nutbean

What got me on the Trenners incident (and now Oliver's) is that it was ok right up until the time he did the tackle and from that day on it wasn't. It seems to me the AFL plays catch up. "that was bad and we'll suspend you and from here on in anyone who does it gets suspended". I have no problem with what Oliver did being paraded to all clubs and say " if you sling , irrespective of hands free or not, irrespective of injury or not - then there is a danger of injury and we will cite these incidents".From today on - not acceptable. However unless the clubs have already been informed of this then this is a precedent setting suspension. ( the sad part is , that I knew it would be looked at and possible of a suspension fine as the AFL has a history of suspending first and setting the ground rules around the action second)

couldn't agree more - and seeing certain incidents over and over in slo mo moves us further away from the fact the game is played at a frenzied pace and decision are made in fractions of seconds and can go horribly wrong.

Because every season the AFL's seems to be tightening their stance on tackling and injuries. They looked at if a player was hurt and acted accordingly. Now they are looking at "Could a player have got hurt". The slinging motion happens quite quickly - whether the hands are free or not there is a risk of damage if the hands don't get in the right position to break the fall. Is anyone under any illusion that had Young hit his head Oliver would have got rubbed out ? The AFL are now taking it one step further - the sling could have hurt. I think it is pretty simple - just don't sling - whether the hands are free or not. (BTW I don't agree with the interpretations at all - it is a physical game and players will get hurt. Whilst I don't want any player getting hurt, my mind is telling me that the amount of players that get head injuries from a tackle are minuscule. The head bump i absolutely get - but tackling causing head injuries ? I still believe more knee injuries are caused in tackles than head injuries)

In fact there is the contradiction - I want to tackler to pin the arms so the tackled opponent cannot get the ball away and even better if you can bring them to ground as that hopefully takes them out of the contest - the AFL do not want the arms pinned and player brought to ground as they cant protect themselves - there's the dilemma. Whilst I agree with your sentiment - you rarely get concussed in a tackle if you are not brought to ground - the AFL wants head injuries and concussions out of the game. Make no mistake players brought to the ground with force with no real chance of protecting themselves will get looked at.

The AFL wants to encourage more and more kids to play the game - they are trying to remove anything that results in head injuries/concussions and the most obvious area is tackling. I think the way it is heading is any tackle where the player can't protect himself from hard contact with the ground will more or less be rubbed out ( and yes there will be inconsistencies) . Oliver swung Young around - there was force in the tackle - he could have been hurt. Had he bounced and hit his head he would have been suspended. The new tackling technique will be to pin the arms so the ball drops but not bring them to ground. The old message of make a tackle "hurt" is a thing of the past - the AFL wants you to tackle to make your opponent drop the ball and nothing more. The real inconsistency to me is the tackle on Tyson - tackle and fall backwards. Too many times you see the tackled player get his leg caught and hyper-extend. I held my breath when Tyson went over backwards, leg trapped and grasped his knee. It seems that this is ok because it is the knee not the head.

As said earlier - they are targeting this sort of slinging tackle so I was not surprised. If it caused damaged it would have been weeks. Check back on his highlight reel - he does a few of these tackles in the TAC and I am pretty sure that the coaches will be onto him about it. I love the fierce desire to tackle - i just dont want him rubbed out.

you are welcome - can you please knit two as i would dearly love one as well....

You can disagree with the direction of the AFL and slinging but unless you havent been watching for the last two years - it is pretty simple - the tackle Oliver did, had it resulted in an injury to Young would have cost him a suspension. You can suggest "we are in trouble" all you like - the reality is the reality. It's been mentioned before in his TAC highlights that it was evident that he sometimes slings in his tackles. He doesn't need to stop tackling but he does need to improve his technique or he will get rubbed out. ( as much it would hurt , I prefer a footballer with a desire to tackle that may on occasion earn the wrath of the MRP rather than a footballer who has no appetite for the physical aspect of the game)

I critiqued him a week or so ago and my only small knock on him was his tackling technique. I applaud his desire to tackle but he needs to rid himself of the "sling" - no matter how innocuous a sling tackle may be , if the opponent bumps his head on the ground, you are looking at a suspension. His tackle was borderline. on a positive note, he does not look at all out of place in the heat of the centre square.

I'm an MCC member and have no knowledge whatsoever...

Not guilty .....

