Lucifers Hero

Would be very close. Paul Roos bid Heeney at pick 2 before Petracca. We would have Petracca as we had pick 3 but not had Brayshaw. Given that the draft points system didn't exist back then we didn't have to bid Heeney at pick 2 to force Sydney's hand to use a 'high' pick. Their highest pick was #18 and that is what they used to match our bid #2. Any first round bid would have got them Heeney for pick 18. So I would say Roos rated Heeney very highly at least equal to Petracca. They are different types of players, both are stars.

Our team is close to best 22. Salem and Brown to come in. Whoever goes out for them (JJ/Hunt 😿 , TMc/Weideman) would join Tomlinson, Smith and Hibberd as first backup for injuries.

Um, not sure if you quoted the right post... I didn't say anyone should be dropped/rested. My post was the opposite, noting the benefits of resting mids forward and rotating fwds and mids etc to preserve them physically. In an earlier post I mentioned if Petracca's knee needs rest then rest him. But certainly not for the sake of just giving him a rest. I've been a big supporter of the 'build physical resilience' philosophy. It paid off handsomely in last year's finals.

Petracca being quiet and playing fwd more in the last two games looked to be primarily about protecting his knee. But there were other benefits. If I read the tea leaves correctly there is a bit of early season experimenting with roles and tactics: 1) for the Ess game Goodwin said they had some strategies for Petracca's role if he was tagged and how he could best help the team. We got our answer: Neutralised McGrath. Oliver and Brayshaw ran amok. vs Port tagging Petracca and keeping him forward diminished Drew's impact despite his good stats at a time when Port could have done with him in the midfield. In that game JJ and Viney took over as prime movers from the relatively quiet Petracca and Oliver. 2) Resting the mids fwd instead of using interchanges and playing fwds eg ANB, and other players eg JJ for longer in the midfield. 3) Reducing Petracca and Oliver's midfield time reduces the crash and bash toll on their bodies. iirc this was raised as a concern of the club, by a poster who usually has good intel (sorry forgot which poster) once Jones and vandenberg left so we recruited Dunstan. If my reading is correct how good is it to experiment while still winning games. Pacing ourselves nicely in terms of ladder position, building momentum and tweaking the game plan tactics. So some silver linings in Petracca not being fully fit/being tagged.

The best bit is Goodwin saying he is close to signing a contract extension...had to put on my xray vision glasses to look throught the purple thingy...

Last week we won with Oliver and Petracca both being role players with Petracca spending a lot of the game forward. The week before Oliver ran amok when Petracca stayed forward taking one of Ess midfielders who tagged, with him and out of the action. We need Petracca cherry ripe for the next game vs Richmond so if his knee needs protecting then rest him. But Petracca on the field even if he plays predominately forward, stops the op from going all out on Oliver. Whether or not he plays this week we should still win. Dees by 20 points.

I suspect a lot it is to do with stadium contracts. I just felt disappointed for everyone, especially Alice an NT folk that we aren't playing a game there during the Indigenous round. It could so easily have been achieved by swapping two games.

The Saints are giving the Tribunal a lesson in Precendence. Firstly, the English incident above. Three more examples: The first: Sam Reid's bump on Nat Fyfe (2021), which resulted in a two-week ban to Reid. Saints say force much greater, direct impact to the head and well off the ball. The second: Jordan De Goey's bump on Clayton Oliver (2021), which resulted in a one-match ban. Saints say player off a long run up hits head with shoulder, no attempt to stop and that is assessed as 'medium' impact. It's the very opposite, Saints say, to Ryder. The third: Levi Casboult's bump on Alex Pearce (2021), which .was judged 'low' impact. Says the incident bodes "quite favourably" for Ryder given Ryder's conduct compared to Casboult's. MRO: Take note!

Suprise, Surprise, Surprise! Not! St Kilda are using the English bump on Blakey example (see my posts on previous page) in their defence of Ryder. AFL is saying that evidence shouldn't be permitted...and isn't a comparable incidents and that he wasn't charged. Maybe they worry using it as evidence will show up their inconsistencies. I can't see how a reasonable person doesn't let Ryder play when comparing the two incidents. The AFL have backed themselves into a corner by again going easy on an incident early in the season then try and wriggle their way out of the next and later incidents I agree with @titan_uranus's post above that if you elect to bump, any head high contact is a suspension of at least a week then more based on severity of impact/damage. Edit: Tribunal Chairman has allowed the English incident as evidence.

Its a real shame we aren't playing in Alice in the Indigenous round especially as we didn't get to play a game there at all last year. iirc we are usually one of the Saturday night bookends for that week/fortnight. It would make sense for us to play the round 11 game vs Freo in Alice and play the later season vs Port game at the G instead of Alice. Not a big change as we usually play a WA or SA teams in Alice; just change the venue no need to change dates. The Alice folk would love to see a 1st vs 3rd game. A real shame for all.

Regarding a successor; take your pick: The highly regarded AFL boss is understood to be keen to play a part in nominating his successor. Contenders within the AFL include football boss Andrew Dillon and fellow executive Travis Auld. Richmond chief Brendon Gale, who interviewed for the role eight years ago, is also in the running and a heavy favourite among the clubs although the AFL Commission is expected to conduct a thorough search. gillon-mclachlan-to-leave-afl-ceo-role It looks like the Clubs favour Gale but the Commission favours...? What is the bet an AFL person gets it. McLachlan should stay out of it.

