Non Lions Discussion 2024

[Mr Ripper]

Yuk.

Meanwhile, going by the assembled throng at the G, Richmond attendance figures probably only a mediocre season or two away from returning to their gory days.

 

[BrainOfMorbius]

Tiger Army Reservists

 

[Nathan Barley]

What feels better; us being 4th or Collingwood being 12th?

 

[DreadBat5701894]

Incredible things happening on the Port board

 

[luthor]

What feels better; us being 4th or Collingwood being 12th?

All of the above

 

[Lion_LegacyXL]

What feels better; us being 4th or Collingwood being 12th?

Unthinkable 2 months ago

 

[MSB ROYS]

Incredible things happening on the Port board

I just hope they dump Hinkley and then plummet down the ladder.

 

[Elixuh]

I just hope they dump Hinkley and then plummet down the ladder.

To get over their PF hoodoo, they need to:
Step 1: make PF
Step 2: sack Hinkley in week prior to PF
Step 3: win PF with sacked coach energy
Step 4:

 

[McIvor]

What feels better; us being 4th or Collingwood being 12th?

Will the media now write them off with such veracity as they did us two months ago? Unlikely.

A bit like the way they celebrated Patty Cripps 200th in the same manner as Harris Andrews

 

[irel]

What feels better; us being 4th or Collingwood being 12th?

Collingwood not having a first round draft pick. (Top 10 - ouch)

 

[dlanod]

Collingwood not having a first round draft pick. (Top 10 - ouch)

Not even the highest pick they've traded away in the last five years! Love to see it.

 

[dlanod]

Yuk.

Meanwhile, going by the assembled throng at the G, Richmond attendance figures probably only a mediocre season or two away from returning to their gory days.

View attachment 2048232

Everyone knows Richmond fans don't travel.

 

[Grasshopper17]

They have certainly dropped off in the all-important seedings.


Bit of movement at the station after some upsets and/or surprising performances!

#1 - Sydney 142% (#1 in attack, #3 in defence - down 1). A 14% slide in just 2 games but still a comfortable margin out in front
#2 (up 2) - Brisbane 118% (#3 in attack - up 1, #8 in defence - up 2). Bit of a rise by default for us this week. Arguably our performance against Adelaide was slightly under par, but Sydney's unexpected loss to St Kilda actually gives us a boost, because we've played the Saints but not the Swans.
#3 (down 1) - Western Bulldogs 118% (#4 in attack - down 2, #9 in defence - down 1). Another team with a big slide down from 131% just 2 weeks ago.
#4 (up 1) - GWS 117% (#7 in attack, #2 in defence - up 1). Even tho they conceded over 100, the Giants actually improve their defensive rating. This is because the model allows for Carlton's strong attack.

Despite beating Richmond, Fremantle (112%) slip back to #6 due to the Tigers' poor rating. Still #8 in attack and #1 in defence.

On the attack side, Carlton are up to #2, with a rating of 114%. #5 (up 1) overall, #14 (down 1) in defence.

Defensively, St Kilda sneak back to #4 after holding Sydney to their 2nd lowest score for the year. 90%, #16 in attack, #14 overall. They replace Melbourne, who drop to #5 defensively. 97%, #13 in attack, #11 overall (down 1).

As requested by Dalions, I have really branched out on this week's forecast. The model has us beating West Coast (65%, #17 in attack, defence and overall) by 55 points. It doesn't really factor in home ground advantage. But I'm working on a "sacked coach" module.

Bit of movement in the seeds this week...

#1 - Sydney 140% (#1 in attack, #2 in defence - up 1)
#2 (up 1) - Western Bulldogs 120% (#4 in attack, #6 in defence - up 3)
#3 (up 2) - Carlton 114% (#2 in attack, #13 in defence - up 1)
#4 - Geelong 112% (#5 in attack, #10 in defence). Both these new additions are sort of in here by default, due to the fall in rating of the Lions and Giants.

That last goal we conceded yesterday knocks us out of the seeds by a p00fteenth. #5 overall, 112%, #3 in attack, #12 in defence (down 4). The model doesn't really account for sacked coaches very well, rightly or wrongly!

The Giants also drop back to #7, on the back of, like us, struggling to get over the top of an ordinary opponent. #7 overall, 109%, #7 in attack, #7 in defence (down 5).

Defensively, Freo retain the #1 spot. #6 overall, 111%, #8 in attack. Meanwhile Adelaide sneak in here. #3 defensively, #9 overall (101%), #12 in attack. They really seem to have flipped from their high scoring, attacking mode from last year. Melbourne are also back in at #4. #14 in attack (down 1) and #11 overall (99%). St Kilda are the other team along with the Giants to slip out of the defensive seedings - back to #5. 88%, #17 for attack (down 1) and #15 overall (down 1).

Swans to beat us by 22 points this Sunday.

 

[Lion_LegacyXL]

Common sense is officially lost on this competition. Shouldn't even be 1 game. So we're just suspending anything that's resulting or contributing to another player being hurt now? If there was no concussion Charlie gets off scott free.

 

[Nathan Barley]

Common sense is officially lost on this competition. Shouldn't even be 1 game. So we're just suspending anything that's resulting or contributing to another player being hurt now? If there was no concussion Charlie gets off scott free.
View attachment 2049233

The Rankine bump was probably a fine at most if there wasn't clear damage to Starces face or head

 

[Lion_LegacyXL]

I do wonder if the notion of him missing games from that tackle wasn't mentioned on commentary, would that have even been brought to the tribunal?

