Strategy Changes and Pre-match discussion (Freo 15/7, MCG 1.45pm)

[Kirby]

Reckon the only option to argue is the impact down to low. Which will be a pretty tough one to get over the line.

But it was low imho

 

[sideswipe]

But it was low imho

I tend to agree but under these (inconsistently applied) guidelines, potential impact gets in(sometimes). But yes, that’s what they’ll be trying on.

Btw, can it be humble if one is self-describing?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[stormskye]

Omeara got a week for a fairly similar tackle

 

[Kirby]

I tend to agree but under these (inconsistently applied) guidelines, potential impact gets in(sometimes). But yes, that’s what they’ll be trying on.

Btw, can it be humble if one is self-describing?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I will admit I wasn't being humble at all anyway.

I just thought it made me sound like a reasonable bloke but instead it made me look weak, so I regret it now.

 

[sr36]

Arguing the impact doesn't meet the classifiable threshold at all(rather than meeting low/medium) is their only go. Impact is where the classifiable piece lies.

Can't argue against careless. If it happened, how can the action be characterised if it isn't careless or intentional?

To be deemed careless, surely it has to actually be deemed careless and not just not intentional. Surely it has to be deemed lacking in care. Not all high contact gets done. eg. Elliott accidentally struck someone in the face giving them a bloody mouth in that missed free against Adelaide. Pretty clearly high contact and low impact, but he wasn't cited and I doubt anyone would want him to be. It has to be reportable. It's not clear in the guidelines what actually makes it reportable. My guess is that it probably comes down to whether or not it was careless. Eg. Was the accident due to a lack of care?

Argue that he was trying to pull the player on top of himself, which it initially looked like and which isn't dangerous. Thus an accident whilst some care was being taken, eg. not careless.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Frampton was played forward this nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Very Nihilistic of you to say so.

 

[Bianconeri]

Yeah true. We'd have 7 defenders, plus Crisp in the Nick role. It probably depends on whether you want the dash of Markov or one of the mids chopping out on the wing as the other half of their role, as to where the surplus is. I'd go with Markov.

I’m happy to keep Markov in the side and rotate the mids as the sub for a while to keep them fresh but when it comes to games like Port and the finals I’d take all of our kids starting over Markov.

 

[sideswipe]

To be deemed careless, surely it has to actually be deemed careless and not just not intentional. Surely it has to be deemed lacking in care. Not all high contact gets done. eg. Elliott accidentally struck someone in the face giving them a bloody mouth in that missed free against Adelaide. Pretty clearly high contact and low impact, but he wasn't cited and I doubt anyone would want him to be. It has to be reportable. It's not clear in the guidelines what actually makes it reportable. My guess is that it probably comes down to whether or not it was careless. Eg. Was the accident due to a lack of care?

Argue that he was trying to pull the player on top of himself, which it initially looked like and which isn't dangerous. Thus an accident whilst some care was being taken, eg. not careless.

You might be getting yourself tied up in knots. The first question is whether the offence was a dangerous tackle? If so they then go through the matrix, one of which is whether the conduct was careless OR intentional. That part is binary.

 

[Scodog10]

Mammamia.

I meant under the guidelines, due to factoring in potential, it's high and medium impact and very hard to dispute. To get it overturned, their best bet is to take on the careless aspect, as that isn't clear cut in terms of how the guidelines are written or applied.

They aren’t winning at the tribunal if that’s the basis of the defense, IMO. Arm pinned no need to take him to ground that’s a “careless” tackle in the eyes of the judiciary. Taking the charge from medium to low is their only chance and even then it’s minuscule because the potential to cause damage is being applied and when they apply that they’ve been extremely consistent on medium. If players are going to persist with taking their opponent to ground they need to start implementing the hip drop tackle until it’s outlawed as well.

 

[sr36]

You might be getting yourself tied up in knots. The first question is whether the offence was a dangerous tackle? If so they then go through the matrix, one of which is whether the conduct was careless OR intentional. That part is binary.

I'm not convinced that part is binary. It certainly isn't in the real world. You can't call something careless just because it wasn't intentional, surely there's got to be a judgement that insufficient care was taken for it to be deemed careless. So if you can successfully argue that some care was taken, surely it doesn't meet the careless classification.

