Review R17: The Good, Bad and Ugly vs. Brisbane Lions

[Vader]

Surely the bump rule should be changed to if you collect them high with your arm or torso.
Getting them in the head with your head is clearly not intentional.

Absolutely not.

The AFL's position is that if you choose to bump, then a head clash is a foreseeable outcome - and you are responsible for any/all consequences of the contact. This is explicitly spelled out in the AFL Tribunal Guidelines:

For the purpose of these Guidelines, head clashes that result when a Player has elected to bump are circumstances that can reasonably be foreseen. Players will ordinarily be liable if they elect to bump if not contesting the ball.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

 

[OccamsRazorRay]

7 is greater than 3
8 is greater than 7
11 is greater than 8.

This is really the first down year for Nicks, since he and we found out that we were in for a much longer rebuild then expected. He's had a pretty solid run of incremental improvement beforehand, which is likely saving his job at this point.

Equally, patience with coaches is not something Adelaide, or any of the genuinely shit clubs in the league, is known for. However, that's also following a general trend that the AFL world has become more patient with coaches over the last decade. The Geelong and Richmond dynasties has done wonders for a coaches job security, after all.

I'm glad someone pointed out this basic arithmetic.

 

[Vader]

I like to think that we are challenging just to p155 Michael Christian off so he knows we think his original decision was sh1t and make them sit as a panel and adjudicate it and fully justify it.

If the only thing they're challenging is Intentional vs Careless, then there is very little chance of success.

If they were trying for a Hail Mary - a "good guy discount", or arguing that he was just retaliating from previous treatment, then they might have a prayer. But that doesn't appear to be the club's approach.

 

[OccamsRazorRay]

He's probably slid to the second round now giving us a free hit at a gun mid in the top 5 should we finish 15th.

A Sydney bid on Welsh is surely coming at the pointy end of the 1st round, surely

 

[FR0GGY]

Absolutely not.

The AFL's position is that if you choose to bump, then a head clash is a foreseeable outcome - and you are responsible for any/all consequences of the contact. This is explicitly spelled out in the AFL Tribunal Guidelines:

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/do...509b31d77ed8/2024-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf

Did you not read what I wrote? I said it should be changed.
If they are going to ban incidental head contact why don’t they get rid of high marks?

 

[Interloperer]

7 is greater than 3
8 is greater than 7
11 is greater than 8.

This is really the first down year for Nicks, since he and we found out that we were in for a much longer rebuild then expected. He's had a pretty solid run of incremental improvement beforehand, which is likely saving his job at this point.

2020 was the Crows worst season ever. It's a pretty big omission from a list of "down years"

 

[Vader]

Did you not read what I wrote? I said it should be changed.

They specifically changed the rule to spell out that head clashes are to be factored in. There's not a snowball's chance in Hell that they're going to change it to rule them out again.

Here's how the wording appeared in the 2017 Tribunal Guidelines:

For the purpose of these guidelines, head clashes may be considered a reasonably foreseeable consequence arising from a bump. Accordingly, Players who elect to bump, resulting in a head clash, may be liable for a sanction if the level of impact is above the threshold required to constitute a Reportable Offence.

In determining the level of impact (if any) of a bump which causes a head clash, regard may be had to one or more the following:
»»Whether the degree of force applied by the Player bumping was excessive for the situation;
»»Whether the Player being bumped was actively involved in the passage of play;
»»The distance the Player applying the bump has run to make contact;
»»Whether the Player being bumped is in a position to protect himself;
»»Whether the Player bumping jumps or leaves the ground to bump; and
»»Any alternatives available to the Player instead of applying a bump.

The first paragraph has been retained - but the paragraph listing the mitigating circumstances has been omitted. Essentially, there are no longer any mitigating circumstances when it comes to head clashes resulting from bumps. If you choose to bump, and it results in a head clash, you can look forward to a lengthy period on the sidelines.

If anything, they are increasing penalties for players making contact with their opponents' head, especially for non footballing actions (i.e. off the ball). They will not, nor should they, change the rule to allow for accidental head clashes resulting from intentional bumps.

You're seriously misreading the room on this one.

 

[jenny61_99]

For me "down year" means just generally sucking arse and that's every year under Nicks.

Patience with an underperforming coach might be fine if you're one of the big Vic clubs but if the calibre of Adelaide's recent appointments are anything to go by, conjuring a new Hardwick is fantasy land stuff.

This is ridiculous. You expect a young inexperienced team to do better?

 

[FR0GGY]

They specifically changed the rule to spell out that head clashes are to be factored in. There's not a snowball's chance in Hell that they're going to change it to rule them out again.

Here's how the wording appeared in the 2017 Tribunal Guidelines:

The first paragraph has been retained - but the paragraph listing the mitigating circumstances has been omitted. Essentially, there are no longer any mitigating circumstances when it comes to head clashes resulting from bumps. If you choose to bump, and it results in a head clash, you can look forward to a lengthy period on the sidelines.

If anything, they are increasing penalties for players making contact with their opponents' head, especially for non footballing actions (i.e. off the ball). They will not, nor should they, change the rule to allow for accidental head clashes resulting from intentional bumps.

You're seriously misreading the room on this one.

I’m not missreading the room, it’s an opinion, no issue with suspending players from a bump to the head, but a clash of heads is going too far (unless deliberate headbutt)

 

[119others]

We had a pretty soft draw n 2023.

Your bubble seems to represent "how can we make it work with Nicks?" My answer would be "look where that has gotten Port".

