Lucifers Hero

We won't get the finals: The Vic Premier has said 'snap lockdowns are the new normal'. I have a lose loose plan for WA if we make top 4: Drive to SA when that border is open to Victorians, tour around for a bit. Then put the car and travellers on the Indian Express to Perth (or a convoy of cars across The Nullabor) while SA/WA border is open. Tour around WA, returning to Perth for our finals games. Assuming snap lockdowns give a window to get to SA the plan should work... As an aside, all finals could be held in WA as they have both Optus and Subiaco ovals available, if Subiaco is still of a standard.

I don't mind it being wet. Eagles play a kick/mark/control game so need to be accurate by foot. It will be a heavier ball, harder for their players to quickly get to positions and us scrambling to intercept and bring the ball to ground. Of late, Eagles players don't seem to want to get down and dirty; figuratively and physically.. Bring the pressure and they will fold, especially without Shuey in the middle to harass us. Let it pour!!

The Carlton figure has to be a furphy!

The Age has written: Patrick Dangerfield said Viney’s suspension was “probably about right” but admitted it reflected poorly on the game. “I’m sure Jack would admit this – it’s not something we want to see in our game. It’s certainly something that we want to stamp out,” Dangerfield said on SEN. “It’s an ugly look, there’s no doubt about it. Jack plays on the edge, he’s an aggressive player, but I also believe him to be a fair player as well. I don’t think we should hang him out to dry. “He’s copped his whack, he’ll no doubt be disappointed and we all move on and learn from it as a code and individually, and we get better from it.” I dislike Danger intensely but I don't have much of a problem with his comments in this instance. Jack did say at the Tribunal that it wasn't a good look for the game so no problem with that part of Dangers' comment. Yes, he said 2 weeks was about right and we would all disagree. But, I like what seems to be genuine praise for Jack, which I have bolded. Hopefully, that quietens the idiots saying it should be 3 or 4 weeks.

It would be disappointing if Harmes has not accepted his role especially as so many others have accepted changes. The most obvious example is Gus. Not only has he accepted the wing role he has embraced it and is a real asset to the team. Viney is spending time fwd, Oliver is playing a bit more outside etc. The irony is that all those role tweaks/changes enable Harmes to spend more time in the middle. Harmes came as a life long dees fan, a rookie, made a real go of it and earnt a long term contract. It would be sad for him to go. He still has a few years to go on his contract so I guess it is his choice to play the team game or to move on.

I'm a cryptic fan... but more clues please

I didn't claim the vaccine stops someone getting infected nor did I imply such. I said: "A reminder that no-one is 'safe'. And no vaccine is fool proof. Not that anyone claims they are... it encourages people to go and get any approved vaccine. It is the only protection there is. So I'm not sure why you have taken issue/quoted my post. Perhaps you assumed that by 'protection' I meant 'prevention'. In the context of 'no vaccine is fool proof' I'm not sure that would be a valid assumption, if that is what your post was about. There is a lot of terminology thrown around and used somewhat interchangeably by some spokespeople and the media when talking about vaccine benefit which is usually expressed as a %: % efficacy, % effectiveness, % prevention, % protection. I'm not going into the definitions nor the semantics. All I know is it is best to be vaccinated and that is what my post was about. I recognise that when fully vaccinated I can still get infected, become ill and pass it on. However if (in your words) I 'might not test positive or show symptoms', then I am ecstatic as it will be like never having got it. I may not be that lucky but at least the vaccine improves my chances in that regard. Whether that state is described as vaccine 'efficacy', 'effectiveness', 'protection', 'prevention' or something else I'll leave it to you and others to debate.

Two questions are begging: Did anyone on the demons side ask to see the wording before the hearing? Why didn't Anderson clarify Gleeson's wording at the beginning of the hearing, when Gleason described the charge? Or at least point out to the Chairman that the demons had a different understanding of the wording before Jack put in a guilty plea. The wording confusion would explain some odd comments attributed to Gleeson of Jack's testimony that imv, did not work in Jack's favour.

