2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Maltopia]

Except when he tried to mark the ball and dropped it and gave Tigers a goal. Interested that he’s their designated player to kick after a behind.

Wasn’t a perfect game, but plenty of times where he stopped Reiwoldt one on one or had important intercept marks.

[Markwebbos]

Aliir Aliir was very good for Port tonight.

Except when he tried to mark the ball and dropped it and gave Tigers a goal. Interested that he’s their designated player to kick after a behind.

[Maltopia]

Aliir Aliir was very good for Port tonight.

[MattW]

I liked Logan's desperate efforts last night in the closing minutes to hold the ball in our forward line.

Right on. Also rucked valiantly.

[stevoswan]

I liked Logan's desperate efforts last night in the closing minutes to hold the ball in our forward line.

I also liked his 'flying the flag' when Wicks (I think it was) was unceremoniously dumped over the boundary line. He's a passionate Swan already.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

Yep they changed the rule a couple of years back I believe around prior opportunity.

Thanks, it's sometimes hard to keep up with the rule changes

[Auntie.Gerald]

wrong thread, plse ignore

[Markwebbos]

The Hun has come to our defence, talking about our unearthing another steal in JMac

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No one can argue the Academy hasn’t helped us

“However, too often ignored is just how well Beatson and co. sniff out a draft gem readily available to every other AFL club.”

[liz]

Many Essendoom supporters ringing SEN this morning clearly don't know the rules. The back pocket decision was correct. Hickey grabbed the ball from the ruck and was immediately wrapped up - ball up. The one up our end was a bit different as he moved a couple of steps and luckily for us it was deemed "no prior opportunity". I reckon it is a great rule that a ruckman can do this. Did they get a goal early in the game from someone plucking it out in a ruck contest?

It might have been paid HTB, not because he grabbed it out of the ruck but because he took a couple of steps before he was tackled. I've seen HTB paid with far less prior opportunity. I'm not advocating that - I'm in the camp that players shouldn't be unduly penalised for trying to take possession - but compare that to a couple of the tackles Taylor Walker received HTB frees for a fortnight ago - the Lloyd and Rampe ones. In those instances the players dropped the ball so technically were penalised for incorrect disposal but they were set up almost instantaneously and in such a way that it was impossible to legally dispose of the ball.

It remains an aspect of our game that is adjudicated inconsistently. Although I would prefer players to get some modicum of prior opportunity, I can live with any interpretation if it is applied consistently. Like so many other aspects of the game. On the whole, the umpires weren't paying 50/50 HTB decisions yesterday. If they had, I reckon we would have received at least a couple in front of our goal and a couple in defence. But probably the Bombers would have received some too.

They seemed reluctant to pay any frees last night in either 50m arc. There were probably dozens of incidents were an 'in the back' or 'high contact' free could have been plucked out. I'm glad they didn't. I would prefer only blatant frees to be paid. The one awarded to McInerney was an exception - he received only a slight brush across the top of his shoulder. But kudos to McInerney for converting with such aplomb.

Between the arcs, I thought they paid far too many soft frees. This is at least a kind of consistency, in the the umpires have been generally paying too many soft frees this season, not just in our games but in pretty much every match I've watched. Except, of course, that for every soft free paid, there are a handful of similar incidents that are let go.

[Nico]

Yep they changed the rule a couple of years back I believe around prior opportunity.

Many Essendoom supporters ringing SEN this morning clearly don't know the rules. The back pocket decision was correct. Hickey grabbed the ball from the ruck and was immediately wrapped up - ball up. The one up our end was a bit different as he moved a couple of steps and luckily for us it was deemed "no prior opportunity". I reckon it is a great rule that a ruckman can do this. Did they get a goal early in the game from someone plucking it out in a ruck contest?

[Nico]

I just had a bit of a sliding doors feeling reading reports that Sam Mitchell, at Hawthorn FC, reckons Denver Grainger-Barass looks ready to play at AFL level: "“It’s not for me to say who is in the selection frame (for Round 1) but if you looked at his (Grainger-Barras’) match play last week you would say he’s ready to play.”"

I don't regret our selection of Logan McDonald. On the contrary, I'm still deleriously pleased that we landed him because he was a much better fit for our needs. But clearly DGB is also a super promising player and there will be a temptation to compare the two over their careers seeing as we were strongly considering both and had our choice.

I liked Logan's desperate efforts last night in the closing minutes to hold the ball in our forward line.

[mcs]

As a former member of the Ruckmans-union, I have to admit I was surprised at the lack of a HTB decision against Tom "Wild Thing" Hickey.

Have they changed the rule to remove the presumption of previous opportunity?

Frankly I thought it was a totally unfair that only ruckman should be subjected to this "no prior opportunity" rule in the first place - so I'm not griping that apparently rucks can now grab the ball out of the ruck with impunity - I'm just confused because I don't think the AFL actually announced it.

Although as a former Ruckman, I'm aware that I am considered to be slightly dimmer than the average 15 watt light globe.

Yep they changed the rule a couple of years back I believe around prior opportunity.

[Ruck'n'Roll]

As a former member of the Ruckmans-union, I have to admit I was surprised at the lack of a HTB decision against Tom "Wild Thing" Hickey.

Have they changed the rule to remove the presumption of previous opportunity?

Frankly I thought it was a totally unfair that only ruckman should be subjected to this "no prior opportunity" rule in the first place - so I'm not griping that apparently rucks can now grab the ball out of the ruck with impunity - I'm just confused because I don't think the AFL actually announced it.

Although as a former Ruckman, I'm aware that I am considered to be slightly dimmer than the average 15 watt light globe.

[mcs]

I just want to say, thank you KB!???? Tom Hickey was an inspired piece of recruiting. Has far exceeded my modest expectations. Has given us so much already. Long may he stay fit! Not sure if we need to tip our hats to big Cox on this one also.

He has been fabulous so far - even managing to piss off the Bombers fans last night too with the non-HTB call late. We must manage his workload and keep him right however. But nice to have him playing so well, with the knowledge we have Sinclair waiting there to manfully play a role if need be, and us also less reliant on needing Naismith to get back at it asap. I still think Naismith can make it as a very fine AFL player, but really don't think his body will allow it.

Its a medium term puzzle to still solve the ruck, but in the short term we have found what seems to be a puzzle piece that fits perfectly for what we need, and he is no small reason why we have had a massive first month of the season.

[bloodspirit]

I just want to say, thank you KB!???? Tom Hickey was an inspired piece of recruiting. Has far exceeded my modest expectations. Has given us so much already. Long may he stay fit! Not sure if we need to tip our hats to big Cox on this one also.