binman

What the f is barret talking about with the sole intent nonsense. When kozzy launched at smith, his sole attempt was to lay a fair bump. He didn't and hit him in the head accidentally. And got two weeks. What's the difference? Oh, I know. Smith bounced up and played on, not hurt in the least. And when de Goey knocked out the young Eagles plsyer with a shoulder to the head (sound familiar?), it was a 'football act' and his sole intent was to Sheppard. But he accidentally hit the young bloke in the head. Two weeks. I don't understand how this scenario is any different.

Go redlegs. Top job.

I'll have a guess. The club don't see me as a forward option.

Category one.

Here is the relevant definitions of the pressure acts: Pressure Act (Corralling): The lowest form of pressure a player can apply, where they are simply occupying space in front of the ball carrier to prevent them moving forward, or have a run at them, but not quickly enough to record ‘closing’ pressure. Pressure Act (Closing): A higher degree of pressure than corralling, where the pressure player is on the verge of making contact with the ball carrier (either from in front or the side) as he disposals of the ball. The key point of difference between this and corralling is that there will be imminent contact and the pressure player is forcing the ball carrier to dispose of it immediately. Pressure Act (Chasing): Where a player applies pressure from behind an opponent by chasing. They must be gaining ground or applying pressure significant enough to hurry the ball carrier to dispose of the ball. If the chasing player is on the verge of making physical contact from behind, then closing pressure will be imminent. Pressure Act (Physical): Applying direct physical contact to a player in the act of disposing of the ball or effecting a tackle that prevents an effective disposal from the ball carrier. Pressure Act (Implied): Reducing an opponent’s decision making time without physical contact ‘via corralling, closing space or chasing from behind’.

Yes, i had the same same query about our pressure. Our pressure was not where it needed to be. It's curious becuase we were minus 10 for contested possession at quarter time and ended up winning it by plus 14 so out attack on the ball and toughness was great. I have theory as to what might be a big contributing factor, which i was planning on discussing on the podcast. Teaser is it relates to Gus not playing almost the entire game and how the pressure ratings are calculated (note a 'physical pressure act is literally when a player touches an opponent, for instance tackles, bumps, wins a contested ball): Pressure points are the weighed sum of pressure acts. Physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing acts are 1.5 points and corralling are 1.2

I have no doubt that's the case dazzler. Hell that fear is hard to shake for me as a fan. It's human nature I hope they acknowledge it internally.

The other striking thing from that interview was tracc's evident distress when recalling the incident and aftermath. It's impossible to quantify the psychological impact on tracc and the rest of the team of seeing someone who tracc calls once of his best mates, a player with a terrible history of head knocks, knocked out cold 3 minutes into the game. They are not automatons. Sure you could argue the players should be able to compartmentalize, and i think they eventually did, but it is human nature for any group of players, let alone one so close they frequently express their love for teammates, to be impacted emotionally and psychologically by such an event in such a way that it impacts performance. And i think they were, just as they were when maxy went down against the Lions.

Strip away all the white noise and this is the critical point. Once you have elected to leave the ground you have a duty of care to any player you might cannon into as result of that choice. In fact once Maynard chose to bump the fact the action started as a smother becomes a furphy because a deliberate shoulder brace (which this was) that strikes the opponents head is still a head hit, no matter the lead up. I can't see how the fact he was allegedly jumping to smother is any different to choosing to jump off the ground to bump, or choosing to bump in any scenario for that matter - particularly in this scenario where even though it started as a smother it ended in a bump (by the by, on the smother, he got nowhere near it so in my book it was reckless form the get go). And as you note Jnr, it ended in a bump because that was the decision Maynard made. If he had time to turn his body and bump, he had time to make other choices. And it is hard to see how Maynard gets hurt making another choice like pirouetting out the way or continuing on chest on with arms out. Which takes away any argument he needed to bump protect himself - which will be the Pies main defence ie he had a split second to protect himself and it is instinct to do so (to which i'd also argue, if it is a natural instinct to turn and brace and bump in such scenarios then show me all the times a failed smother has resulted in that action or outcome. I cant think of any). Like smothering, bumping is a 'footy act'. An accepted footy act. Everyone loves a good bump. But it it is now understood by coaches, players and fans that if you elect to bump, again a 'footy act' which is fine to do, and hit the opponent in the head you will be suspended. EVEN IF HITTING THE OPPONENT WAS NOT YOUR INTENTION. How is electing to jump and smother, a 'footy act' which is also fine to do, and then choosing to bump and flushing a player in the head accidentally any different to electing to bump fairly but accidentally hitting the opponent in the head?

