rumpole

Once the AFL and the club sort out the salary cap repercussions of Angus’ forced retirement, the list place vacated can be filled in the mid season draft (if the club wants to pick someone). The more interesting question is what happens in the case of the player currently under suspension pending completion of the investigation into the charges alleged against him? What happens in the event of a player found guilty and suspended for a period beyond the end of his contract? Can the contract be terminated? What happens with his list place? Note: these are hypothetical questions and are not related to a particular case.

Strange night for adjudication. The official free kick count was 30 to 20 in Collingwood’s favour for a total of 50 free kicks on the night. I recall quite a few holding the ball decisions being paid that were of a kind let go in last weekend’s Hawthorn v Melbourne game so I checked the stats from that game (20 - 17). That’s 26% less and I’m wondering if the AFL has issued a directive to the umpires about enforcing the holding the ball rule this week? I guess we’ll see as the round unfolds.

6. Christian Petracca 5. Bayley Fritsch 4. Alex Neal-Bullen 3. Christian Salem 2. Max Gawn 1. Kozzy Pickett

This one intrigues me - the name conjures up the legendary street fighting kickboxer from the movies. Jean-Claude is a gun!

What I find ridiculous, if not actually corrupt, is the gifting of two end of first round draft picks in 2024 which are ostensibly subject to review but which are apparently “tradeable” in 2023. If North trades these picks then they can be bundled together to provide sufficient points to enable a trade to be concluded for pick #4 giving them the ability to draft a Ryley Sanders. Meanwhile, once the picks have been traded and used in 2023, how can they be reviewed in 2024? No wonder the clubs smell a rat.

In hindsight, the Grundy trade might not have turned out to be a great idea after all … 54bcfb77-4f38-465f-8131-732cfd7e24ae.mov

Surely the true irony is that in the case of Petracca in Round 22 the goal umpire’s decision that he thought it was touched stood because the vision was not definitive while in the ANB case the goal was overruled even though the vision was again not definitive?

So if one of those three shots at goal that hit the post went through the goals, it would have been Carlton that’s fragile. We lost to Collingwood, one of the premiership favourites, by 7 points and beat them the time before that in mid season. We also beat Brisbane, the other favourite. That doesn’t suggest fragility to me. The only thing that’s fragile is the unhinged arguments put forward by this [censored].

The problem the AFL has with gifting Sanders to North Melbourne as an NGA is that they have to tamper with two of the rules applicable to NGAs. They have to include Sanders into the system which involves development and training with the club over a number of years, not a few weeks as would be the case here. Then they would have to give North the added advantage of the right to match a bid for him inside the top 40 selections. This sort of compromising of the draft system would be seen by many observers as a bridge too far if not outrightly corrupt.

Ask Port Adelaide fans what they think of the same umpire’s handling of their recent games vs Carlton.

The Herald Sun article about Goody’s contract extension was written by a real journalist called Glenn McFarlane.

I think one of those three would have to move on in 2024. Sadly, it might be Ben Brown whose body seems to no longer be able to come up from week to week. Perhaps a playing role at Casey as part of their list and mentoring our young forwards.

Appointed to the Gold Coast post today.

I’ve heard that Clarry completed the club’s main training session today and worked freely. He’ll be back to take on the Blues on Saturday night!!!

I would have rested Grundy this week by selecting him and then having him as a late withdrawal to retain the element of surprise. That is assuming we’re not breaking any AFL rules by pulling a swifty.