Match Day Rnd. 2. Western Bulldogs V Sydney Swans. 7.50 pm Etihad Stadium.

[Aaron]

MRP:Charges Laid:
Zak Jones, Sydney Swans, has been charged with engaging in rough conduct against Travis Cloke, Western Bulldogs, during the first quarter of the Round Two match between the Sydney Swans and the Western Bulldogs, played at Etihad Stadium on Friday March 31, 2017.

In summary, he can accept a $1000 sanction with an early plea.

Based on the available video evidence and a medical report from the Western Bulldogs Football Club, the incident was assessed as careless conduct with medium impact to the body. The incident was classified as a $1500 sanction. The player has no applicable record which impacts the penalty. An early plea enables the player to accept a $1000 sanction.

[crackedactor]

At last a bit of good news.

[Meg]

Yes good news re Zac, although I think it should have been classified as low impact (not medium). Cloke was able to take the free kick and kick a goal. But I note it was 'to the body' so the MRP has agreed that the bump was not to the head.

[Ludwig]

If Cloke had merely been in possession of the ball and had not just taken a mark could that bump be classified as rough conduct? It was my understanding that a bump to the body to a player in possession of the ball has no limit on impact. I suppose whether Cloke takes the mark or not it would be the same outcome, because Jones interferes with Cloke from getting to the marking contest and doesn't have eyes for the ball.

[Meg]

If Cloke had merely been in possession of the ball and had not just taken a mark could that bump be classified as rough conduct? It was my understanding that a bump to the body to a player in possession of the ball has no limit on impact.

That's an interesting question. The commentators always salivate when Mumford hits a player with huge force - a couple of those at the w/e.

This is what the Tribunal /MRP guidelines say:


Rough Conduct

Rough Conduct is interpreted widely in relation to any contact which is unreasonable in the circumstances. It is a Reportable Offence to intentionally or carelessly engage in rough conduct against an opponent which in the circumstances is unreasonable.

Rough Conduct (Bumps to the Body)

It should be noted that even if the rule relating to high bumps does not apply (for example in the case of a bump to the body), a Player may still be guilty of Rough Conduct if his conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances.

In determining whether any bump was unreasonable in the circumstances, without limitation, regard may be had to whether:

? The degree of force applied by the person bumping was excessive for the situation;

? The Player being bumped was in a vulnerable position; and

? The Player could reasonably expect the contact having regard to his involvement in play or ability to influence the contest.

[giant]

Could be interesting, could be a waste. Longmire has talk to Schwab before and the umpire coaching panel admit the umps made some bad decisions, and what happens next week!! exactly the same bad decisions.

Gotta do something. There is a clear bias to those teams that get rid of the ball somehow (actually anyhow), so if this provides the confirmation that that is in fact the problem, we can hopefully get that right.

After that, Schwab can explain the other 15 frees that didn't get paid our way as well.

[Ludwig]

I've also thought of Mummy's hits being excessive force on many occasions.

Jones makes contact on the ball at exactly the time the ball arrives in Cloke's arms (the ball is not coming out from the hit, but is rather still in flight). It's amazing and a testament to Cloke's strength that he actually marks this ball. It was a very difficult situation that Jones was in. He could have just allowed Cloke to take the mark. If he keeps his eyes on the ball in an attempt to take the mark it would have resulted in an incredible collision, perhaps with a clash of heads. I suppose letting Cloke have a free run at the ball is the option the AFL want in that situation.

screenshot-www.foxsports.com.au 2017-04-03 14-22-41.png



As for the HTB rulings, it seems that our players should be instructed that if they take possession in tight quarters they should drop the ball immediately upon being tackled unless they are certain they can break the tackle. If a player takes one step, then gets tackled, they can get pinned for either HTB or incorrect disposal. This is going to be difficult for players like Kennedy, Parker and Buddy who tend to back themselves to break free in those situations. I suppose if you can break more tackles than not, you can take the risk. But perhaps it's better to just drop the ball in one's defensive zone rather than risking giving up an easy shot on goal.

[Mel_C]

Well at least we finally have some good news and Jones can play this week. Also glad that Tippett's injury isn't as bad as first feared.

Good to see that the dirty sniper Lewis has been suspended for 3 matches.

[bloodspirit]

I did post on Saturday but somehow managed to delete it. I will now belatedly offer my thoughts on the game:

* I was delighted to see Horse's presser. It my opinion it was much more feisty and illuminating than he usually is. The points he made in his understated style in my opinion included that he was alarmed by, if not disgusted with, the umpiring, he was delighted with the effort from the youngsters and he was disappointed in the performances of the senior players (not including Sam Reid who did brilliantly).

