Non-Lions discussion 2023

[M Malice]

Lions top of this ladder.

The Round 8 Free Kick Ladder​

There are 5 sides that have received more free kicks than us ie. Dockers, Magpies, Demons, Blues and Crows albeit it's pretty close, it also shows that we have been pretty disciplined as there are 14 sides who have given away more free kicks than us... least free kicks against the Bombers.

 

[Nunez]

There are 5 sides that have received more free kicks than us ie. Dockers, Magpies, Demons, Blues and Crows albeit it's pretty close, it also shows that we have been pretty disciplined as there are 14 sides who have given away more free kicks than us... least free kicks against the Bombers.

Given all the head high frees missed in the past fortnight, it's even more surprising.

 

[mpal6]

Lions top of this ladder.

The Round 8 Free Kick Ladder​

#freekicklions

 

[Tom14]

I assume you mean the recipient of the tackle, etc? Because I remember Harris getting suspended because he said he heard the player's teeth chatter and Rayner getting suspended and being told that he should think about where on the Gabba he's tackling someone...

I think the "victim" can submit a statement but I don't know if they can be cross-examined any more.

Both happened here I think - seems to be because there wasn't clear enough vision of the incident:

NIC NEWMAN HEARING

Carlton argued it was a pushing motion, not a strike. If it remains a strike, they argued contact was to the body, rather than high.


Lachie Neale gave evidence and downplayed the amount of force in Newman’s right arm, saying the initial contact with the left arm had him off balance a bit.

Newman also spoke, telling the Tribunal: “My right arm was definitely on his upper chest as I pushed him off.

“I felt like I was just aiming for his chest and pushing into his chest.

“I don’t think his head falls back. I think, as Lachie alluded to, it felt like he was sort of already falling back and I’ve just pushed him.”

The AFL argued Newman intended to strike Neale and did strike Neale.

Represented by Peter O’Farrell, Carlton argued “There’s no better evidence in terms of someone that was hit than from the person that was hit. His evidence was clear he was hit in the chest with the hand.”

The Blues also referred back to Charlie Ballard’s successful downgrading of a strike from intentional to careless conduct, with the reasons by the Tribunal including: “Some blows would be a strike if intended to land on the head, but would not be a strike if intended to land on the arm or chest, this is one of those instances.”

After deliberating for just shy of 20 minutes, the Tribunal dismissed Newman’s charge.

“It is clear that at some stage in the grappling between Nic Newman and Lachie Neale there has been forceful high contact to Neale,” Tribunal chair Jeff Gleeson explained.

“It is also clear that Newman moved his right arm in a way that, if it made contact above Neale’s shoulder, would constitute a strike.

“What is not clear is that that movement of Newman‘s right arm in fact made contact above Neale’s shoulders. Newman said it struck Neale’s chest.

“Neale said the earlier left arm movement - that which Newman is not charged - connected with his chin, but that he didn‘t think the second right arm movement connected above the shoulders.


“Vision is not sufficiently clear to enable us to determine whether the right arm contacted Neale just below or above his shoulders.

“As such, the charge as laid of an intentional high strike is not made out.

“The charge of careless high strike must also fail because we are not satisfied there was high contact.

“We are not satisfied that a blow to the chest of this nature constitutes a strike to the body. The charge is dismissed.”

 

[McIvor]

Do we want this in the game though? Aren’t there some situations where your opponent has you beat and if your only way of impacting the contest is to try and blindly spoil the ball in a manner where the likely outcome is you’ll just hit the oppo player in the head and injure/concuss them…I mean by all means do it but I think you have to wear the consequences if you get it wrong.

‘Making them earn it’ in that scenario is just dangerous.

And if someone could relay my thoughts to the Van Rooyan mainboard thread that would be appreciated as I have sadly lost my posting privileges there.

Im more in the outcome of an incident as to whether they get suspended. If a player is concussed and misses the remainder of that game and then next game, by all means the player that caused it should have a spell if it is an incident which warrants a free.

But, when they are football actions of tackling and spoiling and a player is not injured, then it should be nothing. I mean Griffith Loge of North gets a week for a bump on Will Day who gets up immediately, literally. Same with Close on Dawson.

If Van Rooyen gets a week, then why not the Crow on that Pies player that came off with blood running down his face which also didnt attract a free.

So no, if we dont want tackling and spoiling in our game, then sure, lets not have this in our game. Rubbing guys out for incidents that are footy related when opposition players are barely hurt is bordering on absurd and we may as well make the game touch AFL. And Im not falling for the argument that footy is tougher than it was ever before. Its clearly aimed at the helicopter parents out there so that they will little Timmy play the game feeling like the precious little soul will not get hurt. Sadly, I think some parents of kids aged 16+ and even adults are still like that god help us.

