Unofficial Preview Changes V Swans

[dlanod]

Looking for a preview writer for next week against the Suns! PM or post please.

 

[Nathan Barley]

On The Roar Deal both Dom and Fish saying that they would omit McKenna and keep Brain in the side if they were selecting the team for this game.

They've been questioning McKennas spot for a while like most people

 

[twhowler]

They've been questioning McKennas spot for a while like most people

He's clearly sruggling in general.

While most assume we will pick and stick with him, he had 8 possession on the weekend. The weeks before was 20,18,15. So he had been struggling with his kicking but getting enough of it. Now the past month it's a steady decline in even getting the ball.

Brain had his first full game, only managed 10 possessions but went at 100%.

I suspect the MC will keep McKenna if Starce doesn't get up, but it really would be odd to keep McKenna in over Brain. We have an element of pick and stick but there is always a breaking point. I don't think McKenna has been dropped before but this week, with all those dangerous swans smalls and mids, is the most pressing case so far.

 

[RoyBoy17]

Sharp in for Cameron. He’s been playing a half forward role really well in the reserves. Has the engine to help defensively which is important against their quick transition.

 

[MSB ROYS]

I'm not sure if there's an appropriate place to post, I want to try and get a single ticket to Sunday's game but looks to be sold out. Is there a space on BF where members sell there tickets?

They release tickets that are not used, so you should be able to get a single ticket if you keep on logging on.

 

[Elixuh]

Sharp in for Cameron. He’s been playing a half forward role really well in the reserves. Has the engine to help defensively which is important against their quick transition.

Good call

 

[Sanchez365]

I don't really see Bailey moving to that deep forward position. He doesn't really have the OH marking or the blistering pace that Cameron has IMO. Lohmann is much closer in like for like with Charlie but I suspect they will play Rayner more out of the goal square.

Our structure tends to be get Hipwood right out to the wings, turn and deliver to Dannihers on the 50 to then hit up our smaller targets or shoot from that range. I suspect we will use Rayner / Ah Chee as that more goal square forward and give Bailey much more center time this week. Infact I expect Bailey to be given the Rayner license from last week of, after the contest, push very hard forward and the wings will cover for your lack of defensive pressure. Whether Bailey can be as effective as Rayner has around that half forward line with his tackling, remains to be seen.

 

[Perrip]

Well GWS is appealing the Bedford ruling. Let's see if Lions appeal the Charlie ruling.

 

[questeds]

Well GWS is appealing the Bedford ruling. Let's see if Lions appeal the Charlie ruling.

I really think they should, just to again get it documented that they say his tackle was not the action of a reasonable player (or however they phrased it). Absolute rubbish

 

[Perrip]

Well GWS is appealing the Bedford ruling. Let's see if Lions appeal the Charlie ruling.

Let's go. We're appealing it.

 

[M Malice]

 

[mpal6]

That excessive force is something we can potentially argue against. If you want to use excess force you need to build momentum. If Cameron was pushing back on a straight line taking 4-5 steps with his body as a leverage, you can argue momentum. I can't see anyone building momentum while stepping haphazardly all over the place, with their feet barely on the ground and clinging on to someone.

 

[Perrip]

Continue to tell us you want him suspended, without telling us you want him suspended Jon. AFL should save some dough and just have Ralphy represent them in this case, he’d put in more effort then whichever QC they engage.

He's still trying to defend the tackle as if Cameron was just "unlucky".

 

[Grasshopper17]

That excessive force is something we can potentially argue against. If you want to use excess force you need to build momentum. If Cameron was pushing back on a straight line taking 4-5 steps with his body as a leverage, you can argue momentum. I can't see anyone building momentum while stepping haphazardly all over the place, with their feet barely on the ground and clinging on to someone.

We should be arguing against the tribunal's reasoning that both Duggan's arms were pinned. This is factually incorrect; his left arm was never pinned and could have been used to break his own fall.

 

[McIvor]

He's still trying to defend the tackle as if Cameron was just "unlucky".

View attachment 2050630

Is Ralph that dense that he can’t see Duggan trying to lift and twist Cameron and throw him down and where does that self entitled smug prick get off saying Charlie rammed him down. Racist campaigner.

Given how much he appears with him on TV, god I wish Jono Brown would call this VFL apologist twat out.

 

[Tom14]

Fish took a few swipes at Ralphy’s tribunal reporting on the roar deal lol.

Really doesn’t like reporting at half time of games already coming out with the number of weeks.

 

[Dalions]

Is Ralph that dense that he can’t see Duggan trying to lift and twist Cameron and throw him down and where does that self entitled smug prick get off saying Charlie rammed him down. Racist campaigner.

