binman

I assume so. I haven't tested it though Perhaps wait until we [censored] the Swans. Again, footy gods I'm joking (not joking)

Amazing what a practice match win does for the vibe! Those numbers might change of we lose tomorrow night. (by the way I'm not particularly superstitious, and it's plain crazy to think me writing the above might have an impact on the result tomorrow night - but out of an abundance of caution, footy gods please note i was JOKING!)

Indeed. But the real issue is whether it was a smother or pressure is immaterial. He should have got weeks because he chose to turn and bump - and flushed Gus with his shoulder. Text book. He had the option to put his hands out to protect himself and Gus. Which as Brad Scott said, is EXACTLY what he he would have done if that incident happened at training and Pendlebury was the player he was running at to spoil. Or as a poster noted here, a brilliant analogy i thought, if your 3 year old was on your bed and you fell towards them what would you do? What would your instinctive reaction be to protect your child? To protect your child, would you turn your body in mid air, brace and flush them with your shoulder? Or would you remain chest on and put your hands out in front to do everything you could to protect them? Hell, do the same thing with no child, just you but falling face first to the ground. What's your natural instinct? What's the natural instinctive reaction to protect yourself? Every time its putting both hands out to cushion your fall. NOT turn your body and smash your shoulder into the ground. It's why the AFL's prosecution was so pathetic. They completely allowed the pies movement expert to spout rubbish and not push back. Or even ask the questions above - which i would have thought are the logical questions. Or perhaps ask: 'Mr Maynard, you CHOSE to to turn your body and bump to protect yourself. That choice clearly protected you, but not your opponent. In hindsight, what other ways might you have CHOSEN to protect yourself AND show a duty of care to your opponent and minimise the risk of head trauma? Was turning your body and choosing to bump your opponent in the head REALLY the only option you had to protect yourself and your opponent?' You might ask those questions IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET A GUILTY VERDICT. Or you might call YOUR OWN biomechanical expert as a witness to rebut theirs. One that might for instance explain how many decisions can be made in a spilt second and how for example divers and gymnasts turn their body ALL THE TIME in a split second to minimise the impact of a mistimed dive or jump. Pathetic. The fix was so in It infuriates me.

Tough first round for the blues having to play the lions at the gabba at night without weitering and Walsh.

No wonder he has a gig in the footy media.

From above article by Jonathan Horne (whose analysis i often disagree with but really like) Sixth – Melbourne Melbourne has had six months of what-ifs. What if Caleb Marchbank had filed his fingernails. What if they’d lowered their eyes against Collingwood. What if Angus Brayshaw hadn’t been knocked out cold. What if Clayton Oliver wasn’t in disarray. What if they’d kicked straight. They let the Oliver story get out of control. Rather than take a hose to the fire, the strategy seemed to be to stand in front of it spraying the word “culture” dozens of times. In football, the word has been pulverised, made redundant. It’s the new “learnings”. Goodwin calls them a blue-collar team. They defend from the high ground. They patrol and gobble. They contest like angry ants. But their connection with their forwards needs tidying up. There’s too many blasters in that midfield. Get that right and keep Gawn in one piece, and this remarkably consistent side can challenge again.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2024/mar/05/afl-2024-predicted-ladder-part-two-collingwood-can-win-if-theyre-giant-killers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Top 4 surging! Suggested headline and sub header for the media: DEES FANS DEEMAND SUCCESS STUDY SHOWS HALF OF DEES FANS EXPECT TOP 4 FINISH Headline and sub header media run with: DEES FANS DEELUSIONAL AGAINST ALL LOGIC STUDY SHOWS HALF OF DEES FANS EXPECT TOP 4 FINISH

