Diamond_Jim

No one up forward excelled at VFL level. Please don't tell me they'll try Joel Smith forward given he was the best of a middling lot

nvm

I think you have unearthed the agenda The AFL stance is not just about preventing concussion but being objectively seen to have in place a system that minimises concussion. The follow up question is where to from here

that is the grounds of appeal... Is it worth arguing in the sense the clubs are part of the system that is taking the game this way

all down to the 0.8 seconds where the eyes were off the ball. This gives them the precedent to suspend JVR while still maintaining that the spoil is allowed. It is what it is............. In his evidence, which was impressive for its candour, he said that he looked up and watched the ball as he ran to the contest. A few steps before arriving at the contest he took his eyes off the ball and look at, or in the immediate direction of Ballard, who was shaping to mark the ball. "We are not critical of van Rooyen for doing this; it was reasonable for him to look at Ballard and the drop of the ball and assess the situation. We find his objective at the moment of, and prior to impact, was to spoil the mark. However we also find that a reasonable player would have foreseen that in spoiling the way he did, it would have almost inevitably resulted in a forceful blow to Ballard's head.

so the spoil is legal unless you allegedly take your eyes off the ball for 0.8 of a second As Mr Bumble said.. the law is an [censored] (how does a reference to a donkey that is one of the most famous Dickensian quotations ended up censored.)

AFL: Do you accept that in the last five metres you're only looking at Ballard? Van Rooyen: Not specifically at Ballard, but where the drop zone of the ball was ... I did know where it was going to land from my tracking. Here's looking at you babe !!!

Line of the night by the blog writer ... Jacob van Rooyen is not asked if his name is Jacob van Rooyen. Bugger.

Close loses......one week

David Neitz on the jury for Close I suspect he won't be on the JVR jury

it does sound counter intuitive but there is logic. Traditionally teams have packed our forward line and used it to slingshot forward. We stopped that by playing a backstop backman. Collingwood and others then perfected the swarm forward which overwhelmed the backstop. This is a tactic but if it becomes a habit like the bomb to the forward pocket we become too predictable. Must say when watching the continued loss of centre clearances is depressing. I'll start to watch the ensuing possessions more closely

in about four weeks after two or three games at Casey that is how I would play him for a couple of weeks. Offers a chance to give reduced duties to Hibberd or another smaller backman in the run home. You could use the same approach with Joel Smith and Lever

and then we'll probably rest him 😅

Like the DRS in cricket the review in AFL was originally introduced to protect from the "howling errors" occasionally made by umpires. Now we've taken it to the n'th degree with lousy technology Using a review to determine if it has hit the padding on the behind post when a boundary umpire is standing next to the behind post as occurred on one game over the weekend has to be the most ridiculous thing ever.

agree with the touch post= goal etc .. if it goes through Too much time wasted on review... If snicko uses an immediate light alarm I would re-consider Touched by players should be umpires call and favour the scoring team if in doubt

Agree. If not for some free kicks his day at Casey would have been sub par. Once again though delivery was terrible Not sure that Joel Smith is the answer. He's an opportunistic high flyer not a strong bodied bring to ground type forward

Woey okay but could have done better Not our worst I recall Stretch and JKH. Often excelled at VFL level but couldn't crack the big time. Woey is not at the VFL level that JKH and Stretch reached but it's only his second year

we're the Pies in reverse it would seem This has been a terrible display

following the dees can be stressful

well well

our boundary line game means we are easier to squeeze. Needs some centre corridor play to break up the pattern. At least with Hunter we should not be falling into the trap of always playing the Langdon wing

a minor train wreck Could have won if we kicked straight but the forward set up was dysfunctional. As usual too much forward pocket delivery. Attacking players not willing to cut back to the centre hot spot 35 out. Forwards rarely on the lead Laurie and Spargo had decent games

starting to lose count of the inside 50 marks by the Suns Joel Smith might be better down back

a forward 50 mark would be useful

suns starting to dominate...... need to take some risks up the middle forward line for casey is woeful