Macca

The big issue is that they (the AFL) don't practice what they preach "If you choose to bump and contact is made to your opponents head, you will be reported and sidelined" Except that doesn't happen but sometimes it does. It's pot luck on outcomes They've got all the time in the world to get these decisions right and also, to end up with consistent outcomes ... but it's still a crapshoot

Incidental contact to the head where a bump is involved is always going to be impossible to adjudicate properly anyway (with the ball being in the vicinity) So unless the tribunal or the appeals tribunal is instructed to find a guilty verdict for incidental contact to the head from a bump, they are likely to arrive at a not guilty verdict as absolute guilt is very difficult to prove. Again, with the ball being in the vicinity So the language from the AFL doesn't match the language of the bodies that they have in place to adjudicate on these matters If they are going to have rules, they need to make sure that everyone associated with those rules are all on the same page Highly doubt that that will happen though

Is that related to our dreams being the answers to tomorrow's questions?

Fantasy sports? Leave me out of that stuff, Gonzo! Did not even cross my mind but I can see how those thoughts might enter the minds of the fantasy types Bit I firmly believe in the concept of 2 proper ruckmen in the same team (in the 18) ... with the proviso that both ruckmen can do a lot more than just tap the ball to advantage (who doesn't want first use of the ball?) Play forward, play back, be a link player and be an extra midfielder. As well as a general out on the field Both Gawn & Grundy qualify so go for it I say Also, what can happen with 2 proper ruckmen is that one rucks in 60% of the ground whilst the other rucks in 40% of the ground. With roles reversed when applicable Called a couple of Collingwood 'acquaintances' yesterday and both said that Grundy can play forward reasonably well as long as he is not the sole focal point And splitting the field in terms of who rucks where keeps both players relatively fresh as they are saving the legs

Play the rules then ... and stretch it to the limit Our players should not be too concerned with contact to the head of an opposition player on Saturday night (apart from striking with a fist) Get reported for high contact via a bump, go to the tribunal then take it further to the appeals tribunal then go even further like we've seen in GF week. For fringe players as well. Put the league to the test Striking offences aside, all contact to the head via the bump could now be argued as incidental or 'In the contest' ... as long as the ball is in the vicinity

We now have to look at the parameters of what can be deemed legal looking ahead (re the bump) It's a case of have-to, we don't get a choice nor do we have a voice The head is now not sacracanct so if a player goes in to bump or braces for contact and then subsequently makes contact to the head, there's a very good chance that that player either won't be cited but even if cited, there's a better than even money chance that the player won't be suspended (especially if using the appeals system) It's quite clear in a lot of ways. Appeal any decision so that you only have to answer to the appeals tribunal (who have just let Cripps walk free) Our players can now use the bump with impunity. The players no longer have to walk on eggshells And right now the players have been granted a licence. Incidental contact to the head can be argued against easily but the ball now only has to be in the vicinity for a bump to the head to not even be cited

Contesting and bumping can happen at the same time ... Jeff Gleeson has got it wrong by saying that it's one and not the other (especially in this instance) And because it's both and whilst contesting (and bumping) Cripps also has eyes for the player only and then takes that player out, he's liable The ball being in the vicinity is just a convenient excuse Except he's not liable because for some obtuse reason, he walks free Cripps should have got 4-6 weeks if the AFL are serious about head trauma

True, but the Cripps incident is still going to brought up by those representing a player who has contacted an opponents head (in incidents where the ball is in the 'vicinity') Probably every time. They'll try their luck and why wouldn't they Outcomes? Who knows? Will depend on all sorts of reasons but you're right, we'll never get consistent rulings That's not how the AFL rolls I viewed the incident as a shirt-front. Cripps played the man and not the ball Ah Chee has to sit it out this weekend. He'd feel cheated. Illegally taken out of a game and the perpetrator walks A complete joke but again, that's the AFL for you. They are like a mini version of FIFA

Maybe tl_nl (too long _ not listening) Can you imagine one of the Tribunal members putting up his hand (like a stop sign) and saying that? 10 or 15 minutes you could understand but an hour would put some of our pollies to shame

If he gets off it's going to set a very big precedent The ball would only have to be in the vicinity and then it could be carte blanche

An hour! Bloomin' hell! That's longer than it takes to read one of my longer-type posts! Forget tl_dr, more like tl_dl

A number of the good horses return on Saturday ... 4 Stakes races at Caulfield with the highlight race being the G2 PB Lawrence Stakes (R8) A decent betting race for a small field too - any of the 9 runners can win the race

The plan might be a 70/30 split (Grundy70%/Gawn 30%) for on ball ruckwork with Max doing all the ruck work in the forward line pushing up to high half forward Grundy then drops back or hovers around the middle with that split And vice-versa when it's roles reversed. The only sticking point might be if Grundy provides any value in the forward line but that could be off-set somewhat if we go back to playing 2 big-bodied KPF's along with Fritsch as the 3rd forward Remembering that we went into the finals last year with Ben Brown, T-Mac & Fritsch as the mainstays with Gawn or Jackson floating forward as another marking target. A flag resulted with that forward line set-up So in that instance, Grundy would become a dangerous forward with the opposition endeavouring to match up our talls. And he's a big, imposing lad The club will want to develop JVR but I'd be surprised if we don't pursue a decent KF (with some experience) in the off-season Getting Grundy across might just be the 1st or 2nd part of the puzzle (as we may well know what we are getting for LJ and that trade value for LJ might be already earmarked) List management would have started quite a while ago