Some interesting comments in that lot. I actually agree we are under pressure in terms of maximizing success with this list, and going out in two years in a straight sets. That is fair. But i would have thought that the Lions are under even more pressure on that front given that group, with the huge leg up of home games at the GABBA, has yet to win a flag and have only made one grand final. Not to mention their appalling record at the MCG. But pressure because of 'off-field dramas' palaver is such a nonsense, and the perfect example of the media creating a narrative and then shoe horning clubs into that narrative. Like clubs are monkeys and the media is the organ grinder. We have been very clear we have a strong culture. The way the club has dealt with the issues Clarry has faced is just one piece of evidence to back that claim up. Another is the number of key re-signings in the last 2-3 years, including Koz last year. Does anyone seriously think McAdam would have nominated the dees after wanting out from that cultural competency disaster zone at the crows without checking with Koz and/or other Aboriginal community members about the culture at the dees? Why should the media hysteria theatre create pressure for us to perform? Do we owe the media and the footy public something because of some confected 'off-field dramas'? What a load cobblers. The club doesn't need extrinsic motivators (though us against the world vibe might be of some help), no doubt their intrinsic desire to win another flag is motivation - and pressure - enough. Of the AFL journos, i really rate Twomey and Beveridge. So its no surprise that Twomey has the Lions under the most pressure. And i agree with Beveridge (and, shudder, Barrett's), that Suns (and the AFL too for that matter) given how much money they poured into the Suns) are under enormous pressure, particularly given Dimwit has all but promised finals.

Greg, dude, that's not even in my top 100 biggest gripes about the footy media.

On visiting a young fan in hospital: 'This is the side of Oliver we don’t see, but Oliver never turns down the chance to give back outside club hours. Like most AFL players, Oliver doesn’t feel the need to publicise these moments.' I reckon certain Collingwood player might learn something from Clarry.

Ben Dixon: Premiers: Collingwood. “System and talent, clearly the competition leaders in these areas, young enough to be still hungry and their ability to win tight games in clutch moments is no fluke.” Young enough to still be hungry? We'll i guess that could apply to any team, but relevant data points are the Pies have the oldest list in the AFL and 9 of their best 22 players are over 30: Cameron Mihocek Crisp Hoskin-Elliott Elliott Cox Sidebottom Howe Pendlebury

Clarkson has been 'forced to backtrack after he admitted to an expletive-ridden, quarter-time spray towards Webster at Moorabbin'. Clarkson has form for this sort of totally inappropriate outburst. Yes the article references some examples of Clarkson's many such outbursts and loss of control, but the Roos must be happy for such nice balanced article that treats Clarkson with kit gloves and doesn't question the culture of the club. I mean there is an obvious hook here for giving the Roos, the first AFL club to have a female president and CEO, a sermon about culture - Clarkson using a highly sexualised (and arguably also misogynistic AND homophobic) slur, in ear shot of 'several players, club staff and AFLW footy boss Tess McManus'. It's all good though, Clarkson has 'reached out to Ross Lyon and both the St Kilda players to apologise'. I guess the Roos are not on the AFL sanctioned hit list. https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/lyon-concedes-there-is-no-defence-for-webster-s-hit-on-simpkin-20240304-p5f9iv.html

Yes, your honour. That said the player's disposition, and the interviewer too for that matter, was mogodon meets a valium drip.

It might sound hypocritical by me given my stance on banning the bump, but I'm against giving Webster a massive penalty. From my perspective it is unfair on Webster and against the principles of natural justice. Why? Because retrospective penalties, particularly for incidents that are not novel (eg like judds chick wing tackle), indeed are in fact super common, are antihical to the principle of natural justice. As analogy, you cop a speeding fine. There are set penalties, but a magistrate decides they want to make a statement because of a recent spike in road deaths. And triples the fine and takes your licence. There is a regime of penalties for bumps to the head. Webster's hit was a bog standard example. The penalty set in the regime is what he should get, perhaps at the upper range. Why should Webster be 'made an example of'? How fair is that to webster? If the AFL feel that is the way to stamp out bumps to the head, why didn't SPP get 8 weeks? If using webster as the example implies it will stamp it out, then has simpkin got a legal argument that the AFL didn't take the opportunity to make an example of SPP (because that may have meant him not getting knocked out)? The time for setting penalties is in the calm of the off season. If the argument is increased penalties will be an effective deterrent then bloody introduce them BEFORE the season starts. If the AFL wanted to make a statement about head trauma they could have announced, to much fanfare, BEFORE the first intra club simulation that penalties for bumps to the head had been dramatically increased. Knock a player out, minimum 5 weeks. Knock a player out when choosing to bump if tackling is an option, minimum 7 weeks. Run past the ball and bump a player and hit the head, minimum 8 weeks. Leave the ground and knock a player out, minimum 10 weeks. Additional weeks for particularly spiteful acts. Weeks double for repeat offenders. Put every player on notice and make it clear that this season these penalties WILL apply. It's so typical of the AFL's approach to this, and other issues, to do nothing, or not enough, and then react to specific events. And then dodge responsibility and putting it at the feet of the players. It's a point Gus made powerfully in his retirement letter - to protect the head, the AFL has to be PROACTIVE not REACTIVE. I've made this point a number of times over the last few seasons, I find it increasingly hard to believe that the AFL addiction to media saturation doesn't drive its decision making. All the whoo ha filling up the airwaves about the bump is great content for the media, who pay big bucks to the AFL for access.