I'm going to back them now. I'll get a top price.

No i didn't. I wrote: I'm pretty sure since the final 8 I has been in place, a pretty high percentage of flag winners lost their QF. Then BDA posted the 5 teams that have won the GF after losing their QF since the final 8 system strted in 2000. I then posted a bit later (not long after you posted - 'My guess is that's just wrong', i assume in response to my post in the dot point above): Well, you can put all sort of caveats on it, but the fact remains that since the final 8 came in in 2000 nearly 25% of the flag winners lost their QF. Of course the team losing their QF is statistically much more likely not to win the flag - but one in four aint bad odds. For context the Pies are 2.50 to the win the falg. Lets assume they are accurate odds, at that price they are still statistically more likely not to win the flag. And they won their QF! In fact the implied probability of the Pies not winning the flag is 60%

Sorry, not sure i follow. How did i get the 'facts' about QF losers wrong?

I 100% agree. We wanted to keep bedford and i wish we did. Leaving aside role. Bedford offers something we sorely lack - pure leg speed, both from standing start and over say 150 metres. He has serious wheels - faster than nibbler, Koz and Chin

Sorry dazzler that's not the case. As jordon Lewis literally just said on the pre giants saints coverage - Bedford is playing the 'critical high half forward role', going on to describe the challenge of covering such players eg di you follow them up the ground etc. I have mutiple gws people explicitly say Bedford was recruited for the 'high half forward' role That is nibbler's role. It is a distinct role from the small, speed forward role that koz and candler play (though Chandler has had to plsy a bit of a hybrid role) Its also spargo's role, amd i agree he be competing with him. And would be in the team too. Only players with elite aerobic capacity can plsy the role to nibbler's level. Bedford has that capacity and has been brilliant tgis year. I wish we could have kept him

Well that will be the Pies argument. And maybe it will be a winning argument. I would argue he had other choices to protect himself (and gus) - Kozzie spinning in the air to avoid hitting Hoskin Elliot is once such example. And as i said how would have Maynard be hurt if he hit gus chest on (his chest would have hit Gus's head) with arms spread wide? And since when do you instinctively turn your shoulder when falling to the ground to protect yourself from the impact of hitting the ground? Instinct is you put your hands and arms out to brace a fall and protect yourself from being hurt not turn your body and slam into the ground shoulder first.

Of course it has. I wasn't arguing otherwise. I was merely stating facts.

Exactly. Attempting to smother is football act. Since when is it a football act to turn a smother into a head high bump? If that was 'a football act'. then logic says there would be many such incidents and examples. Football acts happen all the time. When was the last time a player was seriously injured in a smother attempt, let alone being knocked out cold with a head shot. And besides a bump is a football act, one that happens hundreds of times every round. It is still reportable conduct if you make a mistake and hit an opponent in the head with your shoulder when you have other options.

Well, you can put all sort of caveats on it, but the fact remains that since the final 8 came in in 2000 nearly 25% of the flag winners lost their QF.

I'm pretty sure since the final 8 I has been in place, a pretty high percentage of flag winners lost their QF.

Where is the mystery? He chose to leave to be guaranteed starter in the ones. We couldn't offer thst guarantee. He was behind nibbler at the dees. Was never going to take his spot. So accepted the giants offer to play that exact same role from the get go at the giants. I wish he had stayed, as did the club, but good on him. Has been fantastic. And had been in the ones all season.