 

[McIvor]

There are 5 sides that have received more free kicks than us ie. Dockers, Magpies, Demons, Blues and Crows albeit it's pretty close, it also shows that we have been pretty disciplined as there are 14 sides who have given away more free kicks than us... least free kicks against the Bombers.

We need Rhys Matho brought in to get our numbers up lol

 

[Elixuh]

Im more in the outcome of an incident as to whether they get suspended. If a player is concussed and misses the remainder of that game and then next game, by all means the player that caused it should have a spell if it is an incident which warrants a free.

But, when they are football actions of tackling and spoiling and a player is not injured, then it should be nothing. I mean Griffith Loge of North gets a week for a bump on Will Day who gets up immediately, literally. Same with Close on Dawson.

If Van Rooyen gets a week, then why not the Crow on that Pies player that came off with blood running down his face which also didnt attract a free.

So no, if we dont want tackling and spoiling in our game, then sure, lets not have this in our game. Rubbing guys out for incidents that are footy related when opposition players are barely hurt is bordering on absurd and we may as well make the game touch AFL. And Im not falling for the argument that footy is tougher than it was ever before. Its clearly aimed at the helicopter parents out there so that they will little Timmy play the game feeling like the precious little soul will not get hurt. Sadly, I think some parents of kids aged 16+ and even adults are still like that god help us.

Is running back with the flight of the ball, at full speed, leaping, without looking at the ball or knowing where it is, with you arm out aimed at your opponent who is completely open to you…a reasonable football action? I don’t think it’s a legitimate spoiling technique. It is high risk and an unreasonable way of contesting the ball.

 

[Tom14]

There are 5 sides that have received more free kicks than us ie. Dockers, Magpies, Demons, Blues and Crows albeit it's pretty close, it also shows that we have been pretty disciplined as there are 14 sides who have given away more free kicks than us... least free kicks against the Bombers.

Rewatching the games Its been noticeable how careful we have been not to sling players in tackles - clearly out of concern re suspension but has been good to see some discipline there.

 

[Elixuh]

Rewatching the games Its been noticeable how careful we have been not to sling players in tackles - clearly out of concern re suspension but has been good to see some discipline there.

I reckon Coleman is most likely. He’s a strong and really good tackler but also has a propensity to go the sling sometimes. He did it a few weeks ago but kinda pulled out and was a bit lucky.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Rewatching the games Its been noticeable how careful we have been not to sling players in tackles - clearly out of concern re suspension but has been good to see some discipline there.

The Walters foal of the week nominee against Freo only came about because Harris released a possibly dangerous tackle. Giving up a goal probably being preferable rather than losing a key back for 2 weeks

 

[morsie]

it is a bit perplexing how carlton players consistently get let off at the tribunal

Bloody ridiculous.In a real court you would be able to amend the charges but not in this tin pot tribunal

 

[JasRulz63]

Rewatching the games Its been noticeable how careful we have been not to sling players in tackles - clearly out of concern re suspension but has been good to see some discipline there.

I've definitely noticed it with Dunkley (maybe just because he always seems to be tackling), but you can see him trying hard to make sure he puts his body between the ground and the opponent's head.

It's what the AFL is trying to achieve (well primarily avoiding litigation) with these suspensions, that players make a conscious effort to not get suspended.

 

[Bernie05]

Is running back with the flight of the ball, at full speed, leaping, without looking at the ball or knowing where it is, with you arm out aimed at your opponent who is completely open to you…a reasonable football action? I don’t think it’s a legitimate spoiling technique. It is high risk and an unreasonable way of contesting the ball.

As you have stated the incident happened, it was unreasonable. As it is though your scenario is incorrect. His arm was not out aimed at his opponent, it was out aimed at where the ball was going to drop to make a spoil. There is nothing unreasonable about that. A free kick sure, for getting him high. Not worth a 50 m penalty as it wasn't late, and nowhere near worth a suspension.

But this is just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[briztoon]

I haven’t read any comments that have referenced this part of the story yet, but as far as I can tell Ballard wasn’t concussed, but reported hearing his neck crack when Van Rooyens shoulder and torso impacted his upper body.

Ballard was also involved in an earlier incident that impacted his upper body and neck.

 

[CarterS]

"The fabric of the game has been challenged, clearly.”
Simon Goodwin

Simon Goodwin

Age

47

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

20.9

5star

K

12.1

4star

HB

8.8

5star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.5

4star

No current season stats available

D

9.4

3star

K

7.2

3star

HB

2.2

2star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.2

4star

or Dennis Denuto?

 

[McIvor]

Thankfully, common sense prevailed.

