![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/brisbane.png)
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Finals Wk 1
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 1 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Smith has well and truly earned this debut.
My favourite VFL moment from earlier this year was watching live v the Pies and he was in a one on one contest on the wing. Absolutely monstered the (strong and older) opponent, took an incredible contested mark then nailed a perfect pass.
My brother who is a harsh critic of footballers remarked at how much he hated Elixuh ... Followed by praising Smith and was shocked he was an unknown player and looked to have great potential.
Point being - kid can play!
agree, i probably could have accepted Charlie getting 1 match ban (and not because Duggan is out for a week) but two or three weeks was too much for what is still a good 'ball and all tackle'. IMO Bedford's is a technically correct tackle and should not be banned. There just has to be some changing to the rules next year, as you have alluded.Absolutely, and there is some frustration that they got off on a technicality, but ultimately the same thing could happen again this weekend. The silence from the AFL about whether the tackles were correct or not is typical. They won't come out and admit an error, but they also won't come out against the tidal wave of opinion from the footballing community that this is a step too far and that initial tribunal decision was incorrect.
I'm sure the MRP guidelines and matrix will change over the off-season. The legal wording will be strengthened, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a change in the MRO classifiable offense table, that allows for a 1-week suspension for this kind of thing.
"in the event a player is concussed via an accidental incident, the instigator of the contact is subject to a 1-match suspension".
This provides the incentive to take all reasonable precautions without being hit with a sledgehammer of a 3-match ban. 1-week is still a penalty, but not enough to worry about contesting. Hopefully they also change the "Intentional-low-body" sanction to a week instead of a fine.
i think Morris (who has been very good for a first year player) probably needs a rest so Morris out and Smith inHopefully Big O isn't out. Morris dropped?
The wording would have to be a little more specific, otherwise there could be a lot of footy acts caught up, as you have mentioned.How does the bolded "fix" anything though? (BTW, not having a crack at you!)
Would you also propose that any incident be subject to the suspension? (eg, accidental head-clash, knee in a marking contest, knee to the head of a player on the ground - eg, McPharlin on Brown). It's even more of a slippery slope.........
Even if Cameron had've got 1 week initially, I would've wanted us to challenge, purely on principle.
When there aren't any realistic alternatives under the circumstances (this goes for Bedford too), anything that happens after that is incidental. Reading the transcripts of the tribunal, and the "alternatives" offered up, just goes to show how out of touch the AFL is (or more to the point, the impact of getting lawyers involved).
Do we really want to see players think twice about tackling? (which both Dunkley and Fagan alluded to this week). Granted there is some nuance in this, but I felt the two tackles being reportable offences this week "crossed a line" for me.
You simply can't de-risk the game completely. There needs to be a level of acceptance of risk (read, incidental injury) that goes with the game.
Wonder if we'll make Fletcher sub again to get run post-1/2 time?If Henry isn't working or we need more run, he can be subbed off quickly as Morris has been.
As to who will be sub. Reville named in the 18 so it won't be him. Starce is a straight swap for McKenna so Brain should hold his spot. He got some wraps from Fages during the week for his full game. It may be the case that Fletcher is made sub this week. A good option to add run and impact when needed.
Actually like him as a sub . He is having a really good year , had him in my best players on Sunday .Wonder if we'll make Fletcher sub again to get run post-1/2 time?
Wonder if we'll make Fletcher sub again to get run post-1/2 time?
Fletcher played a great game against West Coast. One of his better games - with 15, at times very classy disposals. Took some great contested marks, was composed and had some great goal assists. I am a massive fan. When Lester retires, Fletcher could be the one.Wonder if we'll make Fletcher sub again to get run post-1/2 time?
No crack interpreted.How does the bolded "fix" anything though? (BTW, not having a crack at you!)
Would you also propose that any incident be subject to the suspension? (eg, accidental head-clash, knee in a marking contest, knee to the head of a player on the ground - eg, McPharlin on Brown). It's even more of a slippery slope.........
Even if Cameron had've got 1 week initially, I would've wanted us to challenge, purely on principle.
When there aren't any realistic alternatives under the circumstances (this goes for Bedford too), anything that happens after that is incidental. Reading the transcripts of the tribunal, and the "alternatives" offered up, just goes to show how out of touch the AFL is (or more to the point, the impact of getting lawyers involved).
Do we really want to see players think twice about tackling? (which both Dunkley and Fagan alluded to this week). Granted there is some nuance in this, but I felt the two tackles being reportable offences this week "crossed a line" for me.
You simply can't de-risk the game completely. There needs to be a level of acceptance of risk (read, incidental injury) that goes with the game.
I’m with you Jason; was actually optimistic prior to the team being finalised; can’t believe we’re playing a second ruck and in fact, if memory serves, we always struggle playing well or winning with two rucks. Just seems a really odd game to bring in a debutant ruck.I like Henry as a long term ruck prospect but I am dead set against playing 2 rucks against the Swans.
I am far less hopeful of a win with a slower team out there, why would we do this against the best gut running side in the competition who can cut you to ribbons with quick play on and handball receives? ... It has me flummoxed.
Note- I would love Henry to prove me wrong and play a blinder in a Lions win.
I get the feeling that were we in a slightly better position (ie even if we'd just beaten Carlton), this might be the sort of match where neither team would be prepared to put all their cards on the table, preferring to keep a couple up their sleeve in case they meet in a final. Like, maybe we wouldn't send anyone to Heeney, Warner or Gulden. Just go head to head with them. And then, in a final, bang, lock down on all of them.I do think the swans will be pretty keen to knock us off, whereas the pies didn’t seem to care too much about the docklands game - almost kept their powder dry for the finals.
Yep. Looks like to me we are really trying to stretch Sydney for height in defence. If it has the added effect of forcing Blakey to be more accountable than he might otherwise be, well all the better.I like this team selection!
Great to see Brain get another turn instead of Connor who is not in good touch. Brain looks good overhead and had some lovely kicks.
Morris has proven himself as a young star but hasn't had the impact the last few weeks which is very reasonable for an emerging forward. This gives us an opportunity to reward and trial Smith with more flexibility in the ruck and height in the forward line
Intrigued as to sub situation.
Ah chee - thought he would get blakey?
Fletcher - was a match winner late
Smith - no flexibility
Brain - 7th defender
So not sure who?!