* Apart from having a generally excellent performance, it was wonderful to see Sam Reid kick straight! I have seen him win that many kicks for goal but rarely has he converted so well. I think he has once before kicked six in a match? I won't rush to assume it was Plugger's influcene... but you never know!

* I would like to recognise Newman's great performance. I think he has gotten a tad less recognition than he deserves. I haven't watched a replay but I remember thinking he was everywhere, thereby showing great work ethic and endurance and, more especially, he is an absolutely beautiful kick!

* Although Aliir's performance was marred by errors and overall ordinary, I was once again struck by his wonderful composure under pressure and his ability to counter-attack.

* I thought Naismith did well in the ruck again, especially with only limited support from Tippo and Reid. Will be so exciting if we pick Cameron to replace Tippett instead of Sinclair. I'll trust the selection committee to make the right call.

* I think we were let down by our senior players - as highlighted by Horse and the meejia. Where their reduced output seems to be hurting us most is in defence. It is alarming that we have conceded 110 points in consecutive weeks. I think this is significantly due to a lower performance by our midfield and the opposition kicking inside 50 under less pressure. Obviously the youth in our backline is not helping. Swampy had a quiet night and will get away with it this week but needs to step it up a bit as injured players return to the side or he may lose his place.

Some other bits I would like to contribute to the rest of the discussion:

* I agree with Meg we need to focus our complaints properly to have the most impact and the Mills' rushed behind is not the right place. The decision was correct; the debate is if the rule is right and I don't feel that strongly about it. I remember hearing I think Garry Lyon firing up during the pre-season that the 'softer' ball up at the top of the square variation on the penalty rule would just invite players to subvert the rule and not take it seriously so I don't know whether to agree with the superficially appealing argument that the penalty is too harsh. On the other hand, focusing on those stats about Bulldogs free kicks v Vic sides compared to interstate sides is really powerful. It would be interesting to know the Bulldogs free kick stats when they travel interstate too.

* In this regard, I don't favour conspiracy theories but I think whoever mentioned the 'perception' bias is on the right track. I think it might be more a case of confirmation bias/halo effect or some other cognitive bias rather than a conspiracy involving the AFL, the umpires and payments into bank accounts. (Incidentally, I am very surprised to hear umpires bank accounts overseas are scrutinised and would hesitate to support something like that. Why should umpires forfeit their right to privacy any more than players, coaches, administrators, commissioners?)

* I've said it before and I'll say it again now, liz is right about everything! The voice of reason. Call me a sycophant. I'll live. (That said, I'm secretly waiting, hoping she'll make a slip and I can pounce!)

* I'm loving the @@@@s and don't agree there is anything untoward about the odd bit of *?#! either. I agree with being decent and respectful but I don't think that precludes ever swearing let alone *#@!ing. There is a place for profanity. It communicates effectively. It can be fun. It can give emphasis. And it doesn't have to be stupid or disrespectful. I can certainly live with garden variety profanity, especially at the footy, and even with my kids. I think it often creates a lot of the colour at the game although the best chirps definitely don't have to include any profanity. They just often do. Profanity/swearing is used across all walks of society and has become more and more socially acceptable as is seen, for example, on tv and in the newspapers and other media. Nor are the media leading the way there, in my opinion, they are simply reflecting the fact that people in our society swear widely. On RWO it is very restrained with people usually not even printing the words they mean and instead substituting @@@@ which, for mine, is definitely ok. I'm happy with that.

* I'm feeling reasonably sanguine about our season notwithstanding 0-2 start, especially after good effort against the Dogs that could have led to victory with better umpiring. However, that will all change if we don't beat the Pies! Get ready for Armageddon this Friday night, as our players lay it all on the line (I hope).

p.s. I'm totally a fan of the Buddy trade. Even though, stevoswan, may be right that there has been a cost in terms of backlash from the establishment, it has still been worthwhile. For me, while the single most important measure, flags are not the only measure of success. H&A victories, membership, GFs, just the joy of watching our team play are all important yardsticks too.

p.p.s. Whoever wrote that Hodge is better player than Joey - I totally disagree!! Hodge is a thug and a bully and, great as some of his performances have been, they have not been at the same level and with the same consistency as Joey. He might be a better onfield 'general'/coach but that is, at least in part, because he's been playing longer and because Joey is a bit more of a quiet achiever. I would so much rather have Joey playing for us than Hodge! And I would so much rather play alongside Joey than Hodge. Even our players who have a bit of mongrel in them (like Jones now or BBBH once upon a time), are/were more fiery and feisty and wearing their heart on their sleeve than cunningly calculating and predatorily nasty like Hodge.