You still have to worry about the helicopter rule makers attempting to make the game as bruise free as possible.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I wonder how this interpretation would have been applied to Jeremy Cameron

5

Jeremy Cameron

Age

31

Ht

196cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.5

3star

K

9.0

3star

HB

3.4

3star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

2.6

5star

D

10.0

3star

K

7.1

3star

HB

2.9

2star

M

4.6

4star

T

2.0

3star

G

1.9

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

4.6

5star

T

2.4

4star

G

2.0

5star

’s “attempted spoil” on Harris Andrews

31

Harris Andrews

Age

27

Ht

202cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.8

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.6

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

151.7

2star

D

17.0

4star

K

9.0

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.0

3star

D

9.8

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

4.8

4star

M

3.4

4star

T

1.6

4star

MG

94.0

2star

back in 2018.

 

[Elixuh]

I wonder how this interpretation would have been applied to Jeremy Cameron’s “attempted spoil” on Harris Andrews back in 2018.

Cameron was late which is probably the difference.

I think what saved Van Rooyen is that Ballard wasn’t injured. Hard Ballard been concussed or otherwise injured he would have been banned IMO.

 

[martinson]

I'm completely one eyed and frustrated with most umpiring decisions that go against us but my boiling point levels haven't been anywhere near breached this year which tells me we're getting a good go from the umps most of the time.

Of course I know that this will turn back to normal which is us getting crucified each week so just enjoying this little anomaly while it lasts.

 

[Section 5]

Two liberal MP resign over the Hobart stadium and moved to the crossbench creating a minority government.

Anger over Hobart AFL stadium sinks Tasmania's government into minority as MPs quit party

Concerns over a contentious $715 million stadium and the government's priorities have pushed two Tasmanian MPs to quit the Liberal Party and sit as independents, ending Premier Jeremy Rockliff's majority.

www.abc.net.au

 

[M Malice]

When was the last time the Suns played in a Friday night Blockbuster?

 

[Elixuh]

When was the last time the Suns played in a Friday night Blockbuster?

Both pretty terrible Friday night games tbh. Less so the suns, more their opponent.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Both pretty terrible Friday night games tbh. Less so the suns, more their opponent.

Yeah the Victorians are really melting down about how tonight's game will be an absolute blockbuster.

Fact of the matter is even Geelong's VFL team would deposit copious levels of excrement all over Richmond at the moment.

 

[McIvor]

When was the last time the Suns played in a Friday night Blockbuster?

Unfortunately for them that when they do get it, it is not the nationally broadcast game with 7 pioritising Cats v Tiges, with the exception of QLD and WA

 

[Mr Ripper]

A nice little exclamation point to the official end of the Richmond era would be a Blight-sized loss to the Cats.

R24​

A​

Richmond

7.1 13.4 18.5 27.9​

171​

3.6 7.10 10.16 13.17​

95​

W​

76​

78-3-79​

Princes Park​

25112​

Sat 03-Sep-1994 2:08 PM​

R9​

H​

Richmond

7.2 11.6 17.11 21.16​

142​

2.2 7.4 9.7 11.12​

78​

W​

64​

77-3-79​

Kardinia Park​

22777​

Sat 21-May-1994 2:00 PM​

R8​

H​

Richmond

6.4 11.9 13.11 19.14​

128​

1.4 2.8 4.19 9.24​

78​

W​

50​

76-3-79​

Kardinia Park​

25224​

Sun 16-May-1993 2:00 PM​

R18​

A​

Richmond

6.7 11.12 17.17 24.21​

165​

4.1 7.2 9.6 12.11​

83​

W​

82​

75-3-79​

M.C.G.​

26131​

Sun 19-Jul-1992 2:10 PM​

R3​

H​

Richmond

3.7 12.13 19.18 29.24​

198​

2.2 5.3 9.3 11.6​

72​

W​

126​

74-3-79​

Kardinia Park​

22122​

Sun 05-Apr-1992 2:10 PM​

R15​

H​

Richmond

7.3 12.4 17.11 19.17​

131​

1.4 4.7 8.9 14.14​

98​

W​

33​

73-3-79​

Waverley Park​

22688​

Sat 29-Jun-1991 2:10 PM​

R20​

A​

Richmond

7.5 12.6 18.10 24.14​

158​

3.1 9.4 10.5 14.10​

94​

W​

64​

72-3-79​

M.C.G.​

16984​

Sat 18-Aug-1990 2:10 PM​

R7​

H​

Richmond

4.6 5.15 5.20 9.28​

82​

3.5 6.8 11.14 13.18​

96​

L​

-14​

71-3-79​

Kardinia Park​

21181​

Sun 13-May-1990 2:10 PM​

R22​

H​

Richmond

2.6 9.13 13.17 23.24​

162​

1.5 4.7 8.12 12.14​

86​

W​

76​

71-3-78​

Kardinia Park​

20788​

Sat 02-Sep-1989 2:10 PM​

R9​

A​

Richmond

9.5 16.12 23.15 32.19​

211​

2.4 4.7 7.11 10.17​

77​

W​

134​

70-3-78​

M.C.G.​

24321​

Sat 27-May-1989 2:10 PM​