I understand some of the arguments for not suspending him in terms of being a 'football act' and that he was jumping to smother. This is yet another grey area the AFL could have predicted and mitigated by making the rule clear - for example: 'in the scenario a player jumps to smother and contact is unavoidable (for example spinning out of the way is not possible) it is that players duty to take due care to avoid hitting the player with the ball in the head, for example by continuing chest on and arms stretched wide. If they exercise such care and contact is made to the head it will be deemed accidental they will not be reported. However if they choose to turn their body or brace in such a way that increases the likelihood and force of head contact and head contact is made they will be reported' For for me its clear, Maynard had an option other than hitting him shoulder to head. He could have continued chest on, but he instead chose to turn his body and hit him flush in the head, at great velocity, with his shoulder. That decision is on him. The idea that he had a right to do that in order to protect himself is ludicrous because what risk was their to HIS wellbeing? He was running full tilt and jumped 2 feet in the air - if he landed chest on Gus still would have been hurt, but perhaps not knocked out cold but how would Maynard have been hurt? I'm gutted we didn't win of course I actually feel ok about the game in terms of how we played. So unlike say post last years Swans finals loss, i'm happy to listen to the media and the footy shows about the game. Except i can't because the idea of listening to ex footballers cheer leading and leading the full throated charge to get Maynard off makes me sick to he stomach. Seriously, and i'm not joking here, some such media people are very likely to have some form of diminished cognitive capacity BECAUSE of head knocks. Listen to BT - he frequently cant do basic score calculations - and again i'm not kidding. And don't get me started on Channel 7's shameless decision to interview maynard on the ground after the game. Or the AFL's weakness not to send a clear message tot he broadcaster that under no circumstances are you to choose Maynard for any post match interviews (they had a whole match to reach that obvious conclusion and make the call to 7). It's one thing saying we need the broadcaster's dollars to grow the game, pay the players etc etc. It's quite another to sell the soul of the sport to the highest bidder. The symbiotic, parasitic relationship between 7, Fox and SEN is at the heart of the rot in the sport. But you know what, i don't really care what happens to Maynard. I just care what happens to Gus I felt sick at the ground and felt off for the whole game. I still feel sick for Gus. Worried sick for him. Positive thoughts and much love Gus.

Good points. A stat that stands out is scores from turnover. We kept them to a reasonable score, but we could only generate half our season average with 25 points from turnover. Simarly we contained the pies pretty well on transition but we could only manage 16 points from our defensive half, against our season average of 33. Our defence was brilliant, but so was the Pies defence. Arguably theirs was better, particularly early on with some damaging turnover marks that created scores. And they absorbed a huge number of contests inside their D50 thru the match. Losing gus so early was a huge factor. Apart from the fact that he has been in great form and is built for these sort of games, he does a huge amount of defensive running and gets to contests. Those actions are picked up in the team pressure ratings, and the Pies, it must be said, smashed us for pressure. They were essentially down one of their key midfield rotations that they needed to cover for an entire match. Which in turn meant they couldn't put Tracc forward as much as they would have planned to. And it brought Laurie into the game really early. You'd have to say he struggled with the tempo early on, didn't play on ball or have much impact. We couldn't use him as intended to inject run and skills late in the third. I also wonder what the psychological impact might have been on the team, at least for the rest of the quarter. I felt sick watching (still do), i can't imagine how his teamates would feel seeing Gus, of all players, go down with a heavy head knock. I hope he is ok.

I see your point, but a sample size of 2 games is not enough. I actually think the issue is not needing a different method in the wet per se. The issue is whenever we completey smash teams for inside 50s we struggle converting inside 50s into scores. As BPA notes that is often a function means of very crowded inside 50 areas, in large part because so many of those inside 50s are rentries. When it's wet our ability to win more contests and stoppages than oppo invariably means a big inside 50 diff. Same is true when we play weaker teams who cant match us in the contest. The same thing happened last night after quarter time. I think inside 50s were close to even at quarter time. So to have a 37 i50 diff by the end of the game us nuts. So ironically the better we play in terms of our key metric of cp, the harder it is to have a decent inside 50 to score ratio. I think it is a reasonable question if we need to adjust that method when we are smashing them for inside 50s, for example by setting the rebound wall further to the wing and creating more space for oppo players to flood out of our 50. If we hadn't dominated the game and i50s so much after quarter time maybe we might have had some more space inside 50 and some better looks. But let's say we did that. That might have translated to a better inside 50 to score ratio, for instance because there were more leading lanes and space. But if we kicked as poorly for goal as we did last night it wouldnt have translated to a higher score. Bottom line we lost that game because we were inaccurate. Exactly same issue against GWS. That inaccuracy is only partially a function of pressure on the shots on goal from general play due to congestion that results from our method. We missed plenty of very gettable set shots. We kick them we win. I really think the key issue in the wet is, as I have been banging on about for years, we are a terrible kicking sides. The wet exacerbates that issue. The other factor is it negates the ability to play Max up forward, mnegates his marking and means he is gets few score involvements. On that front, I think we pulled the wrong straw and shoul have gone with Grundy not tmac.

I'm washing my hair Monday night.

Tell them Melbourne's sister LGA is Kreuzberg.