[Joel Ridge]

I did post on Saturday but somehow managed to delete it. I will now belatedly offer my thoughts on the game:

* I was delighted to see Horse's presser. It my opinion it was much more feisty and illuminating than he usually is. The points he made in his understated style in my opinion included that he was alarmed by, if not disgusted with, the umpiring, he was delighted with the effort from the youngsters and he was disappointed in the performances of the senior players (not including Sam Reid who did brilliantly).

* Apart from having a generally excellent performance, it was wonderful to see Sam Reid kick straight! I have seen him win that many kicks for goal but rarely has he converted so well. I think he has once before kicked six in a match? I won't rush to assume it was Plugger's influcene... but you never know!

* I would like to recognise Newman's great performance. I think he has gotten a tad less recognition than he deserves. I haven't watched a replay but I remember thinking he was everywhere, thereby showing great work ethic and endurance and, more especially, he is an absolutely beautiful kick!

* Although Aliir's performance was marred by errors and overall ordinary, I was once again struck by his wonderful composure under pressure and his ability to counter-attack.

* I thought Naismith did well in the ruck again, especially with only limited support from Tippo and Reid. Will be so exciting if we pick Cameron to replace Tippett instead of Sinclair. I'll trust the selection committee to make the right call.

* I think we were let down by our senior players - as highlighted by Horse and the meejia. Where their reduced output seems to be hurting us most is in defence. It is alarming that we have conceded 110 points in consecutive weeks. I think this is significantly due to a lower performance by our midfield and the opposition kicking inside 50 under less pressure. Obviously the youth in our backline is not helping. Swampy had a quiet night and will get away with it this week but needs to step it up a bit as injured players return to the side or he may lose his place.

Some other bits I would like to contribute to the rest of the discussion:

* I agree with Meg we need to focus our complaints properly to have the most impact and the Mills' rushed behind is not the right place. The decision was correct; the debate is if the rule is right and I don't feel that strongly about it. I remember hearing I think Garry Lyon firing up during the pre-season that the 'softer' ball up at the top of the square variation on the penalty rule would just invite players to subvert the rule and not take it seriously so I don't know whether to agree with the superficially appealing argument that the penalty is too harsh. On the other hand, focusing on those stats about Bulldogs free kicks v Vic sides compared to interstate sides is really powerful. It would be interesting to know the Bulldogs free kick stats when they travel interstate too.

* In this regard, I don't favour conspiracy theories but I think whoever mentioned the 'perception' bias is on the right track. I think it might be more a case of confirmation bias/halo effect or some other cognitive bias rather than a conspiracy involving the AFL, the umpires and payments into bank accounts. (Incidentally, I am very surprised to hear umpires bank accounts overseas are scrutinised and would hesitate to support something like that. Why should umpires forfeit their right to privacy any more than players, coaches, administrators, commissioners?)

* I've said it before and I'll say it again now, liz is right about everything! The voice of reason. Call me a sycophant. I'll live. (That said, I'm secretly waiting, hoping she'll make a slip and I can pounce!)

* I'm loving the @@@@s and don't agree there is anything untoward about the odd bit of *?#! either. I agree with being decent and respectful but I don't think that precludes ever swearing let alone *#@!ing. There is a place for profanity. It communicates effectively. It can be fun. It can give emphasis. And it doesn't have to be stupid or disrespectful. I can certainly live with garden variety profanity, especially at the footy, and even with my kids. I think it often creates a lot of the colour at the game although the best chirps definitely don't have to include any profanity. They just often do. Profanity/swearing is used across all walks of society and has become more and more socially acceptable as is seen, for example, on tv and in the newspapers and other media. Nor are the media leading the way there, in my opinion, they are simply reflecting the fact that people in our society swear widely. On RWO it is very restrained with people usually not even printing the words they mean and instead substituting @@@@ which, for mine, is definitely ok. I'm happy with that.

* I'm feeling reasonably sanguine about our season notwithstanding 0-2 start, especially after good effort against the Dogs that could have led to victory with better umpiring. However, that will all change if we don't beat the Pies! Get ready for Armageddon this Friday night, as our players lay it all on the line (I hope).

p.s. I'm totally a fan of the Buddy trade. Even though, stevoswan, may be right that there has been a cost in terms of backlash from the establishment, it has still been worthwhile. For me, while the single most important measure, flags are not the only measure of success. H&A victories, membership, GFs, just the joy of watching our team play are all important yardsticks too.

p.p.s. Whoever wrote that Hodge is better player than Joey - I totally disagree!! Hodge is a thug and a bully and, great as some of his performances have been, they have not been at the same level and with the same consistency as Joey. He might be a better onfield 'general'/coach but that is, at least in part, because he's been playing longer and because Joey is a bit more of a quiet achiever. I would so much rather have Joey playing for us than Hodge! And I would so much rather play alongside Joey than Hodge. Even our players who have a bit of mongrel in them (like Jones now or BBBH once upon a time), are/were more fiery and feisty and wearing their heart on their sleeve than cunningly calculating and predatorily nasty like Hodge.

