Changes for Rnd 14 V Essendon

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Markwebbos
    Veterans List
    • Jul 2016
    • 7186

    #61
    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?

    Comment

    • Beerman
      Regular in the Side
      • Oct 2010
      • 823

      #62
      Originally posted by grarmy
      For crying out loud, what has Tippo done over the past few weeks to deserve a call up? What, stay injury free?
      Clearly not!

      Comment

      • shaun..
        Stuck in Reserves
        • Jun 2007
        • 691

        #63
        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..
        "In some ways we?re less predictable to ourselves and sometimes that can be detrimental because we don?t really know where we?re going" - P.Roos

        Comment

        • ugg
          Can you feel it?
          Site Admin
          • Jan 2003
          • 15968

          #64
          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
          Reserves live updates (Twitter)
          Reserves WIKI -
          Top Goalkickers| Best Votegetters

          Comment

          • aguy
            Senior Player
            • Mar 2014
            • 1324

            #65
            Originally posted by 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 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

            Comment

            • annew
              Senior Player
              • Mar 2006
              • 2164

              #66
              Originally posted by liz
              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

              Comment

              • Nico
                Veterans List
                • Jan 2003
                • 11337

                #67
                Who lines up on MTW?
                http://www.nostalgiamusic.co.uk/secu...res/srh806.jpg

                Comment

                • Meg
                  Go Swannies!
                  Site Admin
                  • Aug 2011
                  • 4828

                  #68
                  Originally posted by 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
                  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

                  Comment

                  • AB Swannie
                    Senior Player
                    • Mar 2017
                    • 1579

                    #69
                    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

                    Comment

                    • MattW
                      Veterans List
                      • May 2011
                      • 4212

                      #70
                      Originally posted by 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..
                      Seems a pretty innocuous thing to miss a week over. He seemed to want to push and it slipped higher than he intended.

                      Comment

                      • Meg
                        Go Swannies!
                        Site Admin
                        • Aug 2011
                        • 4828

                        #71
                        Originally posted by MattW
                        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.

                        Comment

                        • MattW
                          Veterans List
                          • May 2011
                          • 4212

                          #72
                          Originally posted by Meg
                          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.

                          Comment

                          • barry
                            Veterans List
                            • Jan 2003
                            • 8499

                            #73
                            Please no McVeigh!

                            Comment

                            • 0918330512
                              Senior Player
                              • Sep 2011
                              • 1654

                              #74
                              Originally posted by Dosser
                              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."

                              Comment

                              • liz
                                Veteran
                                Site Admin
                                • Jan 2003
                                • 16760

                                #75
                                Originally posted by Meg

                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...