Shuey and Lynch

[YvonneH]

I was thinking the same thing yesterday. It would be interesting to compile a list (say from 2000-now) with the number of suspensions per team. I think we would be looking good (although Bazza's record may hurt us). Any takers?

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Cox really has me worried. Didn't see his game against North but sounds like he is back to his best. Will take a team effort from our back six when he is resting forward I think.

Our back 6 will probably have first crack at him, but if he proves troublesome up forward for them, then we will assuredly be able to rely on LRT's versatility.

[Doctor]

Roosy said last night on On The Couch that we used to tag Cox in the Roos era. That's an incredible compliment for a ruckman.

I know we're going to be on their turf but the injuries and suspensions are quite helpful for us. I'm glad Lynch is out. I hate that guy.

[wolftone57]

Kennedy isnt back until the derby match for the coast.

That helps.

[wolftone57]

Our mids are as good as any of the top mids going around. Our forward line is starting to work but I still think we neeed one more specialist forward, either TDL or Morton & Spang is good in tight games. Our backs are first class and the best in the league but sometimes will need the help of mids and say a LRT to keep the big forward/rucks from getting an advantage. Playing Cox is an interesting conundrum but the one way to ensure he doesn't get a free run at the ball is to play in front of him and have a spoiler coming over the top.

[Stoneyyy]

I see both Shuey and Lynch are challenging their charges at the tribunal tonight.

[Swansongster]

I see both Shuey and Lynch are challenging their charges at the tribunal tonight.

They could both get off too by my viewing.

[Go Swannies]

They could both get off too by my viewing.

Lynch might as the video looked a bit vague but I can't see how Shuey could - low act. Maybe Kerr taught him?

[liz]

Shuey might get his downgraded (and hence just miss a week, rather than two). Hard to see him getting off. Lynch probably has a case to get his dismissed. The MRP / tribunal is a bit random in which trips it determines are worthy of suspension and which are not.

[Beerman]

Shuey might get his downgraded (and hence just miss a week, rather than two). Hard to see him getting off. Lynch probably has a case to get his dismissed. The MRP / tribunal is a bit random in which trips it determines are worthy of suspension and which are not.

I would be surprised if either got off. My feeling is that Eagles are contesting because they have nothing to lose. Penalty doesn't change in Lynch's case and for Shuey they are only risking him against Brisbane at home to gain him vs Adelaide away - definitely a chance worth taking.

Shuey may get downgraded from intentional to reckless, but not likely - he knew exactly what he was doing and he has a history of stupidity.

Lynch's only chance is for them to determine that it was below the force required for a reportable offence. The way he dangled his leg out was a very deliberate tripping motion.

Pretty pleased with our tribunal record. My only concern is Ben McGlynn. I love the kamikaze intensity he brings to the game but sometimes I think he might need to ease up on the angry pills. When someone his size wants to get into a bit of push and shove with Jono Brown then it's time to take a few deep breaths. Is he happy at the club? I hope we don't have another Barry Hall situation on our hands.

[Go Swannies]

Add Beau Waters -

from Fox: Already weakened by suspensions to Luke Shuey and Quinten Lynch, West Coast were dealt another blow on Monday night with defender Beau Waters ruled out for at least a month following minor knee surgery.

[aardvark]

Four points would be nice but i'd rather there was no excuses when we win.

[liz]

IShuey may get downgraded from intentional to reckless, but not likely - he knew exactly what he was doing and he has a history of stupidity.

I read the uproar from Eagles fans over the grading of the Shuey incident before I saw any video of it. I agree that it looks like he knew exactly where Thomas was and hence where he was going to hit. It is just that the MRP / tribunal seems to have a strange notion of what is intentional and what is not. I am not sure how Wellingham's act couldn't have been deemed to be intentional. He never remotely tried to mark or even spoil the ball and I don't think he was so committed to the contest before it became obvious that Simpson was going to mark that he (Wellingham) couldn't have pulled out. It therefore looked like he jumped off the ground to lay a hard bump on Simpson. To me, once you jump off the ground to bump you have to expect that you are going to make high contact, and therefore you can't argue that when high contact does result, it is the result of mere negligence or recklessness.

But that is clearly not the way the MRP seems to view things.

[R-1]

I think intentional relates to the targetting of the impact to the specific impact zone, in which case the Wellingham one as reckless is correct, and there's a case to drop Shuey to reckless as well.

[TheAgent]

I watched the video of Shuey carefully, he looked straight at the jewels and elbowed them, perfect video vision. Lynch lifts his right leg just at the right moment without taking a legitimate step forward. Hard to see how either could be deemed to be anything other than what was reported but you never know with the tribunal.....