Lucifers Hero

Pure speculation on my part but I can see different elements to our game plan being applied when we play thru the wings:. fast, attacking play (ala Tigers/Bulldogs) thru Langdon 'controlled' football (ala Geelong/WCE) thru Brayshaw. But as I said earlier it requires good positioning/structures and players to be well versed in each style. These make us less predictable to the opp but more predictable to team mates. And we have more of a chance to to control the tempo of games which we haven't been good at in the past. But as I said pure guess work on my part,

Last year Brayshaw played between the arcs for a large part of games.. He was the 'go-to' player in transition. So if he plays on the wing I'm guessing his role will be as a link-up player controlling one side of the ground rather the Langdon type wing who is more a run-and-carry player because of his speed. The structures and players will need to be well set up to help them play those roles to optimise our ball movement out of defence. Despite not being 'fast', Brayshaw has very good footy IQ, has good vision and regardless of what some on here say is a good user of the ball. If my hunch is right about how his wing role might evolve then it could be good move.

Latest Injury List: Some serious outs for the Saints. They get Max King back but he is lacking match practice and would be having nightmares playing against May again. If any of our Hibberd, Viney or Melksham return they will at least have some match practice. Injuries will be no excuse for us should we lose this weekend as they are worse off than us. Petracca and May won us the game last time we played them. We need an all team effort this week. We must bank these early wins against wounded opponents. Edit: Just saw the news re Harmes' wrist. Fortunately, I think we have plenty of coverage for him and his role. If Viney is ready it is an easy swap this or next week.

The AFLW Tribunal has shown it is a pushover on appeal for favoured players. In the first round Ebony Marinoff, the Crows gun midfielder (and touted for the AFLW best player award) had her 3 game suspension overturned - no case to answer. The Tribunal must apply the 'potential to do damage' rule. No way Bowers should get off. AFL must appeal as they did in the Houli case. If it was a lesser name player they would have tougher treatment than Marinoff and Bowers.

I get that a broken nose might bring a classification of 'high' level impact. The kid was knocked out cold before he hit the ground and after some time carried off on a stretcher. That sounds like 'severe' level impact to me. Or did everyone conveniently ignore the concussion and just focus on the broken nose. I qualify my comments by saying I'm not sure we are getting enough info on what is said on the AFL feed.

Based on the AFL news feed their lawyer, Gleeson, doesn't seem to have put up much of a case to prosecute the charge. Is it too cynical to 'smell a rat', so to speak?

I saw no element of concern or care for Kelly in anything Sloane or Ricciuto said. They could have simply said - it is up to the Tribunal - our focus is on Jake's welfare and recovery. Or just: 'no comment'.

Sloane, another Dangerfield great mate but also Kelly's captain is saying Kelly "... ran into a guy with a rock-hard melon. I've ran into that bloke, Danger, a couple of times and you certainly do come off second best normally." I wouldn't be too happy if my captain said it was my fault after the injuries I sustained. It is salt into the wound after Ricutto yesterday said it was 'bad luck'. Isn't Kelly's father Craig Kelly, a senior AFL Player Manager. I wounder if we will hear from him. tbh I find it quite unsavoury that Ricutto and Sloane are batting for a mate rather than one of their own kids. imv if they can't support Kelly they should keep quiet and stay out of it.

Anyone else think it is very poor for Adelaide Crows Director (and good mate of Dangerfield) Mark Ricutto to come out and support Danger over the welfare of one of his own very young players. What message is that sending to his club and parents of current and future players. "Adelaide legend Mark Ricciuto believes Geelong star Patrick Dangerfield shouldn’t be suspended for longer than one game for an incident of “bad luck” with Crows defender Jake Kelly" -mark-ricciuto-comments-how-many-weeks-tribunal-hearing-jake-kelly

Melbourne v Fremantle 10 Steven May (MELB) 7 Clayton Oliver (MELB) 7 Jake Lever (MELB) 4 Tom McDonald (MELB) 2 Andrew Brayshaw (FRE) Goodwin/Longmuir split: 5/5 May 4/3 Lever/Oliver 3/4 Lever/Oliver 2/2 TMac 1/1 Andrew Brayshaw Very even voting by the coaches. Really pleased for Tommy - Great recognition having have been below his best in recent times. Edit: to change the post from votes for Angus to Andrew Brayshaw.

