Changes for Rnd 14 V Essendon

[Markwebbos]

Melican has to come back in as he was a tactical out. Jones going out could mean that Marsh stays in.

I think they have to reward NEAFL form so Towers goes out and one of Edwards / Dawson / Florent / Robinson comes in.

Out: Jones, Towers
In: Melican, Dawson

I'm praying that McVeigh has a setback or comes back via the NEAFL. Whose spot would he take anyway?

[Beerman]

For crying out loud, what has Tippo done over the past few weeks to deserve a call up? What, stay injury free?

Clearly not!

[shaun..]

So just saw the footage of the Jones strike.. it seemed like an open palm to the neck/face. Fair enough if that warrants a suspension but then Joel Selwood gets off for his cheap whack on Mitchell (graded unintentional - i wonder what intent means). The inconsistencies are bothering..

[ugg]

Hard to tell whether the palm was open or not but it was to the face. I'm not happy about the intentional grading based on what other incidents have been classified as but due to discount of two to one I can't see the Swans risking it

[aguy]

Melican has to come back in as he was a tactical out. Jones going out could mean that Marsh stays in.

I think they have to reward NEAFL form so Towers goes out and one of Edwards / Dawson / Florent / Robinson comes in.

Out: Jones, Towers
In: Melican, Dawson

I concur with your changes and reasoning. I think jones role will be played by marsh rather than them bringing in Edwards. Melican as an extra tall defender and Dawson to play mid forward like towers has been. Keep Rohan forward

[annew]

Yep, Edwards is pretty quick, but he also plays in a "high energy" fashion.

I'll be disappointed if McVeigh comes straight into the team, given how long he's been out and how many reserves players are in good form. Especially if he gets the nod over Dawson (who I'd have in ahead of Edwards, but there may be room for both).

Melican is a good chance to return also, probably at the expense of Marsh. Marsh has been fine but the extra height will be needed against the Bombers.

Thanks

[Nico]

Who lines up on MTW?

[Meg]

Hard to tell whether the palm was open or not but it was to the face. I'm not happy about the intentional grading based on what other incidents have been classified as but due to discount of two to one I can't see the Swans risking it

It was behind the play so clearly not a 'football act' so no question the conduct was intentional.

I like Bartel's suggested distinction between 'football acts' and 'non-football acts'. I think it would help dispel some of the confusion about the MRP's gradings.

'Football acts' may save stars from MRP bans - AFL.com.au

[AB Swannie]

I know this won't happen and I don't want to start sounding like Ludwig too much but I'd be keeping Towers in the side as the second ruck. Essendon only play Bellchambers as a main ruck. Naismith can lope around with him.

For me, I'd go:

Out: Jones, Sinclair
In: Dawson, Melican

[MattW]

So just saw the footage of the Jones strike.. it seemed like an open palm to the neck/face. Fair enough if that warrants a suspension but then Joel Selwood gets off for his cheap whack on Mitchell (graded unintentional - i wonder what intent means). The inconsistencies are bothering..

Seems a pretty innocuous thing to miss a week over. He seemed to want to push and it slipped higher than he intended.

[Meg]

Seems a pretty innocuous thing to miss a week over. He seemed to want to push and it slipped higher than he intended.

The act/conduct was intentional (it was behind the play). Where he hit him is assessed under 'contact'. He may not have intended to hit him high but he clearly did. With low impact that is an automatic 2 week/1 week penalty.

Solution? Don't hit players behind the play, even under provocation.

[MattW]

The act/conduct was intentional (it was behind the play). Where he hit him is assessed under 'contact'. He may not have intended to hit him high but he clearly did. With low impact that is an automatic 2 week/1 week penalty.

Solution? Don't hit players behind the play, even under provocation.

OK then. An expensive way to learn the lesson. That seems to be the way with Zak, but so far he has learned them.

[barry]

Please no McVeigh!

[0918330512]

Chatting to a Tiger supporter today who was there at the game. He said that he was really impressed with Sinclair's ruck work and his natural leap meant that he got first hand to the ball nearly every time. Food for thought.

I heard Steve The Ruck Whisperer Taubert took Sink on as a personal challenge to turn him one a ruckman.

"How to turn Sink into a ruckman? Natural leap .... hmmm". Drill after drill during the pre-season he was frustrated by the conundrum. Then one day the Ruck Whisperer worked his magic, "Joey, Hanners, Lukey, just stand at Sink's feet ... look up ... & be ready! Sink, when the ump bounces it, jump as high as you can, & try & mark it."

[liz]

I like Bartel's suggested distinction between 'football acts' and 'non-football acts'. I think it would help dispel some of the confusion about the MRP's gradings.

I didn't really understand Bartel's point, and I still don't. Is that not what the intentional / non-intentional (aka careless) distinction already takes care off? It's not exactly a one-to-one mapping because "football acts" can be deemed to be intentional (as Toby Greene's was earlier in the season) but the vast majority of "non-football acts" will be graded as intentional, and the vast majority of "football acts" will be graded as careless.