Given how much he appears with him on TV, god I wish Jono Brown would call this VFL apologist twat out.

He will consider himself justified considering the tribunal and his thoughts aligned.

 

[Pride of lions]

He's still trying to defend the tackle as if Cameron was just "unlucky".

View attachment 2050630

He really is the most egotistical of all the journalists. Thinks he knows it all but actually has no real understanding of the game at all. Just a mouthpiece of the AFL.

 

[Dalions]

He's still trying to defend the tackle as if Cameron was just "unlucky".

View attachment 2050630

Reads to me as though he is saying Bedford was unlucky.
Cameron got what he deserved.

 

[On the quiet]

He will consider himself justified considering the tribunal and his thoughts aligned.

could be argued with constant media reporting they are possibly influencing proceedings before they are finalised. As I posted yesterday, should be some restrictions on what footy commentators can say before at least the Monday and really until the matter is finalised. Then analyse the matter as much as you want Ralph.

 

[Clarkythelion]

I wonder where this all ends with tackling.

Clearly the AFL has a supreme court case against it for concussion and there are any number of players lining up for their cut $ which is historically fair enough. The AFL need to do anything it can to mitigate payouts and restrict the reasoning that not enough has been done, or is being done. Any concussion seems now to be classified as 'someone's' fault and I can see why the AFL would not want anything classified as, "part of the game" or a "football action" that would not bode well when compensation is being discussed - the admission no one is at fault and the game has dangerous elements is not an argument they want..

But, what will we see now? players running where they are pumping their arms hard held against their sides so the tackling player can't separate the arms from the body - at least easily. Players will be taught, when holding the ball to keep their elbows in, this will be like sitting with mum and dad at the dinner table again and eating 'properly' with the elbows in.

To me we should take a view of these ruling and see what the change of behaviour will be after the next pre-season when clubs have really had time to change and practice behaviour. Will we see the tackle be an attempt to grab at the ball carrying arm only, that could pull some shoulders out of place. Will we see the tackle become for an open handed slap at the ball carrying arm and a whole heap of arguments about hand open, hand closed and intent. Will we see players drive into a tackle trying to grab the ball holding arm and effectively trying to punch the spare arm upward and out of the way - I can see plenty of shoulders popping that way. Wrapping both arms has its benefits in protecting the shoulders but exposes the head to the whiplash type injury.

For me - let's leave the tackle alone, it's a skill, just change the rule that after any player's first concussion they must wear headgear in every game from then on in their career. That way the AFL has their defence and the players and fans have their game back where attack and defence are appreciated equally.

 

[M Malice]

I wonder where this all ends with tackling.

Clearly the AFL has a supreme court case against it for concussion and there are any number of players lining up for their cut $ which is historically fair enough. The AFL need to do anything it can to mitigate payouts and restrict the reasoning that not enough has been done, or is being done. Any concussion seems now to be classified as 'someone's' fault and I can see why the AFL would not want anything classified as, "part of the game" or a "football action" that would not bode well when compensation is being discussed - the admission no one is at fault and the game has dangerous elements is not an argument they want..

But, what will we see now? players running where they are pumping their arms hard held against their sides so the tackling player can't separate the arms from the body - at least easily. Players will be taught, when holding the ball to keep their elbows in, this will be like sitting with mum and dad at the dinner table again and eating 'properly' with the elbows in.

To me we should take a view of these ruling and see what the change of behaviour will be after the next pre-season when clubs have really had time to change and practice behaviour. Will we see the tackle be an attempt to grab at the ball carrying arm only, that could pull some shoulders out of place. Will we see the tackle become for an open handed slap at the ball carrying arm and a whole heap of arguments about hand open, hand closed and intent. Will we see players drive into a tackle trying to grab the ball holding arm and effectively trying to punch the spare arm upward and out of the way - I can see plenty of shoulders popping that way. Wrapping both arms has its benefits in protecting the shoulders but exposes the head to the whiplash type injury.

For me - let's leave the tackle alone, it's a skill, just change the rule that after any player's first concussion they must wear headgear in every game from then on in their career. That way the AFL has their defence and the players and fans have their game back where attack and defence are appreciated equally.

Like all your points except the last one, headgear does nothing to mitigate concussion, the brain still rattles around the skull if subject to impact.

It's a false peace of mind for the player.

 

[McIvor]

I wonder where this all ends with tackling.

