Review Rd 19 Review - Freo Dont Lose Against Richmond

[GingerDocker]

Public service announcement - read the content of articles, not the headlines and it may save you frothing at the mouth for no reason, like I did with these two recent efforts on WAToday...

Can the Tigers overturn a result? An in-depth look at 90 seconds of chaos

Tigers injustice a result of rule-making on the run

 

[s_wd6]

Coaches Votes

10 Hayden Young (FRE)
4 Brennan Cox (FRE)
4 Nick Vlastuin (RICH)
4 Robbie Tarrant (RICH)
3 Dion Prestia (RICH)
3 Caleb Serong (FRE)
1 Dylan Grimes (RICH)
1 Jordan Clark (FRE)

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Serong is a victim of his success on here. People are expecting too much of a third year player. Putting aside his first month which was clearly hampered, he's had a good season. More coaches votes for him

 

[mattis117]

Coaches Votes

10 Hayden Young (FRE)
4 Brennan Cox (FRE)
4 Nick Vlastuin (RICH)
4 Robbie Tarrant (RICH)
3 Dion Prestia (RICH)
3 Caleb Serong (FRE)
1 Dylan Grimes (RICH)
1 Jordan Clark (FRE)

All defenders at the top of the votes and only two players polling who aren't defenders

 

[ubiquitous226]

Coaches Votes

10 Hayden Young (FRE)
4 Brennan Cox (FRE)
4 Nick Vlastuin (RICH)
4 Robbie Tarrant (RICH)
3 Dion Prestia (RICH)
3 Caleb Serong (FRE)
1 Dylan Grimes (RICH)
1 Jordan Clark (FRE)

Interesting split of votes.
Unanimous BOG and agreement on one good contributor (guessing Tarrant?), then the rest are all nominated only by one coach.

The cynic in me would suggest;
Hardwick - Young, Vlastuin, Prestia, Tarrant, Grimes
Longmuir - Young, Cox, Serong, Tarrant, Clark

 

[s_wd6]

Interesting split of votes.
Unanimous BOG and agreement on one good contributor (guessing Tarrant?), then the rest are all nominated only by one coach.

The cynic in me would suggest;
Hardwick - Young, Vlastuin, Prestia, Tarrant, Grimes
Longmuir - Young, Cox, Serong, Tarrant, Clark

Yeah if they're not going to show which coach voted who, it would at least be nice to get the splits

 

[Fyfe! The Musical]

Coaches Votes

10 Hayden Young (FRE)
4 Brennan Cox (FRE)
4 Nick Vlastuin (RICH)
4 Robbie Tarrant (RICH)
3 Dion Prestia (RICH)
3 Caleb Serong (FRE)
1 Dylan Grimes (RICH)
1 Jordan Clark (FRE)

Interesting split, three defenders with one nuggety midfielder each.

 

[yakamoto]

Has anyone seen any decent footage of The Smother? I thought the club might have posted something decent of it. Maybe it doesn’t exist.

 

[ubiquitous226]

Yep and it's a great highlight.

Behind-the-goals vision puts spotlight on 'game-saving' Docker

The Round So Far shows the quick-thinking of Michael Frederick to smother Noah Balta

www.afl.com.au

 

[arsesmart]

Look at about 16:30 to go in the 4Q on Friday for a great example of what we need to do more of in transitioning the ball from defence.

Clark gets ball and takes a run, gets the 1-2 from Mundy and offloads it to Pearce, kick to Schultz, the run of Colyer to Walters, and Logue on the lead for a gettable set shot from about 45m. Very hard to stop.

 

[BStaff17]

Public service announcement - read the content of articles, not the headlines and it may save you frothing at the mouth for no reason, like I did with these two recent efforts on WAToday...

Can the Tigers overturn a result? An in-depth look at 90 seconds of chaos

Tigers injustice a result of rule-making on the run

Fremantle remain the only team in the 2 winter codes that have had a result overturned after the game.

The league team wests tigers got shafted yesterday after the siren and are exploring options but won't change a thing.

 

[gaskin]

Fremantle remain the only team in the 2 winter codes that have had a result overturned after the game.

The league team wests tigers got shafted yesterday after the siren and are exploring options but won't change a thing.

As a Wests fan I am still ****ing seething over that absolute corrupt bullshit. It was a classic example of the ref not knowing the rules and the bunker ref not having a ****ing clue.

 

[Purple Suit]

As a Wests fan I am still ******* seething over that absolute corrupt bullshit. It was a classic example of the ref not knowing the rules and the bunker ref not having a ******* clue.

I won’t pretend to know rugby but it’s still an in game decision from the refs so don’t think it should be contestable. The siren gate was a mistake from the AFL siren blower that was against the rules & made the game run for an extra 30 secs.

I actually think Saints got one overturned in the 30’s too from memory in regards to the siren.

 

[yakamoto]

Thanks Ubq226.

 

[God docker]

As a Wests fan I am still ******* seething over that absolute corrupt bullshit. It was a classic example of the ref not knowing the rules and the bunker ref not having a ******* clue.

The older I get the more I realise everyone is just winging it.

So true

 

[gaskin]

I won’t pretend to know rugby but it’s still an in game decision from the refs so don’t think it should be contestable. The siren gate was a mistake from the AFL siren blower that was against the rules & made the game run for an extra 30 secs.

