Unofficial Preview Changes V Swans

[dlanod]

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

 

[On the quiet]

Charlie is screwed unfortunately.The trial by Melb media has concluded ,we are only awaiting sentence.

i dislike the involvement of the media and their reporting of incidents and whether the player should be reported etc prior to the MRO.

 

[On the quiet]

Any of them making 800,000 a year for 9 months work? They don’t have to do it- that’s what I’m saying, they have a choice. Part of them making that choice is knowing there is a risk involved isn’t it. Concussion cannot equal suspention.

there are a lot of AFL quality players not on $800k, even with the new EB.

I do agree with your premise, the outcome of what appears to be a technically correct, 'ball and all' front on tackle, that unfortunately has resulted in a concussion, should not mean there is an assumed suspension. Even though there is a greater duty of care now on players performing the tackle.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

there are a lot of AFL quality players not on $800k, even with the new EB.

I do agree with your premise, the outcome of what appears to be a technically correct, 'ball and all' front on tackle, that unfortunately has resulted in a concussion, should not mean there is an assumed suspension. Even though there is a greater duty of care now on players performing the tackle.

Let’s lower it to the minuscule amount of half a million then- anyway besides the point. This shit about stamping out concussion is delusional, it going to happen sometimes, I am sure the players are accepting of this. Is suspending him going to stop the next accident is it? What could Charlie do? Let go of the ball?, let him have it. Maybe Duggan should get suspended for contributing to the concussion on himself? He was responsible just as much as Charlie. Even more annoying is these toss pot journalists like Jon Ralph who would have been too soft to make his local RSL lawn bowls team trying to turn it into something it’s not to get him rubbed out.

 

[Requiem]

I think it depends what we want our defence and transition out of defence to look like as they’re both very different players. I know McKenna has been in terrible form but removing him might make us look too one trick leaving zorks and motty to do a lot of heavy lifting.

I think we have seen with Fages a willingness to stick with guys through form slumps especially if it’s important structurally to how we want to play.

Good point, thinking back to earlier in the season we certainly lacked speed coming out of the defensive 50 once Coleman went down. I think we'd struggle heavily to create quality offensive opportunities against a well drilled unit like Sydney without enough pace off the halfback.

 

[Perrip]

3 week ban for Charlie from the MRO confirmed. Oof.

 

[Squizz89]

3 games is a joke. But when they decided it was going to be a suspension it was always going to be at least that. Was only ever being 0 or 3.

 

[Nathan Barley]

What absolute nonsense. Watch his legs. Where is the force coming from to drive his opponent into the ground?

 

[Elixuh]

3 week ban for Charlie from the MRO confirmed. Oof.

So what Charlie did is slightly less bad than rankin dog shotting off the ball. Make it make sense.

Surely we appeal this. 3 weeks is excessive.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

Games F£€*%¥d.

 

[Bucking Beads]

3 weeks. The game is a joke with the made up bullshit they deliver every week. Just making it up as they go along. Let’s make it touch only, no tackling allowed

 

[3KZ is Football]

Three weeks is BS. Appeal.

 

[3KZ is Football]

What absolute nonsense. Watch his legs. Where is the force coming from to drive his opponent into the ground?

100% correct. The West Coast player attempts to break free and drags himself down.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Manifestly disproportionate.

The MRO guidelines simply don’t have the nuance required here.

Like Dangerfield on Walsh, this is an excellent tribunal test case.

Biomechanist will be involved for sure.

 

[woosha24]

Pardon the intrusion, guys.

Charlie was always copping a suspension after Duggan went off concussed (its an AFL optics thing - we've been dicked over by it this season too), but 3 weeks is taking the mick.

Im willing to bet its only so high so that he can get it lowered to 1-2 on appeal.

(Gotta remember as well that we both have to pay the "not a Vic side" tax at the tribunal, too).

 

[Squizz89]

He won’t get off as much as we all think he should, any chance he had went out the window with his “good bloke” defence earlier this year.

It’s time for Bailey to step up now. Had a horrible year by his standards but the number 1 small forward role is his now, we need a big month from him to keep this roll going.