I just watched all the clips again so I will give it a go. reads the play extremely well - gets to where the ball is Exceptional evasive skills in close - the "jink" he does is really sublime Very strong through the hips so he is able to stand up in tackles. This strength more often than not allowed him to shrug tackles Very strong overhead for his size good decision maker but I doubt a highlight would show him constantly turning the ball over His handpassing was very good - his kicking looks ugly but seemed to find its mark. A positive and a negative - he likes to tackle but quite a few times he slung his opponent in the tackle and we know with slinging that it is a very fineline between ok and suspension.

If the hype on here about the players we drafted in the past had become a reality we would be looking at a four-peat this year not Hawthorn.

Like Brayshaw - he either earns a gig straight up or he doesn't. Being a first year player should not exclude you playing round one if your form warrants it. The difference now is we don't need to gift 1st year high draft pick players games just because they were high draft picks.

Not wanting to be pedantic - that should read "journalists need to report accurately, but I find they never do".

The only thing I take out of this is they are talking - all the rest is media speculation and conjecture. As most have said - I don't believe money will be a sticking point. If his management wants to talk with a view to him staying in Melbourne I think the only real negotiation point will be the length of the contract - we would probably want a 500 year contract with a 300 year option ( and options on kids/grandkids/great grandkids) and he may want a little shorter time

I am not sure about straight into the guts - and I am not a believer in rushing players but if you put your hand up - you put your hand up - whether you are 1st year player or not. Brayshaw certainly earned his place in the team from the get-go. I think the difference is that they wont be played immediately just because they are a high draft pick - also Roos and co manage them well by giving them a break during season as he did with both Hogan and Brayshaw.

If he turn out as good as I think he will I think we also need a husband/wife, uncle/nephew and an any blood relative ( or acquaintance) clause in the contract.

Whispering Jack is better than Clayton Oliver

So what your saying is the trade would never happen. Trading Fyfe out ? Freo would never do it. Interestingly Freo offered a first rounder this year and next year for McCarthy - although the first round pick was pick 22. Hogan is worth way more than McCarthy in my biased opinion - so it begs the question - what would it take ? I honestly don't think that a deal could be done.

Hence my new found fickleness - I love every player knowing they could be gone next season and my love for them with it !

I do agree that we can never be sure what makes individual's tick. I do believe that players will rarely stay on offers for massive unders ( I do stress "massive" as a lot of clubs will offer more to get a player out of their existing club and players may stay stay for somewhat less due to friendships/relationships. Certainly premiership or near premiership teams have kept lists together for less money because of the nearness of the goal). Jones stayed two contracts ago when he played hardball with us against an offer from Essendon. There was some angst on these very boards as he kept negotiations going longer than many on here liked. I think Watts is quite interesting as I think he is highly intelligent and I believe he is acutely aware that hasn't delivered to what he this his potential is at the club and wants to. But yes some have stayed with little fanfare during our down times. I think the landscape has changed remarkably in the last couple of seasons in that players are much more willing to pull up stumps for either money or perceived success and most clubs now negotiate the players release (Cam McCarthy being the obvious exception). When palyers can move so easily, I believe that the lure of success is becoming more important which is why the Hawks have been so successful luring players to them. But you are right - we don't know what motivates each individual.

I also think he will be financially taken care of. I won't necessarily suggest it is about wins but certainly it is about direction. That anyone wanted to come our club after year one of Neeld still amazes me. I think we were somewhat of an unknown entity first year of Roos but I have never been more comfortable with what has been put in place both on and off field. We have had the discussion around development in the past - but I firmly believe that we threw young raw talent into a cesspool of a club with no real development path. That is not the case today. We are set up for success. So the last piece of puzzle is upward trajectory and that is all down to the players. They are being coached and developed well, given time where necessary - so they now they must deliver. I don't think that any Melbourne supporter is tipping us to go backwards - everything is pointing to improvement and the outcome of improvement is more wins. That improvement is what i hope will keep Jesse with us.

Do we know what Cripps has been offered ? Maybe all his expectations including monetary, have been met. I hate the word mercenary but if getting the best deal for a player is mercenary then Hogan will be mercenary. Players usually fall into two categories and that is dictated by demand and supply. The likes of Hogan and Brayshaw will be able to make demands of the club as they will be in demand. The likes of Michie and Spencer pretty much must take what the club is offering. It is then up to both club and player to decide if their stars are aligned. Whilst I am not an advocate of trying squeeze every last cent out of a club I would suspect that very few players do not get their actual worth.

They only sell International Roast therefore Jesse is a monty to stay in Melbourne.