In the past, not all dangerous tackle frees were reports, is that still the case, or is it automatic unless umpire error in terms of the free?

 

[sideswipe]

I'm not convinced that part is binary. You can't call something careless just because it wasn't intentional, surely there's got to be a judgement that insufficient care was taken for it to be deemed careless. So if you can successfully argue that some care was taken, surely it doesn't meet the careless classification.

My last go at getting out of your knot. The question on a dangerous tackle is whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances. That might be where you can focus your attention. Once we get to a classifiable offence, the intentional/careless question is defined in the guidelines as an either/or.

 

[Big Bryza]

I’m happy to keep Markov in the side and rotate the mids as the sub for a while to keep them fresh but when it comes to games like Port and the finals I’d take all of our kids starting over Markov.

Our weapon is speed off half back from the likes of JFN, IQ, Crispy and now Leggy.

Markov going nowhere.

 

[neilk]

I'm not convinced that part is binary. It certainly isn't in the real world. You can't call something careless just because it wasn't intentional, surely there's got to be a judgement that insufficient care was taken for it to be deemed careless. So if you can successfully argue that some care was taken, surely it doesn't meet the careless classification.

In the past, not all dangerous tackle frees were reports, is that still the case, or is it automatic unless umpire error in terms of the free?

Maybe it was carefree?
The only argument would be that the tacklee took himself to ground bringing the tackler with him.

 

[Bianconeri]

Our weapon is speed off half back from the likes of JFN, IQ, Crispy and now Leggy.

Markov going nowhere.

Who does Maynard come in for then?

 

[sr36]

My last go at getting out of your knot. The question on a dangerous tackle is whether it was unreasonable in the circumstances. That might be where you can focus your attention. Once we get to a classifiable offence, the intentional/careless question is defined in the guidelines as an either/or.

Surely it's not classifiable if it doesn't meet all three classes? The matrix can't deal with it. Eg, jumper punch has insufficient impact thus making it not classifiable, as would it not being deemed careless. Isn't that why Rioli controversially got off at the tribunal last year - the tribunal deemed it an appropriate attack on the footy - and thus not a careless action.

 

[sideswipe]

Surely it's not classifiable if it doesn't meet all three classes? The matrix can't deal with it. Eg, jumper punch has insufficient impact thus making it not classifiable, as would it not being deemed careless. Isn't that why Rioli controversially got off at the tribunal last year - the tribunal deemed it an appropriate attack on the footy - and thus not a careless action.

Go read 4.3(E)3. I'm done.

 

[doofdoof]

In: Steele, McStay, Bruzzy
Out: Bianco, WHE, Adams (sub) and ...... a tall. Take your pick from Frampton, AJ, Cameron, Cox

I'm in the McStay is crucial for structure camp, especially after watching Kingy break down our forward line over the weekend

maybe Steele is sub on return, but that is just kicking a difficult selection decision down the road.

 

[Scodog10]

Surely it's not classifiable if it doesn't meet all three classes? The matrix can't deal with it. Eg, jumper punch has insufficient impact thus making it not classifiable, as would it not being deemed careless. Isn't that why Rioli controversially got off at the tribunal last year - the tribunal deemed it an appropriate attack on the footy - and thus not a careless action.

Same with Stewart v Fox. Let me ask you this did Serong need to take Cerra to ground to complete the tackle? Basically did he have an alternative? It was that decision that triggered the careless grading because in 2023 taking the player to ground in a tackle = choosing to bump…

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

In: Steele, McStay, Bruzzy
Out: Bianco, WHE, Adams (sub) and ...... a tall. Take your pick from Frampton, AJ, Cameron, Cox

I'm in the McStay is crucial for structure camp, especially after watching Kingy break down our forward line over the weekend

maybe Steele is sub on return, but that is just kicking a difficult selection decision down the road.

Maybe Cameron is a tall out if he left training early today?

I'm putting it out there that Fin might get a call up for Adams, who also missed training today. Not unusual apparently for him to miss the first session and he did get engaged on the weekend () but Fin probably needs a senior game sooner rather than later to show us whether his form translates into AFL standard.

 

[Finnishpie]

Maybe Cameron is a tall out if he left training early today?