 

[werdna78]

They should charge Optus with, failing to protect the player and the umpire with negligence, for letting the tackle go on too long.

 

[McIvor]

They should charge Optus with, failing to protect the player and the umpire with negligence, for letting the tackle go on too long.

After that Mac Andrew farcical incident with Curnow; the AFL expressly said umps would be blowing the whistle sooner and here we are a month later and the umps have again failed in their duty which ultimately leads to players getting injured. What’s their responsibility then?

 

[werdna78]

After that Mac Andrew farcical incident with Curnow; the AFL expressly said umps would be blowing the whistle sooner and here we are a month later and the umps have again failed in their duty which ultimately leads to players getting injured. What’s their responsibility then?

I also think having only just come back from a severe concussion 4 weeks ago. Duggan may of been more susceptible to a concussion.

11 days is not long enough to properly recover. It is only bare minimum.

He didn't look to hit the ground that hard.

 

[pappaazz]

I do wonder if the notion of him missing games from that tackle wasn't mentioned on commentary, would that have even been brought to the tribunal?

Mate I agree with this entirely. Whether it's the commentary OR the AFL media. Ralphy asks for suspension - Charlie cops one. I don't think Heeney gets suspended if all the journo idiots weren't calling for it either. These blokes control too much of the narrative - to the point where the MRO thinks it's what the people want or what the competition calls for.

 

[Darren Downunder]

Mate I agree with this entirely. Whether it's the commentary OR the AFL media. Ralphy asks for suspension - Charlie cops one. I don't think Heeney gets suspended if all the journo idiots weren't calling for it either. These blokes control too much of the narrative - to the point where the MRO thinks it's what the people want or what the competition calls for.

After watching several replays, I think Bedford’s tackle looks worse than Charlie’s. Charlie’s was line ball. But Heeney’s suspension was an absolute disgrace.

I don’t think Charlie will get off this time.

 

[Paul Mac]

What does everyone think of Toby Bedford

14

Toby Bedford

Age

24

Ht

179cm

Wt

75kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.0

2star

K

2.0

1star

HB

6.0

4star

M

1.0

1star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.0

1star

D

8.0

2star

K

2.0

1star

HB

6.0

3star

M

1.0

1star

T

2.0

3star

G

0.0

1star

D

8.0

2star

K

2.0

1star

HB

6.0

4star

M

1.0

1star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.0

1star

copping 3 weeks.? What is the alternative, run with Taranto but dont tackle him. Is this not very similar to Dangerfield, did Dangerfield cop 1 week only for a very similar tackle. I presume Walsh was not concussed in the dangerfield tackle but seriously one gets 1 week and bedford cops 3 because one bloke was concussed and the other wasnt. Geez im not sure what else Bedford could have done. Only other option dont tackle Taranto. im confused but hope the bloke gets off.

The more interesting point on this Bedford Taranto tackle was Taranto was obviously in abit of distress and he was dazed and hunched over but the umpire throws the ball up which looked like only couple of metres away from where taranto was on the ground.

 

[martinson]

Charlie's suspension is a bit of a joke but because Duggan has been concussed and Charlie had hold of him he's highly unlikely to get out of it completely if at all i.e if Charlie had never tackled him he wouldn't have been concussed. That's the logic that is now applied since Laura turned up.

The other thing Charlie has against him is the good bloke furore from last time. You knew if he got cited again this year he was done.

Still ,if we have a had a half decent advocate there's a multitude of mitigating issues that can be raised.

 

[McIvor]

I also think having only just come back from a severe concussion 4 weeks ago. Duggan may of been more susceptible to a concussion.

11 days is not long enough to properly recover. It is only bare minimum.

He didn't look to hit the ground that hard.

Was thinking earlier, there seems to be an awful lot of mitigating circumstances in this incident which our representative would have to raise including your point above; Duggans propensity to concussion, the umpire not blowing the whistle earlier, the firmness of the oval which is well documented as being the hardest surface, the points made earlier by someone on here about Duggan also contributing to falling backwards and pulling Charlie.

The other point I want to make is in relation to concussions generally. Are players being graded concussed way easier than ever before? I’ve never seen so many players “concussed” as there are in 2024 to 5, 10, 20 years despite players bumped, hit, tackled harder back then and players didn’t seem to get knocked out unless they were lights out. Does that mean many many players just played concussed or is the bar so low nowadays as to what constitutes concussion as to why we are seeing players concussed so easily and in turn players being suspended as a result? Lastly, does Charlie even get cited if Duggan isn’t concussed? I wouldn’t think so and in my mind that is telling in itself.

 

[Paul Mac]

Was thinking earlier, there seems to be an awful lot of mitigating circumstances in this incident which our representative would have to raise including your point above; Duggans propensity to concussion, the umpire not blowing the whistle earlier, the firmness of the oval which is well documented as being the hardest surface, the points made earlier by someone on here about Duggan also contributing to falling backwards and pulling Charlie.

The other point I want to make is in relation to concussions generally. Are players being graded concussed way easier than ever before? I’ve never seen so many players “concussed” as there are in 2024 to 5, 10, 20 years despite players bumped, hit, tackled harder back then and players didn’t seem to get knocked out unless they were lights out. Does that mean many many players just played concussed or is the bar so low nowadays as to what constitutes concussion as to why we are seeing players concussed so easily and in turn players being suspended as a result? Lastly, does Charlie even get cited if Duggan isn’t concussed? I wouldn’t think so and in my mind that is telling in itself.

I think the highlighted is spot on.
Also probably AFL have concussion cases against them in the courts or cases will be launched against them so everything now is scrutinized to the emph degree.