A.F.L. Thread II

[Jono]

I back the guy that is not last on the tipping leaderboard.

 

[benchmark00]

I back the guy that is not last on the tipping leaderboard.

You still in last man standing ****?

Besides, I back the teams that should win, not who I think probably will. I stick to my guns. I'm leading on the moral victory leader board.

 

[benchmark00]

Should probably get Mike Sheehan to back me up before expecting you to believe that post though tbf.

 

[Jono]

Nah requires sportal article plus Sheehan comment itbt.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I back the teams that should win

correction

Essendon by twenty goals

 

[benchmark00]

Why are you even attempting to pretend you know what's going on here? Would be like me going to a 'maths and boring ****s' forum and posting.

 

[Jono]

Wouldn't be a CW AFL thread without Benchy telling someone that they have no clue about football at least once per week.

 

[benchmark00]

Wouldn't have to if you stopped posting tbf.

 

[benchmark00]

Hey Roosy, do you awta as much as me?

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah I think so Mike *insert head nodding*

 

[Jono]

For the life of me I can't understand why Selwood and Geelong didn't take the 3 weeks they were offered from the MRP. The appeal was unnecessary and now they're copping 4 weeks.

I know the MRP and tribunal have been inconsistent for ages, but I think that was a clear cut case. And they were attempting to argue that the hit should be deemed "reckless" and not "intentional". The only way they theoretically could have done that was with video footage, and since the video footage was unclear, it was damn obvious the MRP made its decision heavily based on the medical report of Guerra's. The writing was on the wall.

Now they won't have Selwood against West Coast at Paterson's Stadium in round 16, where they will definitely need him.

 

[benchmark00]

The stupid part about it is if it got downgraded he would've had something like 50-70 carry over points lingering, which meant that later on in the season, when it's more important, if he does something that is normally only a reprimand he'd get rubbed out.

Big risk for basically no reward.

 

[Mr Casson]

I think the tribunal pretty much showed their true colours with the Trengove incident as far as changing the assessments of the MRP goes. If they weren't going to downgrade high contact (which it clearly wasn't), then they were never going to let Selwood off, especially when, as Jono pointed out, the original footage was such flimsy evidence. That last bit being important because we all know the burden of proof falls on the guy making the appeal rather than the MRP.

It sounded to me like Selwood was trying to use his clean history as his sole evidence by pointing out his long history of not being reported, which is a mind boggling superfail because it's crystal clear that only ever entitles you to a 25% reduction... with a guilty plea.

It's hardly season-derailing stuff but it'll be interesting to see how long it takes Selwood to hit his straps when he comes back.

 

[Jono]

Roar Vision archive - Tigers on a bus

Alex Rance wag

 

[Mr Casson]

FMD this is actually from the mouth of a QC... must've been a cheap one.

Unfortunately the quality of the video is not quite what we'd hoped for in demonstrating the honesty of his responses. The tribunal ought to accept him at his word. It's towards the end of a tight and close match and it's clear he was doing everything he could to get past Guerra to make for open space. It makes no sense whatsoever that in the the time-on period of a tight match he would land a blow on a player that could easily lead to a goal for the opposition. The tribunal ought to accept his plea. There is nothing incongruous in his plea at all. He said he didn't strike deliberately. It's clear that what he was taking was a vigorous action for the purposes of getting around or getting beyond him. He accepts ... that Guerra did suffer an ear injury as a consequence of his effort to get around him.

 

[benchmark00]

HUN report card on NM. Relevant issues bolded:

NORTH MELBOURNE

Win/Loss: 4-7 Ladder: 12th
Next four: Ess, PA, St K, Coll
Flag odds: $251

SuperCoach hero: Daniel Wells (112)

In a nutshell: Still in the finals race after big wins against Adelaide and Gold Coast. We'll know how much they've improved when they meet St Kilda and Collingwood in Rounds 15-16.

Pressure point: Turnovers in the back half have been just as costly as missed shots on goal. Eliminating those basic skill errors remains coach Brad Scott's priority.

Upside: When the chips have been down, Wells has stood up. In career-best form and playing like the elite midfielder we knew he could be. Should win his first best-and-fairest.

Defining moment: The Roos' 14-point loss to the Lions will eat away at them. Dominated the bulk of the game, only to let it slip late after some costly brain fades.

Borrowed time: Running backman Gavin Urquhart needs to start playing as if his life depends on it. Has the ability. Question mark about the application.

 

[benchmark00]

On Twitter:

KimDuthieWorld Kimberley Duthie
The FINAL twist. We promise. Ricky Nixon and I are together.

lawl.

Going down media street again.

 

[Jono]

Shuey has taken over Zac Smith as 2nd favourite for the Rising Star.

 

[Jono]

Push cleared - AFL.com.au

""But…was he putting his hands up to mark? Had he propped to mark? No.

"None of that had happened. He was still moving towards the contest area.

"So 'hands in the back' goes out of that situation; it's only when they're actually propped and prepared to mark or got their hands up ready to mark."

Until KB cleared up the interpretation of hands in the back, and now Gieschen, I thought it was simply in a marking contest. Not them having to be "propped" to mark.

Worst rule. I'm not saying Franklin should have got the free kick, because I hate the hands in the back rule altogether. But separating running to the mark from being ready to mark is a stupid way of interpreting it.

Will never forget Dream Time 2007 and Richo being robbed of kicking the winner.

 

[benchmark00]

That is such a horse **** explanation/interpretation. So if he had raised his arms it was all of a sudden a marking contest? Terrible.

Either way I'm happy enough with the decision. By the letter of the law it should have been a free kick (despite what Bartlett and Giesch say) but in the spirit of the game, probs not. Serves Buddy right for not actually making marking/making a contest his first priority.

Would've been paid in the first quarter though. Or if it was in the middle of the ground.