Except when you don't have a ruckman that can play the position properly Without Max & Jackson this week we'd be back to Weideman (in a must-win game) That's already happened this season as well So Jackson looks like he's on the move and Max will be 31 going in to next season. And Max has the odd injury concern I can see why we would pursue Grundy as he's a bona-fide ruckman who has been an All-Australian twice with 2 Copeland Trophies to his name. Going into next season as a 28yo with about 5 years left He won't cost much in trade value (a swap of late round picks), the Pies would be paying a fair slice of his salary (in a salary that we might have been paying LJ) and we need another ruckman who can play the main role (not just a back-up) We can also draft or trade for a couple of ruckmen who can act as reserve ruckman (Weideman could be one of those 2) Fact is that we would be bringing in at least 2 ruckmen in the off-season to replace LJ (if he's gone) and Majak Daw anyway So why not a ready made, plug in and play ruckman like Grundy? I'm not concerned about the money as we would have had the money put aside for LJ anyway (all-up, probably about the same amount) And you'd have to say that right now, Grundy is a big upgrade on LJ in terms of pure rucking ability

Demons 1-39 seems likely too (can see the Blues scoring a few goals in junk time)

Lions, Demons, Swans all winning 'go-to-whoa' is returning about 14-1 (with a boost)

Werridee could put a team together at the rate that these names are being recalled, Redleg Michael Reynolds could go a bit from memory The present day ... Melksham, May, Viney, Hibberd (and Fritsch likes a scrap apparently) ... we could bring back Majak (I wouldn't get him riled up)

Big Carl, Biffin, O'Dwyer, Coles, Hughes & Grinter say hello And I saw Teddy Fidge rough up Millane once ... might have been at Waverley in the mid 80's Neitz used to throw his weight around when needed. Even Tiger Crosswell & Zantuck We've had a few, old dee

Good post, fr_ap and well explained The way I see it is the strategy either needs some tweaking or we need to get back to the overall plan being adhered to, properly i.e. players not just taking the fail-safe option of bombing it to the FP plus the biggie, forward line defensive pressure (at high octane levels) So we either get back to doing things as we once did with the existing crew up forward, change the make up of the crew or tweak the strategy. Or do whatever it takes to maximise our forward 50 entries

I never came back at him harshly, there was no point He meant well

Back then dl was convinced that the Northern Stand 'people' were the sole reason as to why we never won games ... it was all their fault And the hub of course ... if we, as a group, had a place to visit after the games to have a coffee, we'd have also won more games None of it ever made any sense However, he is missed as he was part of what we are - a motley crew

Deeluded's rants about the Northern Stand & the would-be hub in Elwood were priceless Every day for close on 10 years. Multiple posts per day as well on both non-talking points. Stickability skills to the fore And how about Rhino & Bub? ... the use of the like-type function only for those 2 now

In my post I made mention that we have any number of players who can use the ball like Spargo. So more so a Spargo-like kick into the 50 from the other 10 or so midfield-types rather than recruiting more Spargo types Although, you've always got to be needing to get better so recruiting better users of the ball is always on the agenda But a strike rate of 1 in 2 (the forward marking the pass) also means that 1 in 2 either miss the target, the target misses the mark or is spoiled or Spargo has kicked to a pack (or the forward picket) ... Or the kick is intercepted But a shot at goal from a marked pass every 2nd time from all our forward forays is a terrific strike rate if it happened all the time ... it also must be remembered that we are still a chance to score even if the mark doesn't eventuate. We might gain a free kick or crumb the spoil ... or if a stoppage eventuates, we can win the stoppage I can understand the forward pocket thinking but it's not working well in a general sense

Yep it's safety first a lot of the times, mo So deep to the pockets also worked last year and for a fair bit of this year Not so much in the last 10 weeks as the other teams are counter-acting Even against North we wasted a number of inside 50 entries. 74 inside 50's for 30 scoring shots and 14 goals (against a team who are below average defensive-wise) We should have cut them to ribbons that day but didn't In a lot of ways we are a systems based team but we need to tweak the system

Interesting how Spargo is the outlier here Incapable of bombing it long to the left forward pocket? Yep! Tick! We need more Spargo types (little fellas that can't kick over a jam tin!) I'm not being entirely serious but Spargo should be stationed 65m - 75m out from goal (in the corridor) used as a link up player to the forwards (when the ball is in general play) Play to your strengths A strike rate of nearly 1 in 2 means we get a shot at goal every 2nd time Spargo kicks the ball into the forward 50. That's handy 2 or 3 more Spargo types* and we're cookin' with gas *We have any number of players who can use the ball like Spargo with regards to forward forays but they are obviously coached to kick long to the forward pocket ... so it's more of a coaching issue