 

[Happy_Neale]

Thanks Kingy

 

[Nathan Barley]

Pardon the intrusion, guys.

Charlie was always copping a suspension after Duggan went off concussed (its an AFL optics thing - we've been dicked over by it this season too), but 3 weeks is taking the mick.

Im willing to bet its only so high so that he can get it lowered to 1-2 on appeal.

(Gotta remember as well that we both have to pay the "not a Vic side" tax at the tribunal, too).

The gradings mean it's 0 or 3 because of the concussion

 

[woosha24]

100% correct. The West Coast player attempts to break free and drags himself down.

Unfortunately it doesnt matter - the tackler has some sort of "duty of care" to the player they are tackling, to ensure they dont hurt them. Harley copped 2 games for the same thing, and his bloke didnt even get hurt.

 

[Tom14]

So what Charlie did is slightly less bad than rankin dog shotting off the ball. Make it make sense.

Surely we appeal this. 3 weeks is excessive.

It's what their little chart spits out though. If it is a reportable offence, apply the chart and it is 3 weeks.

What I will say - the MRO process HAS to take account of the outcome of incidents to some extent. But it should be at the sentencing/severity stage, not the process by which they determine which incidents get suspensions.

That way, you assess the incident in terms of whether the conduct was a reportable offence - was it a dangerous motion? Was the force applied genuinely rough? Then to determine the length of suspension, you consider whether the player was concussed, did they go to hospital, etc.

At the moment aside from a few cases on the potential to cause injury (which the AFL has tended to lose at the tribunal on), they determine which conduct is unacceptable based upon the outcome.

If a player is more susceptible to concussions, otherwise acceptable conduct is being considered a suspension which is backwards. If instead you look at the conduct first before considering the consequence, then its tough shit for a player if they do a dangerous tackle and it is to someone who is more prone to injury. If you have done something wrong, you deserve punishment appropriate to the consequence.

They aren't out there charging people with rough conduct for that exact same sort of tackle. Cam does one of those every two weeks (I remember one against the Saints or Essendon specifically) but hasn't been reported for any of them. Doesn't make sense for the same action to be 0 weeks or 3 weeks.

 

[wantok]

He won’t get off as much as we all think he should, any chance he had went out the window with his “good bloke” defence earlier this year.

It’s time for Bailey to step up now. Had a horrible year by his standards but the number 1 small forward role is his now, we need a big month from him to keep this roll going.

Agree. Great opportunity for Bails to shine. He's been almost there and should relish the chance.

On SM-A525F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Perrip]

Wonder who comes in for Charlie if he misses next week then?

 

[Tom14]

Unfortunately it doesnt matter - the tackler has some sort of "duty of care" to the player they are tackling, to ensure they dont hurt them. Harley copped 2 games for the same thing, and his bloke didnt even get hurt.

Harley rotated the guy and slammed his head into the turf. Very clearly a dangerous action that the AFL clearly wants to stamp out. Rayner got a similar suspension in 2022 and missed a final.

Fox Footy on Instagram: "Will Harley Reid be suspended for this brutal tackle? 🤔"

9,319 likes, 304 comments - foxfooty on June 1, 2024: "Will Harley Reid be suspended for this brutal tackle? 🤔". Wilson, Reid, tackle, physicality, Saints

www.instagram.com

The question here - is what CHarlie does an inherently dangerous action? And I suspect we will disagree on that. I think it is much more of a grey area here than Harley's suspension.

 

[Happy_Neale]

Unfortunately it doesnt matter - the tackler has some sort of "duty of care" to the player they are tackling, to ensure they dont hurt them. Harley copped 2 games for the same thing, and his bloke didnt even get hurt.

Surely not referring to Reid's sling tackle on Darcy Wilson? Clearly a motion the AFL are trying to rid the game of

 

[Hollow Knight]

Wonder who comes in for Charlie if he misses next week then?

Rayner, Bailey, Lohmann share the load.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Comparing to Reid is cuckoo crazy. Reid’s was a clear second action.