I'm putting it out there that Fin might get a call up for Adams, who also missed training today. Not unusual apparently for him to miss the first session and he did get engaged on the weekend () but Fin probably needs a senior game sooner rather than later to show us whether his form translates into AFL standard.

Yeah, it's hard to tell with early leavers from training.

In some ways it's almost like we have an entire group of role-players who are under threat of being replaced:

Bianco, Markov, Cox, Johnson, Frampton all would be right on the fringe depending on other's injuries.

And then anyone who is battling a niggle; we've seen McReery, Maynard, Elliot, others taking weeks.

 

[sr36]

Go read 4.3(E)3. I'm done.

I understand why its considered a reportable offence covered in that point. I'm just not convinced that careless and intentional is binary. It would be a very careless use of the word "careless." Basically, I don't think it's careless word choice, I think it's an intentional word choice so blokes aren't pinged for non-careless accidental strikes that are high and have enough impact that would warrant a report if they were deemed careless. Eg Bruzzy got done last year because it was a careless round arm, but a conventional fist that accidentally makes head contact won't get done. And the finding re Bruzzy and many other reports referenced the careless nature of his spoil.

And thus I think you can argue that something wasn't careless. Probably wouldn't succeed in this case, but more chance than trying to change impact.

Same with Stewart v Fox. Let me ask you this did Serong need to take Cerra to ground to complete the tackle? Basically did he have an alternative? It was that decision that triggered the careless grading because in 2023 taking the player to ground in a tackle = choosing to bump…

I'm all for the move. But in this transition phase, players have already started to go limp to increase the sling and draw a dangerous tackle free. There's about 15 a game which run the risk in terms of the tacklers action and it's just luck about how the bloke being tackled responds. Like Kirby referenced I'm hoping they ease up going into finals like they usually do and then bring it back next season with a full preseason to prepare blokes to tackle differently

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Yeah, it's hard to tell with early leavers from training.

In some ways it's almost like we have an entire group of role-players who are under threat of being replaced:

Bianco, Markov, Cox, Johnson, Frampton all would be right on the fringe depending on other's injuries.

And then anyone who is battling a niggle; we've seen McReery, Maynard, Elliot, others taking weeks.

It's a great position to be in isn't it.. having so many players to choose from who can step up and in to replace anyone.. perhaps even providing the luxury for players who have had niggles to get that extra week or 2 to recover, as opposed to rushing them back in.

And still banking the wins.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

In: Steele, McStay, Bruzzy
Out: Bianco, WHE, Adams (sub) and ...... a tall. Take your pick from Frampton, AJ, Cameron, Cox

maybe Steele is sub on return, but that is just kicking a difficult selection decision down the road.

If we end up in the position of being able to rotate mids and small forwards through the sub bench ( adams mitchell mccreery sidebottom hill markov whe….probably forgotten one or two ) that will give us enormous weaponry in September to have such talent ready to run out on the ground when the match needs to be won.

 

[sideswipe]

I understand why its considered a reportable offence covered in that point. I'm just not convinced that careless and intentional is binary. It would be a very careless use of the word "careless." Basically, I don't think it's careless word choice, I think it's an intentional word choice so blokes aren't pinged for non-careless accidental strikes that are high and have enough impact that would warrant a report if they were deemed careless. Eg Bruzzy got done last year because it was a careless round arm, but a conventional fist that accidentally makes head contact won't get done. And the finding re Bruzzy referenced the careless nature of his spoil.

And thus I think you can argue that something wasn't careless. Probably wouldn't succeed in this case, but more chance than trying to change impact.


I'm all for the move. But in this transition phase, players have already started to go limp to increase the sling and draw a dangerous tackle free. There's about 15 a game which run the risk in terms of the tacklers action and it's just luck about how the bloke being tackled responds. Like Kirby referenced I'm hoping they ease up going into finals like they usually do and then bring it back next season with a full preseason to prepare.

Tiresome. Once it is assessed as a classifiable offence, the conduct can only be assessed as “careless or intentional”.

This is inarguable. Read the guideline? It’s written that way.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Kappa]

It’s just a thought Kap. No need to get your knickers in a twist.

It's a bad call Jmac, a short term call, a lacking vision call. I expect better from you.