Hellish Inferno

Defence doesn't seem to be marking their space very well.

Down by 28 now

Port gets a few in a row...

Casey down by 16

Dunn goals with a second effort but Port replies.

Port 4.5.29 to Casey 5.3.33

Lawrence miracle goal from the boundary!

Dunn to Newton inside 50 to Fev on the lead. Slots his second.

Port 3.2 - 20 to Casey 3.2 - 20

Gawn dominating. Fevola has had 2 marks from a lead, one goal. Matthews snaps but misses.

Port 1.0 - 6 to Casey 2.2 - 14

Agree. Surely Matthews could fill Bartram's role? And from what I've seen would provide much better disposal. Obviously has great leadership and is a team player. Rookie him MFC. Repay the faith shown in his amazing recovery!

A relative of mine went to the Foundation Dinner and posted photos of the night on Facebook, mostly of him looking delirious posing with the players. He uploaded a photo with Jeremy Howe and tagged him, so I guess he must have added him on Facebook.

Instead of blowing him off as another crazy supporter, Howie had the decency to 'like' the photo and after I wrote you're a champion he replied 'Great night with good people!!" Shows he's a quality bloke young Jeremy!

On other news, apparently Scully was there and positioned on an outer table, maintained a very low profile and was mentioned in passing once the whole night. Huge contrast to Trengove, who seemed to be involved in every second presentation, announcement, video etc

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/113660/default.aspx

Speaking of fairness... is this a cleverly veiled 'taunt' from the AFL? Can the AFL comment on the probable outcome of an appeal before its heard?

The AFL are clearly not happy with the way things have panned out, and the criticism they have received. We should expect Norf to be gifted plenty of free kicks this weekend!!

Good to see Sammy Mitchell providing some backing words though

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/hawthorn-captain-sam-mitchell-says-every-afl-player-is-backing-melbournes-jack-trengoves-tribunal-appeal/story-e6frf9jf-1226054535496?from=igoogle+gadget+compact+bi_rss

I agree with him, I would accept a one week ban too, but three weeks for a tackle with unintentional injury is just wrong!!

Is this a potential contradiction to the decision?

Lachie Hansen was pushed into the fence by Troy Chaplin in Round 6. Check out 13 mins into the last quarter. He runs onto a handball in the goalsquare and pokes it through with his boot, then Chaplin pushes him and he hits his face into the fence. He didn't play the next week.

It is a reportable offence to "throw or push another player after that player has taken a mark, disposed of the football or after the football is otherwise out of play"

I believe the rules of the game assess the fence/ground to be essentially the same thing.

In that case, even though Chaplin only nudged Hansen, as a result of that nudge he hit the fence with HIGH impact and HIGH contact. So why wasn't he charged in the same manner? Trengove's tackle itself was not high contact or high impact, it was the resulting impact with the turf that caused the injury.

I know they're difference circumstances i.e. tackle vs bump where the tackle involves a player maintaining a hold throughout whilst the bump is a transfer of physical contact. However, the 'injury' received in both cases was a result of the physical contact from the other player. Chaplin was negligent in making the bump given the momentum of Hansen and likelihood he would cannon into the fence.

I think we had an ok defence but this is what I would have done...

1. Dangerfield took possesion of the ball with his left hand with Trengove his closest opposition player, standing 2-3m behind.

2. Dangerfield fumbles the ball slightly and Trengove moves in to tackle him at the waist whilst also grabbing hold of his hand to prevent the handball, which would be Dangerfields first option in that circumstance.

3. Dangerfield is unable to handball, therefore attempts to kick the ball whereupon Trengove pulls him the only way he could, backwards. This prevents him from kicking the ball and he is dispossesed. This is the perfect tackle in those circumstances.

4. Yes, Dangerfields head hits the ground as a result. Yes, a free kick may have been an appropriate decision but the umpire either missed it at the time or thought it was not a free kick.

5. But to SUSPEND a player for 3 weeks for doing EXACTLY what he should have to prevent Dangerfield from disposing of the ball is ridiculous. Especially since there was no malice or intent to hurt the opposition player. Yes, the impact and force of the tackle is strong, but that's exactly what the game of football is about and there are hundreds of tackles every week carried out with the same force.