binman

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.

Perhaps a better question is why not ban the bump?

Which was ridiculous. Broke his jaw. Should have got 6 minimum.

Ban the bump. That was a text book example of why. And of my point about the game not losing anything by doing so. Even if he hadn't flushed his head, and just say hit him shoulder to shoulder, what would have that action achieved for Webster's team, other than hurting an opponent? Nothing. He had already disposed of the ball. Even a non reportable 'hit' would likely have been a free. If the bump was not legal he likely doesn't do it - or goes at him hands out, which still might hurt him but not as bad. Simpkin apparently had two concussions last year, one of which was apparently a bad one he struggled to recover from.

No food outlets at Goshs, although on Punt road there is servo (though with a young un you will probably need to cross the road at tge swan and putn road intersection) Pretty sure there is a toilet in the park somewhere. Players seem to be fine with post season happy snaps and autographs after training, partic for little kids.

Those last two kicks!

Oliver equals viney. Alan Windsor was deliberate.

No need for that Andy

I think we are trying to bring them back. There were couple in the blues game, coincidentally one from trac to Oliver that ended up with Alan Windsor kicking his second.

Correct weight (i love his runs and carry and pass to Darren Bennet in the second vid):

How long for?

Cuture related shoulder reco - out to mid year