I have provided more than enough info to support that Anderson didn't know, didn't understand or didn't check the details of the charge which Gleeson read out at the start of the hearing. You want to keep refuting everything I present and keep saying I'm wrong great. Go for it. I'm out

Ok, suggested. Even suggesting Viney's evidence is 'nonsense' makes it difficult for the Tribunal to take Viney's word as was proposed in the post I was responding to From AFL report: 2 hours ago SERIOUS MISCONDUCT AFL counsel Jeff Gleeson describes Viney's offence as the pinning of the opponent to the ground and pressing and holding his elbow into the neck/throat region for a prolonged period of about five seconds with force. Whichever way people spin it, Anderson should have checked if his interpretation re the jaw was correct before Viney put in a plea not at the time the penalty was to be decided.

I believe, the specific charge was outlined at the beginning of the hearing.

Hard to do when Gleeson told the Tribunal to treat Viney's evidence as 'nonsense'. Based on the AFL website, Gleeson is almost saying Viney is lying: On Viney's evidence that contact was to the jaw, he says: "You'll have no difficulty rejecting that submission when you look at the evidence ... he's given evidence that is flatly inconsistent with what he knew he did." Bit of a stretch by a leagle eagle.

Not the point I was making. legal counsel would surely know before his client pleads guilty or otherwise what the charge actually is. My point was how could our legal counsel let the hearing get all the way to the penalty stage without knowing what Jack pleaded guilty to. What did Anderson think 'serious misconduct' meant a light touch to the jaw! If so it would never have got to the Tribunal.

Can't believe Anderson had him plead guilty to a 'serious misconduct' charge without knowing/checking the nature of the conduct. It was clear at the start of the hearing it was about elbow contact and force to the throat and neck region. He gets to the point of penalty the penny drops the charge is more serious than he thought, withdraws the guilty plea and tries to renegotiate the charge down to contact to the jaw. Amateur hour by Anderson.

At least Jack recognises he was out of line. Did he apologise before or after the MRO charge? If before, all kudos to Jack and it will surely help his cause. If after, too little too late, it smacks of insincerity and a ploy for the Tribunal hearing. That may not go down so well.

That is what I mean - they invoke it when it suits them. The difference is those others were classified as 'careless' (well disguised by Buddy, Selwood etc) as they were in play, sort of and luck was going there way on the day. See my prior post - I think it is too late for a fine. It is thrown out or he gets week(s).

Not sure why Viney was in such a huff. Yes he should have received a free because Collins 'took his legs out'. Frees are missed a dozen times a game. Over reaction by our VC. As I understand the 'straight to Tribunal rules' he gets weeks or it is thrown out. Fines don't come into it do they?

Unfortunately, they will invoke the 'potential to cause injury'' rule that they pull out whenever they want a certain outcome. Difficult to argue against as it is impossible to prove what didn't and may never happen. They don't use logic ie they don't use 'probability'.

Collingwood.

Which video do you see? Collins looked lifeless to me for the 5 seconds Viney had him pinned down by the neck.

It seems so. Charged with 'serious misconduct'. iirc being sent straight to the Tribunal means a suspension - just a matter of how many weeks. Of course the club can appeal any suspension. It looked unprompted. Jack had his elbow pushed into the kids neck for about 5 seconds. And it was off the ball. Will be lucky to play Monday night.

Wonderful! You have made my day!

Thanks. I understand the club's predicament and the need to wait for gov't announcements. I just didn't share the excitement today and felt I needed to explain why. Re the AAMI park extension. Do you know if it will bring our football and admin staff together rather than be split between AFMI and MCG and if the new facilities will be connected in some way to Gosch so that they don't have to lug gear back and forth? I ask as past announcements by the Board have included these as deliverables.. I just hope that our goals aren't being watered down.

Coaches split: 5 and 4 Petracca/Oliver 3 and 3 Gawn 2 and 1 Jackson/Lever Very consistent voting by the two coahces this week. Oliver on 101 has a handy lead over Bontempelli who is on 94. Nice to see Jackson among the votes from both coaches. His performance justifies the confidence Goodwin showed in him in his previous press conf.

This is the only article I could find on mfc website gosch-s-paddock-to-undergo-redevelopment It talks only to the ground itself not to any other aspects of our Long Term Home for all staff and comparable training facilities. I'm getting very repetitive so will stop posting on this.