Clearly the AFL has a supreme court case against it for concussion and there are any number of players lining up for their cut $ which is historically fair enough. The AFL need to do anything it can to mitigate payouts and restrict the reasoning that not enough has been done, or is being done. Any concussion seems now to be classified as 'someone's' fault and I can see why the AFL would not want anything classified as, "part of the game" or a "football action" that would not bode well when compensation is being discussed - the admission no one is at fault and the game has dangerous elements is not an argument they want..

But, what will we see now? players running where they are pumping their arms hard held against their sides so the tackling player can't separate the arms from the body - at least easily. Players will be taught, when holding the ball to keep their elbows in, this will be like sitting with mum and dad at the dinner table again and eating 'properly' with the elbows in.

To me we should take a view of these ruling and see what the change of behaviour will be after the next pre-season when clubs have really had time to change and practice behaviour. Will we see the tackle be an attempt to grab at the ball carrying arm only, that could pull some shoulders out of place. Will we see the tackle become for an open handed slap at the ball carrying arm and a whole heap of arguments about hand open, hand closed and intent. Will we see players drive into a tackle trying to grab the ball holding arm and effectively trying to punch the spare arm upward and out of the way - I can see plenty of shoulders popping that way. Wrapping both arms has its benefits in protecting the shoulders but exposes the head to the whiplash type injury.

For me - let's leave the tackle alone, it's a skill, just change the rule that after any player's first concussion they must wear headgear in every game from then on in their career. That way the AFL has their defence and the players and fans have their game back where attack and defence are appreciated equally.

But as I asked earlier; what purpose does it serve giving a player three matches for unintentional football acts. I mean if you only gave them one week; is a court case seriously going to turn on that. Highly unlikely.

All for intentional hits like Rankines on Starc getting four but what purpose does giving players such as Charlie and Bedford for unintentional acts (remembering Charlie’s act hasn’t factored in all of those mitigating circumstances such as know hard ground, Duggan having a history of recent concussions and his own contribution in the incident) three weeks as opposed to one. You aren’t saying we are taking it serious here’s why but acknowledging that all players know the risks and we will penalise players a week or a fine for incidents that are deemed unintentional yet shit happens unlike Moore and Maynard on Petracca / Brayshaw respectively which we won’t do anything about?

 

[MSB ROYS]

Like all your points except the last one, headgear does nothing to mitigate concussion, the brain still rattles around the skull if subject to impact.

It's a false peace of mind for the player.

Case in point the NRL players Kalyn Ponga and Luke Keary.

 

[Darren Downunder]

I wonder where this all ends with tackling.

Clearly the AFL has a supreme court case against it for concussion and there are any number of players lining up for their cut $ which is historically fair enough. The AFL need to do anything it can to mitigate payouts and restrict the reasoning that not enough has been done, or is being done. Any concussion seems now to be classified as 'someone's' fault and I can see why the AFL would not want anything classified as, "part of the game" or a "football action" that would not bode well when compensation is being discussed - the admission no one is at fault and the game has dangerous elements is not an argument they want..

But, what will we see now? players running where they are pumping their arms hard held against their sides so the tackling player can't separate the arms from the body - at least easily. Players will be taught, when holding the ball to keep their elbows in, this will be like sitting with mum and dad at the dinner table again and eating 'properly' with the elbows in.

To me we should take a view of these ruling and see what the change of behaviour will be after the next pre-season when clubs have really had time to change and practice behaviour. Will we see the tackle be an attempt to grab at the ball carrying arm only, that could pull some shoulders out of place. Will we see the tackle become for an open handed slap at the ball carrying arm and a whole heap of arguments about hand open, hand closed and intent. Will we see players drive into a tackle trying to grab the ball holding arm and effectively trying to punch the spare arm upward and out of the way - I can see plenty of shoulders popping that way. Wrapping both arms has its benefits in protecting the shoulders but exposes the head to the whiplash type injury.

For me - let's leave the tackle alone, it's a skill, just change the rule that after any player's first concussion they must wear headgear in every game from then on in their career. That way the AFL has their defence and the players and fans have their game back where attack and defence are appreciated equally.

The bolded is a really important point.

Regarding your third paragraph:
I think whatever solution they come up with cannot merely be a new set of rules or sanctions imposed from above. There needs to be consultation between coaches, players and the admin. Then a set of agreed rules and behaviours need to be set in place to avoid concussion as much as possible.

At the moment we have a kind of an arms race. The AFL brings in a rule to try to limit concussion, coaches and players try to exploit the rule to gain advantage on the field. It’s a self defeating process.

 

[M Malice]

Case in point the NRL players Kalyn Ponga and Luke Keary.

Plus Angus Brayshaw