So in summary: Had 10 steps to assess options (2 - 3 seconds) Chose not to tackle Chose not to smother Chose to bump Picked up speed to reach Kelly Contact was late No evidence of self-defence It is a compelling case to find him guilty. There is no evidence to get him off - except for the AFL's 'secret herbs and spices.

That is condemning vision - hadn't seen that in mainstream media. He lined him up from a fair way out, picked up speed as he got closer then lunged at Kelly, deliberately!. He clearly had the option to tackle. Chose not to. So much for his defence of split second decision making. He had plenty of time (10 steps) to assess the options. Kelly was following his line and at no time deviated toward Danger nor used his body in any sort of attacking or blocking motion. Can't see any evidence of the need for self defence.

Thanks. From the Age article it seems Danger is relying on the self-defence exception to get off.

Thanks. I was thinking current AFL players. The Bullants team is very depleted after Carlton pulled the pin on them last year. It makes a bit of a mockery of the AFL when some clubs are AFL affiliates and some aren't eg Bullants and Frankston. While not affiliated Port seem to hold their own.

Definitely much harder. The team that wants him has to find 2 frist round picks and it would have to be around 5-6 and the other in the low teens. Not many clubs will have that draft hand. Unless of course they do what WCE did with Kelly and hand over a batch of late 1st round picks and 2nd round picks (current and future). Hell would break lose on here if that happened.

Out of interest, did the Bullants have any AFL listed players on Saturday? When covid hit Carlton cut times with them and are now fielding their own VFL team simply named 'Carlton'. No AFL players at the Bullants would explain the very lop-sided game.

Can the Tribunal reduce a mandatory 3 week penalty? Or is it 3 weeks (or more) if 'Appeal' is dismissed and if the 'Appeal' is upheld he gets zero weeks? ie All or nothing? Would be interested if anyone knows the Tribunal's powers in this regard.

What happened to the AFL rule that coaches and players are prohibited from public comment on MRP decisions. I'm sure the AFL love the 'click bait' but he shouldn't be allowed to do this. He is even saying previous cases should be ignored. He knows he is in strife. That he is (player) President of the AFLPA makes it even more important that he is not seen to be 'above the law' so should get the mandatory 3 weeks that goes with direct referral to the Tribunal.

I agree he left the ground and simultaneously clearly lunged toward Kelly well after he had disposed of the ball and who had stopped moving.forward so there was no need to bump into him at all. And it wasn't 'self-protection' as he is claiming.

Of course he will. Since FA was introduced very few top players have signed beyond their FA (8th) year. And then only for mega deals. He will get paid handsomely for the next two years. Then he can go to the club of choice and get a big payday, if that is what he wants. Unless a player is really unhappy all managers will advise them to contract until their 8th year.

And the difference in those two is...?

In the SEN interview, Pert said: “He’s not indicating that he wants to see how he’s playing or the team is performing, it’s more about that we’re having conversation (on a range of things) and there might be some talk around the financial packaging....we move on all these things as quickly as the player and manager wants. Ideally it never becomes a distraction throughout the year.” My take on this is that negotiations are some way down the track. No need for the dispondancy.

Very strange thread. Who cares what he earns. The only thing that matters is that he stays a demon, preferably long term..

All the more reason Danger should have the book thrown at him. ANB got 4 weeks in a 17 week season.

Its time the AFL made an example of a 'name' player like Danger and not just the ANB's of the world. In both cases the concussion occurred when the player's head hit the ground, after the infringement. In both cases the optics were very bad. In both cases the infringement was sent directly to the Tribunal. ANB got 4 weeks. Appeal rejected. Commentators said at the time that if ANB was 'name' player he wouldn't get the same treatment. Concussion is taken far more seriously now than as it should be. Time for the AFL to set down the law.