I was the person writing about Hodge. He is a two time Norm Smith medalist 2008, 2014. His versality is incredible, his marking surpreme and his kicking on both feet is remarkable. He eludes confidence and makes everyone walk taller with his leadership. Joeys is probably a superior player now as Hodge is ageing and struggling to get to training.

Joey is a very fine footballer, equal to Hodge in tackling, extraction and marking. Hodge is a far superior kick and is a more effective onfield general.

During the 2012-2016 years we lacked the onfield leadership arsenal of Hodge and Sam Mitchell. McVeigh and Jack are good "leading teams" leaders but not Hodge and Sam Mitchell.

I don't think there would be too arguments with the above.

[stevoswan]

Here's Titus O'Reilly's summation of the Swans/Dogs game and I think he's nailed it (apart from the bit where he says the Dogs probably won it anyway); "Western Bulldogs (110) v Sydney (87)

Let?s first address the three blind elephants in the room: the umpires. The Melbourne Comedy Festival might be on, but the biggest joke was a series of decisions handed out over this round.

I?m not sure how much of all this is the umpires' fault. The AFL?s love of changing interpretations makes umpiring our game one of the most difficult tasks on Earth.

The deliberate rushed behind rule is the perfect example. We?d had no problem for more than a century, then Hawthorn does something a few times, and it?s now a mess.

The resulting interpretation is like cutting off your leg because you once stubbed your toe.

Being able to rush a behind was always a tactic defenders could use. Why change it?

I don?t think the Swans would have won this game but the umpiring made them losing it a sure thing. Swans supporters must be wondering when the AFL are going to get over them pinching Buddy from the Giants?

The Bulldogs looked rusty again in this game, but it was against quality opposition, so a lot of that was a result of pressure. When Buddy went supernova at the start of the fourth quarter, they seemed in a lot of trouble.

Yet they showed significant poise, even discounting the umpiring assist from that free against Callum Mills. Surely an umpiring assist stat is well overdue in a sport where we measure almost everything?

Tom Liberatore was a star on the night with 16 tackles. He likes tackling almost as much as I like bacon and I expect we will both suffer health issues later in life as a result.

Sydney, it must be said, have a lot of good players currently out. They might be the best 0-2 team ever.

Revelations that Dan Hannebery giving up alcohol may be a factor in his lack of form certainly ring true. Drinking on the job is important, something my years driving taxis taught me." Nice work, Titus....

[bloodspirit]

I was the person writing about Hodge. He is a two time Norm Smith medalist 2008, 2014. His versality is incredible, his marking surpreme and his kicking on both feet is remarkable. He eludes confidence and makes everyone walk taller with his leadership. Joeys is probably a superior player now as Hodge is ageing and struggling to get to training.

Joey is a very fine footballer, equal to Hodge in tackling, extraction and marking. Hodge is a far superior kick and is a more effective onfield general.

During the 2012-2016 years we lacked the onfield leadership arsenal of Hodge and Sam Mitchell. McVeigh and Jack are good "leading teams" leaders but not Hodge and Sam Mitchell.

I don't think there would be too arguments with the above.

It's surprising that someone who values decency as much as you would be such a Hodge fan and even prefer him over our own champion Josh P Kennedy. There's a reason the history of our game values fair play and not just results or flair, as manifested in the Brownlow medal.

[WauchopeAnalyst]

Remember that us & the Hawks legally tackled the 'Brave dogs' 170 times and ZERO frees.

#perfectteamdogs

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[Joel Ridge]

It's surprising that someone who values decency as much as you would be such a Hodge fan and even prefer him over our own champion Josh P Kennedy. There's a reason the history of our game values fair play and not just results or flair, as manifested in the Brownlow medal.

Kennedy has been the best value pick in AFL history. Second round trade and look at the value. Hodge was pick 1 and should have been a star, which he was.

From the moment I saw Kennedy playing for the Swans I thought of him as an upgrade to Brett Kirk. Stronger, better overhead, better kick. Not sure Kennedy as a leader can motivate like Kirk.

[Velour&Ruffles]

It's surprising that someone who values decency as much as you would be such a Hodge fan and even prefer him over our own champion Josh P Kennedy. There's a reason the history of our game values fair play and not just results or flair, as manifested in the Brownlow medal.

Well said. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Hodge is a turd of the highest order. Just look at his recent seasons - apart from all the usual cheap shots, we had the big ticket items of the thuggish attack on Swallow, the post incident, and off the field the drink driving. if Joel values virtue and decency as much as he suggests then Hodge is the last player he should have any time for.