This crap has been shown to be wrong so many times. Do I need to post the same article again showing we had the second hardest draw last year inc double up games vs First, Second, Third and Seventh?

 

[Vader]

I’m not missreading the room, it’s an opinion, no issue with suspending players from a bump to the head, but a clash of heads is going too far (unless deliberate headbutt)

It's something the AFL is determined to eliminate from the game. If you bump, and there's a clash of heads, you bear the full consequences of initiating the bump in the first place.

A clash of heads is a foreseeable outcome of choosing to bump.

 

[MRB37]

It speaks volumes that our "senior assistant" is also our forwards coach. I'd like to know if Burns actually performs the same function as senior assistants at other clubs. It wouldn't surprise me if Adelaide's definition of senior assistant is literally just the most senior assistant and not someone in a unique role that specialises in strategy, like it is at most well run footy clubs.

From the sounds of it it just means a slightly bigger pay packet than the other assistants.

 

[MRB37]

Hombsch is 32 so very inexperienced but seems to have a good rapport with the defenders. Burns worries me - he was our defensive coach (then basket case), now our forward line under him is a basket case this season after humming under Rahilly. Burnes only came back to be near family. And then there's VB. Like him as a player, not sure about his ability as a coach. He certainly can show players how to prepare but not sure past that. And we have a exSANFL ruck coach. I dunno, it all screams bargain basement to me.

Apparently one of the bigger concerns about Burns when going for senior role is his communication skills, or lack thereof. You can be the biggest brain around, but if you can't consistently communicate what you want to the players then it's not a huge help.

It's probably not a surprise that when you heard players talk up guys we've had coaching our forwards like Teague and Rahilly it's all built around not only football knowledge, but their ability to express it to players and also how they treated the players as people.

 

[Carmo]

We had the second-hardest draw in 2023: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...-afl-fixture-this-season-20230815-p5dwl4.html

Hmm, I wonder how our draw will end up this year?

Double up games against the teams currently sitting
First
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh and
Thirteenth.

Yeah, well for a mid table team that seems like a reasonable set.

EDIT: Coulda been worse I spose, coulda been first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth. Perhaps I should be grateful for small mercies.

 

[1970crow]

I think it could have worked, if we did this in 2021 / 2022.

For me its been 5 seasons. Culture has been rebuilt - now we need a new direction.

Dreams of a Brad Stevens transition are just that..

I am holding hope a harsh review by Rachele/Pedlar leads to a sacking a la Sando.

I don't think the culture has been rebuilt into a version that demands success. It seems more the senior players are comfortable and entitled again.

 

[1970crow]

I don't like their chances, but have a go.

I would have been arguing the impact at the same time. If a standard head clash that leads to concussion is severe, then what would you call concussion and broken bones? Some people will concuss at the drop of a hat, surely that can't be the difference between high and severe. What would high even be then?

 

[George Kramer]

This is ridiculous. You expect a young inexperienced team to do better?

lol, so our experienced players have performed this year? How about the coach? How about when we didn’t have many injuries to start the year and went 0-4?

Blaming inexperience and injuries is the lowest form of analysis of what the actual issues have been.

 

[jenny61_99]

lol, so our experienced players have performed this year? How about the coach? How about when we didn’t have many injuries to start the year and went 0-4?

Blaming inexperience and injuries is the lowest form of analysis of what the actual issues have been.

The 0-4 start is all on the coaching panel. After that injuries and inexperience are applicable.

 

[MarcusP2]

Hmm, I wonder how our draw will end up this year?

Double up games against the teams currently sitting
First
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Seventh and
Thirteenth.

Yeah, well for a mid table team that seems like a reasonable set.

EDIT: Coulda been worse I spose, coulda been first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth. Perhaps I should be grateful for small mercies.

If we beat some of those teams maybe they'd be lower on the ladder.

 

[George Kramer]

The 0-4 start is all on the coaching panel. After that injuries and inexperience are applicable.

They are if our coach still didn’t continue to make mistakes like Lachie Neale. But do you think our experienced players are performing?

 

[George Kramer]

If we beat some of those teams maybe they'd be lower on the ladder.

Yep, he needs to put that in his spreadsheet

 

[Tex Danger]

It's something the AFL is determined to eliminate from the game. If you bump, and there's a clash of heads, you bear the full consequences of initiating the bump in the first place.

A clash of heads is a foreseeable outcome of choosing to bump.

The problem is a flush shoukder to the head is graded as being as bad as an accidental head clash from an otherwise clean act

I get why
I get they won’t remove the wording that makes the head clash foreseeable in the sct

But there needs to be separation from a rd 1 2023 kozzie picket act compared to one like this where the intent/recklessness are poles apart

In that sense 3 weeks for this would still be a hefty penalty but the rules don’t cater to any interpretation of the act

 

[whitey_1975]

I don't think the culture has been rebuilt into a version that demands success. It seems more the senior players are comfortable and entitled again.

Don't they tell us the players set the culture, standards etc. Guess they just reverted back to their norm despite the last review. Entitled once entitled again. Watching Laird and Smith these days, they play entitled as can be.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Why is it that Brisbane go into a game tagging the 15th placed team's best player, to the point that he gets frustrated, only has two kicks for a quarter and a bit and gets himself suspended

But we don't tag their best player (or any other player) in return?

 

[whitey_1975]

Why is it that Brisbane go into a game tagging the 15th placed team's best player, to the point that he gets frustrated, only has two kicks for a quarter and a bit and gets himself suspended

But we don't tag their best player (or any other player) in return?

Because we are the definition of stupidity. Try the same thing over and over expecting a different result