nice to find a distraction rather than talking about Freo's form. He's coached many players who have been suspended for some nasty things over the years I'm sure.

Angus and Andrew's brother Hamish plays for the Eagles. The Brayshaw's will get over it. Mr Brayshaw probably understands that these things happen in footy. Mrs Brayshaw has been through a lot but I doubt she'd hold a grudge. Smart sponsors will be happy a very good footballer has joined the Demons. They'll be fine.

Same as Bugg last year. A player getting blocked off the ball - (which is a free kick), the guy gets sick of it, swings a round arm and hits the jaw not chest. He'll get his 6 but he's unlucky. He's only trying to do what Steele did to Oliver but luckily for Steele, Clarry didn't change direction, lower his body and cop it on the chin.

Dogs B+F 2014. Libba, Macrae, Dahlhaus, Wallis. Bont was 2nd in the Rising Star. Stringer was sent to the backline, then the VFL, then kicked a stack of goals in the 2nd half of the year. McCartney had no game plan besides throwing numbers at the contest and he might've lost some of the lesser young guys. And hey, maybe these young guys were just good but Bevo took over with half a dozen of the best young guys in the comp at his disposal. 1. Tom Liberatore 235 2. Jack Macrae 168 3. Ryan Griffen 154 4. Luke Dahlhaus 138 5. Robert Murphy 133 6. Dale Morris 124 7. Matthew Boyd 118 8. Stewart Crameri 117 9. Liam Picken 112 10. Mitch Wallis 99

This is so heartbreaking. I hope the club can arrange some kind of appropriate gesture. The symbol or message on the banner is a good idea. Then his extremely brave wife and those little girls need all the support, love and fun they can get.

We could always reanimate the corpse of Harry Taylor. I've said for 18 months now there's a spot in Geelong's forward line that would be perfect for Cam Pedersen and we could certainly do with Harry Taylor at full back for the rest of the year. Unfortunately mid season trading didn't get up.

Oscar McDonald the only regular starter yet to sign on for next year. Gold Coast potentially shopping May. A future first rounder, Oscar and steak knives Tyson. Where do I sign? May at FB, Lever at CHB, Frost capable enough to play either role or as depth or taking an opponent to free one of those other two up, Joel Smith developing along, Hibberd, Hunt, Salem, Jetta. That sounds like a premiership backline. Would be a lot of resources tied up in the backline but hey if you keep the opposition to 70 points each week we can find the small forwards and outside mid depth in the bargain bin.

So no direct rule that says you can't bump someone after they've handballed the ball. Comes down a grey area whether it's a reasonable bump or a 'charge'. Charging itself has been largely removed from the game and replaced with rough conduct which is a pretty general catch all rule.

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.