Compare the above English decision a few weeks ago, to the Ryder one. Ryder was more stationary than English. He was unlucky there was concussion. The English bump had equally as much if not more 'potential to cause damage' as the Ryder bump but the MRO chose to ignore the potential in that case. If they penalised the potential for damage there would be fewer English/Ryder cases and fewer concussions. Either potential to cause damage is an issue or they stop pretending that it is as they almost never take it into account when deciding sanctions. Walk the Talk or stop the spin! As someone else mentioned English hit Nankervis full on in the face giving him a blood nose in a ruck contest. No penalty. No MRO sanction. Yet other ruckman and particularly Max, get a free against for putting out an arm out at chest height to stop the op ruckman putting a knee in their chest. Umpires and MRO really need to be more consistent.

In comparing BB and Ryder penalties: Jonathan Brown pleaded with AFL general manager of football Brad Scott to reassess the penalties handed out in the VFL...“It’s an action in an elite competition, Scotty, fix that up. Fix that up.” afl-greats-staggered-by-pair-of-contrasting-bans J.Brown showing his ignorance as BB's action in the VFL was assessed by AFL MRO rules and is ignoring that high impact (Ryder) with concussion is judged more severely than low impact (Brown). Just look at the Tim English hit on Blakey a few weeks ago. Much worse action than Ryder but got off without even a fine. That is the question they should be asking the MRO to justify.

He doesn't understand or is deliberately ignoring the AFL's MRO classification rules and just trying to create controversy and clickbait. It was graded as deliberate, low impact, high contact. AFL rules say two weeks down to 1 for early plea. Looking at clearer vision the guy was running, against the flight of the ball, directly at BB with his left arm up readying to make contact with bb's chest, throat or jaw. BB was running with and watching the flight of the ball so his elbow/forearm looks like a reflex to the guy's extended arm but being on the run and so tall he got the guy in the head. No excuse but it it isn't as bad as the media is making.

Thank you. I actually like going to night games. My comments were primarily about attendances and gate takings of day vs night games in the current environment. I'll leave the discussion at that.

Please don't swear at me. Below 20,000 was when we were losing and playing local losing, franchise or interstate clubs. WE are no longer that club. I wasn't complaining about night games or FTA games. I said success is a catch 22: night games can benefit sponsors but cost us gate revenue if fans can't go for a variety of reasons. So not sure what your angst is about. Do you really think we will get more people (ie higher gate revenue) to the GWS game this week because it is on a Saturday night right in the middle of a long weekend in the middle of school holidays? Gate revenue is huge for us and we need crowds at our Home games.

Looks like he hit him with the elbow or the forearm, behind play when unsuspecting. I think we will accept the one week.

Thanks. Dumb caption not relevant to the story. Just confuses the whole thing. Have taken the photo still out of my post to avoid creating further confusion.

Thanks. Based on the AFL 'calculator' it looks like it was rated: Careless, Medium Impact, High Contact. If it was rated as Careless, Low Impact, High Contact it would just be a fine. If the guy just bounced up it is hard to see how it was rated 'Medium'. I would think the VFL would have to rate incidents on AFL rules, especially for AFL listed players. Edit: Just saw the report: It was classed as intentional conduct with low impact and high contact for a two-match ban which can be reduced to a one-game sanction. https://www.afl.com.au/news/740734/from-h-s-protocols-to-vfl-ban-flag-demon-s-return-on-hold-again.

Did the other guy leave the field or was concussed?

Difficult to appeal the BB suspension because if the two weeks is upheld he misses vs Tigers on ANZAC Eve. If he accepts the one week he just misses the Giants game. Still flabbergasted! Any vision floating around.

WOW. Most uncharacteristic of Ben. How did this escape the keen eyes of our DL Casey followers! Sam gets another go.

Coaches split: 5/5 Gawn 4/3 May 4/1 Viney 3/1 or 2/2 Harmes or Jordon. I like it when a player gets votes from both coaches as seems better validation of their performance.

Very slim pickings this week. From bf: ...and please be gentle Demons. Maybe I'll break out the rum instead of gin 3 new umps .... please Apart from cloning Tom Green a few times, there's probably not much we can do that would make a difference. I don't care what the game plan is I just want to see us score 100+ points. I wouldn't care if we list by 10 goals doing so. It is better than watching the rubbish they are dishing up at the moment. With Ash we recruited a line breaking half back and we have turned him into a tagging mode who doesn’t know what to with it when he gets [it}. Watching him get on the wing in a canter in space and get run down and tackled is infuriating. Looks like VFL HQ is getting ready to stitch-up Preuss again as a scapegoat to cover up, and deflect attention away from, the umpiring crime scene. ...its onwards to the MCG against the Demons. Oh dear god please stand up and make a game of it. Don't blame them for wanting 3 new umps! Each week ops supporters dread playing the Demons. Never much optimism from them. Only occasionally is there some hope, albeit futile. It feels good to be feared by them.

I know it is hypothetical but why would we 'rest' Max, our captain, when he has just played his best game for the year. He would do a big dummy spit at the thought. Max gets plenty of rest when he goes forward or back to let Jackson take the ruck. We are all about building physical resilience in players, not resting them.