bing181

The other other option was not to charge full pelt at Brayshaw and launch into the air in the first place. Duty of care, likely to lead to a reportable offence etc.

Just what are you on about. Post here whatever it is from that decision that illustrates the points you think you're making. Though to save you the trouble ... "Reasons for Appeal Board decision: We recognise in coming to this conclusion that the Tribunal faced the most difficult case in all circumstances and for that reason we propose to hand down written reasons in the near future. In essence, we accept the submissions made by Ihle (Giants) on behalf of Bedford relating to the evidence or the lack of evidence that was before the Tribunal. We accept it was open to the Tribunal to find that there was contact by the body of Bedford with Fisher’s head, however in our view neither the evidence nor the reasons expressed by the Tribunal in respect of such evidence is sufficient to establish that such contact was “forceful” as required by the AFL regulations. Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the Tribunal."

Jesus H Christ. Not only did I read it, I posted the conclusion in this thread. There is no mention of intent in the Bedford decision, it turns on how much force was used.

Nonsense. This from the Tribunal itself. After reading it, delete your post. "A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players."

You read the Toby Bedford decision. Not even a mention of "intent", it was all about the level of force (and thus the grading). You really should stop. "We accept it was open to the Tribunal to find that there was contact by the body of Bedford with Fisher’s head, however in our view neither the evidence nor the reasons expressed by the Tribunal in respect of such evidence is sufficient to establish that such contact was “forceful” as required by the AFL regulations. Accordingly, we set aside the decision of the Tribunal."

Irrelevant. No-one has to prove that for him to be suspended.

And Trac ... so us mids need to get better at actually delivering the ball inside 50 better rather than blazing away and putting it on their heads.”

Surprised that this hasn't been mentioned more. Apart from being strong as a mid, Brayshaw has been key to allowing Trac more forward time and as such, in the way the team is setup. Losing that game will really cost us, and losing Brayshaw was a real factor in why we lost that game.

Can't see how we don't use Grundy. Carlton play 2 decent rucks, plus good talls at both ends, even with McKay out.

Would free up Petracca to go forward, which was less possible on Thursday. Turner in to free up Rivers?

Interesting in the Max interview, comparing it to last year and saying that they're much more focused on the next match already. (badly paraphrased ...)

A bit unreal to see people defending Maynard. He had other choices while still attempting the smother, which is why he'll face the tribunal. As a side note, umpires paid a downfield free, which isn't going to help the "football act" defence.

No, that's rubbish. Watch the Gawn post match interview on 7. "I was a culprit, I was dumping a lot of kicks in there not to our forwards' advantage." etc.

Another instance was Sparrow and Petracca, when Sparrow hesitated.

McKay and possibly Martin out would be a big help. Against that, when you look at who we've now got out, we need all the help we can get.

Right, because Collingwood kicked a massive score with us having only two talls down back.

Freed max to do what, get 40 disposals instead of only 27? (BTW, Cox had 9 disposals and 2 marks ... not exactly game-winning)

We kept them to 60 points, a beatable score. Not on the backline, we needed to get more scores from all those I50's.

We don't have a forward line, at least not KPF's. Losing Petty and Melksham is going to be the difference.

And we'll go into the next match without Brayshaw and probably JVR. Nice while it lasted, but we are not winning it from here even if we do win next week.

Melksham, Petty and now Brayshaw out. A step too far.

Not big enough to handle big KPF's, yet alone resting ruckmen. He's more a replacement for Lever.

Yes, but it's a team of coaches working together, not just Goodwin calling the shots. Apparently Uze has a big role on game day in terms of strategies, both reading and responding to. Not to mention that Uze worked at the Hawks, and would know plenty of these players and their strengths/weaknesses.