These feel more like depositions with young blokes down the local cop shop than interviews.

Fear not, we'll hear plenty from the Doom and Gloomers (sounds like a goth version of Bay City Rollers) this season. Any loss and they'll pop back for a 'just being realistic, telling it like it is, a good team would never lose that game, same old problems yadda, yadda yadda' truth telling session. And of course they'll be back in force after our inevitable post bye losses and/or sub par performances that are in part a result of fatigue from loading, causing the now annual Demomnland knickers in a knot meltdown.

Reupping this thread. Anyone who want to put their flag in the ground about where we will finish the 2024 home and away season AHEAD of round one has three days to do so. Current data: 116 members have voted and the prediction ladder looks like: 5th to 8th - 44 votes: 39.29% Top 4 - 43 votes: 38.39% Missing finals - 25 votes: 22.32%

Brings to mind one of the great songs, and one of my all time favourite covers. By the by, this version is 21 years old. Listen to the first 20 odd seconds of this video, spoken word from Joe strummer (not on the cd or any other version) - incredibly prescient about the world today (and pretty relevant to clarry too). Genius gets thrown around alot, but it's apt for Joe Strummer.

Policy might be too strong a word. I mean he might have said it at some point, but surely it's not set in stone. BDJ is the logical sub imo given he started against the tigers, was the sub against the blues and there is no obvious best, or borderline best, 22 available (with the possible exception of woey I guess).

All three players look like they share Donald Trump's makeup artist.

Brown Dog Junior (BDJ) will be super sub (opinion not fact).

All big ticks for clarry. But also a massive tick for the club, how it has handled this situation, and yes its culture. And a massive cross for the media and the media model. Slam us for months with all the preseason from hell and salacious innuendo bulltish. Drive a narrative not supported by the facts. All's fair in clicks and war. And then don't balance that with any retractions or contrary stories and information. Sure, when clarry gets back and we are travellimg ok there will be a few token redemption stories, good for clicks. But they won't come close to balancing out all the slanderous, false narrative rubbish the media has thrown at the club for the last five months. By the by, Sammy is one of the few footy journalists I respect. He has been a lone voice of balance and non hyperbole. Good on him.

I think it is an important question. Because really the only rebuttal I've heard against banning is a variation of it's an exciting element of a brutal game. Part or the game. But so was hitting and sniping players behind play in the 70s and 80s. And getting off because there was no video review to catch hits thst were missed or a blind eye was turned. But the VFL was increasingly out of step with community values. The level of violence in games was no longer accepted by the community. It took matthews sickening hit on Bruns to trigger a video review and start reducing the number of striking reports. Few would argue the game is not better for it. I'd argue the bump is similar in some ways. The difference is it is legal violence - a football act. One that until relatively recently was legal even if a head was struck. The similarity to striking behind play twofold. One is a bump, even if a head is not hit, is also brutal. Two it achieves nothing positive for your team - unless you consider taking out and/or hurting an opponent as being a positive (and in any cade you can hurt with a tackle). Unlike kicking, marking, tackling and handballing the game would lose nothing the bump, currently a football act, was outlawed. The sport is plenty brutal without taking players out with a bump. As for two players running at each other, personally in such scenarios ie to protect yourself from inevitable contact I'd allow bracing for contact which is a natural, instinctive action. Some head injuries are inevitable in such a chaotic 360 degree sport. For example in marking contests, which I wouldn't ban by the way as unlike bumping high marling is a fundamental of the game.