I actually think Saints got one overturned in the 30’s too from memory in regards to the siren.

It was an in game decision from the refs that should not have happened under the laws of the game. The game was over and there was no grounds for the captains challenge. The rules surrounding captains challenges specifically state that it was unchallengeable but the ref bottled it and let them challenge anyway.

 

[Square Peg]

The head of the AFL Doctors’ Association has told the league it must change its sub rule amid concern club doctors are being coerced into ruling out players with minor injuries for tactical reasons.

 

[Purple Suit]

It was an in game decision from the refs that should not have happened under the laws of the game. The game was over and there was no grounds for the captains challenge. The rules surrounding captains challenges specifically state that it was unchallengeable but the ref bottled it and let them challenge anyway.

Wow, what a stuff up

 

[Madas]

Should either be an independent doc at the game or the rules changed to allow subs at coaches discretion

 

[Square Peg]

Should either be an independent doc at the game or the rules changed to allow subs at coaches discretion

I don't think they'll make it discretionary because that would defeat the purpose of protecting concussed players. If it was discretionary coaches would just pressure doctors the other way to keep concussed players on the field.
I think the only fair thing is to keep it in the hands of doctors and treat all subbed players the same - minimum 12 days off regardless of why you're subbed

 

[PurpleEyes]

The medical sub rule is ridiculous in any case.
Why not simply replace it with a 5 man interchange?

Currently, if a player gets injured, you find a team is still playing 1 interchange player down until the medical & coaching staff are certain that they want to sub that injured player out for the rest of the game, which will only happen if the medical sub can offer more than the injured player.
Which means the decision becomes a strategic one and not one based on the well-being of the injured player.
This now means that a player with a minor (or fake) injury can be subbed out and shortly after another player suffers a slightly worse injury. You now have a situation where a player more injured than the subbed out player will be expected to play the rest of the game out. This scenario does not occur with a 5 man interchange where a team's medical/coaching staff are able to best manage their 23 players as they see fit.

Can anybody explain to me why have a medical sub instead of a 5 man interchange?

 

[apuchar]

The medical sub rule is ridiculous in any case.
Why not simply replace it with a 5 man interchange?

Currently, if a player gets injured, you find a team is still playing 1 interchange player down until the medical & coaching staff are certain that they want to sub that injured player out for the rest of the game, which will only happen if the medical sub can offer more than the injured player.
Which means the decision becomes a strategic one and not one based on the well-being of the injured player.
This now means that a player with a minor (or fake) injury can be subbed out and shortly after another player suffers a slightly worse injury. You now have a situation where a player more injured than the subbed out player will be expected to play the rest of the game out. This scenario does not occur with a 5 man interchange where a team's medical/coaching staff are able to best manage their 23 players as they see fit.

Can anybody explain to me why have a medical sub instead of a 5 man interchange?

Won't the team without injury still have one extra royation?

 

[Square Peg]

Can anybody explain to me why have a medical sub instead of a 5 man interchange?

It's as I said above. Originally it was proposed as a concussion only sub so clubs wouldn't be disadvantaged by keeping concussed players off the field. The genesis of the rule was recognising that they needed to take concussion more seriously.
But then some coaches asked what is so special about concussion, why does that team get a sub cause their player is concussed but I don't get one when my player has a broken leg. So it morphed into a medical sub. Initially with guidelines in place to stop it being abused, but they're just increasingly ignored.
The original idea is sound, but now it needs to be changed

 

[PurpleEyes]

Won't the team without injury still have one extra royation?

By including a medical sub or a 5 man interchange you are simply increasing the chance of having players available on the interchange bench during a game. Neither provides any guarantee that you will have at least 22 fit players available during the game.

That is, my example was what happens if Team A gets 2 injured players. With the medical sub rule it means they could possibly end up with 4 interchange players, 1 of which is badly injured and the medical sub now playing. Versus with a 5 man interchange, they have 5 interchange players available ... but 2 of them have injuries that may or may not stop them from returning to the field.

If we look at this another way and take Friday's Richmond Freo game as an example.
Richmond would have been well within their rights to be playing M.Rioli during the last 12 minutes of the game because they needed leg speed and they could have just kept B.Miller on the interchange bench ... knowing that if another big man got a minor injury, B.Miller could return to the field if beneficial to both the health and performance of Richmond.
Richmond's match report shows they had 3 injuries, Broad (Knee, played 96% TOG), Grimes (Hamstring, 81% TOG) & Miller (Groin, 82% TOG) so the medical sub failed to keep 22 fit players available ... it simply meant they had 22 players (20 fit, 2 with minor injuries) available for the final 12 minutes instead of 23 (20 fit, 3 minor injuries).

 

[PurpleEyes]

It's as I said above. Originally it was proposed as a concussion only sub so clubs wouldn't be disadvantaged by keeping concussed players off the field. The genesis of the rule was recognising that they needed to take concussion more seriously.
But then some coaches asked what is so special about concussion, why does that team get a sub cause their player is concussed but I don't get one when my player has a broken leg. So it morphed into a medical sub. Initially with guidelines in place to stop it being abused, but they're just increasingly ignored.
The original idea is sound, but now it needs to be changed

But either of those scenarios does not fix the problem ... it only reduces it. So too does a 5 man interchange without the other conflicts existing.
That is, if you now have 2 injuries, the medical sub does not help as much as a 5 man interchange would help.