binman

Lets say they are the right and there is nothing he could have done to avoid contact. So what? That's is not the issue, the issue is he decided to turn and bump. He had other options to protect himself (and Gus) from being hurt - for example putting his hands out and pushing gus in the chest with them. But he decided to turn and bump. If he had time to do that he had time for other options. Whether contact was inevitable or not is neither here nor there. It is a complete furphy as is the whole football act palaver. Once Koz left the ground to bump Smith, contact was inevitable but that didn't mean he got off when he chose to bump and got Smith in the head. The rules are clear - elect to bump and if you hit a player in the head you're gone.

Yes there is and that is that the game wasn't for all the marbles. We earned a double chance. We now have to use it.

@WheeloRatings what estimated player ratings mean? I had assumed it is their season average, but estimated implies something different.

Minus 10 i think - or at least that was what was on the board they show the players at quarter time. And 100% agree it can't happen again. I think this is where we lost the game actually. I'm convinced Gus going down was factor in this - the players were in shock.

I agree deanox. The term pressure is a bit misleading because it means different things to different people as it relates to a game of football. Few would think of corralling as applying pressure for example. It is actually called the Pressure factor, I assume to pick up your point deanox. I should start calling it that. I'm not sure if you are right that the score will always be between 120 and 375 as i think there are scenarios where no player is corralling, closing or chasing. But even if that's not the case there is a big difference between points for closing (2.25) and corralling (1.2) and chasing (1.5). Closing is a 'higher degree of pressure than corralling, where the pressure player is on the verge of making contact with the ball carrier' and 'the pressure player is forcing the ball carrier to dispose of it immediately'. So chasing that bit harder, closing space harder, turning a corall into forcing the ball carrier to get rid of it. That is work rate. So, in some some ways it is a better measure of work rate than pressure. For example if players aren't gut running when chasing then it shows up on the pressure factor because that player only gets 1.5 points rather than 2.5 if they got close enough to force a rushed disposal. In the first quarter their pressure factor was higher, one because they won more contested balls (presumably some of those wins involved 'direct physical contact to a player in the act of disposing of the ball' and so get 3.75 points) and two because I suspect they turned more chases into closing acts. Which I think partly explains some of our poor entries where we kicked to the defender's advantage and some of their clean entries. I also suspect not having Gus was a factor because that sort of work - closing, corralling, chasing and tackling is his one wood and he had the fitness to do it. Laurie only was only 50% time on ground and never did any midfield rotations. His pressure points weren't too bad actually, having the 9th most pressure acts (well ahead of of many senior players like langers, hunger, salo and hibbo). But Gus averages over 35 pressure points a game and has been incredible for pressure in the last month. For example, against the swans he he had the fourth most pressure acts and 48 pressure points (and has been top 5 for weeks). Apart from the psychological impact on the team of gus going down, we lost his run, ability to put pressure on the ball carrier and his defensive nous. And as the game wore on, we also lost tracc as a forward option because he covered Gus. By the by, on that latter point, I'm surprised goody didn't put Laurie on ball and put tracc forward at some point. Laurie played as a mid at Casey, so why not?

If it's any consolation, me too.

No, the dees were never favourite against the pies. We actually came in. I suspect the blues won't shorten a touch but we will still start clear favorites at around 1.75. Deserved too because we will win.

Good point. Get on it BPA. Actually don't. It will just blow my head up.

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.