Round 9 vs Bombers @ SCG - match thread

[Bangalore Swans]

Can’t believe the AFL website even suggests the McCartin-Caldwell incident will come under scrutiny. It was simply a great contest by both players with eyes on the ball. Bravo to both of them.

As for Rowbottom, I suspect the fact Merrett played out the game saves him. It’ll likely be careless, low impact and high, which is a fine. But given he ran past the ball, which is a no no, there’s a chance it gets graded as intentional, which would mean a week.

I wanted to ask you about J-Mac. Does he seem a bit fumbly or down on confidence at the current time?

I contrast him at the current time to Chad who is one grabbing everything, picking great corridor options and breaking the lines.

J-Mac always seems to come back well after a week out. Should we be managing J-Mac next week so that he freshens up and come back with confidence.

[SCGonasunnyday]

I’m stoked over this win.

Going to the game I was mentally prepared for what 3 SCG losses in a row would feel like and it wasn’t keen on that.

Firstly the team came out with energy and hardness and you could tell they were on. With that mindset I think we would have accounted for the Suns.

Secondly, our forward set up was so much better and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I have to credit the two rucks / Wicks and Bell in, McLean out/ different use of Buddy. What combination of factors made the result I don’t know, but we were so much more dangerously offensively this week (and probably could have scored 130 -140 with straighter kicking).

Finally, if we are going to win a flag it will not be only from exciting corridor offensive footy, it has to be built also on tough contested footy and manic pressure and tackling. I’m sure that’s what the coaches focused this week on and to be out tackling the opposition so well is a promising sign and hopefully we can bring that in coming weeks against stronger teams.

[dejavoodoo44]

Can’t believe the AFL website even suggests the McCartin-Caldwell incident will come under scrutiny. It was simply a great contest by both players with eyes on the ball. Bravo to both of them.

As for Rowbottom, I suspect the fact Merrett played out the game saves him. It’ll likely be careless, low impact and high, which is a fine. But given he ran past the ball, which is a no no, there’s a chance it gets graded as intentional, which would mean a week.

I tend to think that it should have been a free to McCartin, as the free for front on contact, usually goes to the person running towards where the ball was kicked from. Should have nothing to worry about. It's only the tribunal's record of occasionally throwing in some genuinely mystifying decisions, that stops me from saying 100% nothing to worry about.

I'd say you're correct with your assessment of the Rowbottom incident.

[TheBloods]

Hayward and Wicks shut me up

[Ludwig]

Watching the replay of the Rowbottom-Merritt incident, it appears to me that Mills nudges RB in the back with his right hand and pushes him off balance. It doesn't look like a hard push, but enough to throw RB off balance where he was not in total control of his body when he comes in contact with Merritt. Both Mills an RB were running hard at the contest, so even a little push could throw someone off balance. The nudge from Mills pushes RB's body upward so his head is now directly in line with Merritt's head approaching from the other direction, so RB raises his arms to protect himself.

I don't know how the incident will be adjudged, but I don't think RB was trying to bump and could do nothing else under the circumstances.

Interested what others think.

[Nico]

Can’t believe the AFL website even suggests the McCartin-Caldwell incident will come under scrutiny. It was simply a great contest by both players with eyes on the ball. Bravo to both of them.

As for Rowbottom, I suspect the fact Merrett played out the game saves him. It’ll likely be careless, low impact and high, which is a fine. But given he ran past the ball, which is a no no, there’s a chance it gets graded as intentional, which would mean a week.

Not so long ago RB's action would have been seen as a perfect shepherd, and that's exactly what he attempted to do but got him high. John Brown after the game said it looked almost like a push at the end of the action. I don't think he ran past the ball, if he did it was a micro millimetre. The shepherd is still a legitimate part of our game. Just got to get it right.

[MattW]

Watching the replay of the Rowbottom-Merritt incident, it appears to me that Mills nudges RB in the back with his right hand and pushes him off balance. It doesn't look like a hard push, but enough to throw RB off balance where he was not in total control of his body when he comes in contact with Merritt. Both Mills an RB were running hard at the contest, so even a little push could throw someone off balance. The nudge from Mills pushes RB's body upward so his head is now directly in line with Merritt's head approaching from the other direction, so RB raises his arms to protect himself.

I don't know how the incident will be adjudged, but I don't think RB was trying to bump and could do nothing else under the circumstances.

Interested what others think.

Interesting argument. I don't quite agree with the last part - 'so RB raises...'. I think RB has already run past the ball and his arms are preparing for contact before the push. However, the push certainly increases the force of the contact and altered the kind of contact RB would have anticipated.

[Nico]

Hayward and Wicks shut me up

That was close to Wick's best game both in stats and his involvement in the play, and his ball handling was very clean, but lets not forget our forwards were given so much latitude. Hayward, well 2 goals means he keeps his spot. Lets see if can find some consistency and against good sides.

Tom Papley showed his value to the side. He kicked 42 goals last year which is no mean feat for a small forward. Again, their defence was poor but what he did was constantly present, and the forward line movement looked to have been tweaked somewhat. No so Buddy centric with multiple players presenting.

[TheBloods]

That was close to Wick's best game both in stats and his involvement in the play, and his ball handling was very clean, but lets not forget our forwards were given so much latitude. Hayward, well 2 goals means he keeps his spot. Lets see if can find some consistency and against good sides.

Tom Papley showed his value to the side. He kicked 42 goals last year which is no mean feat for a small forward. Again, their defence was poor but what he did was constantly present, and the forward line movement looked to have been tweaked somewhat. No so Buddy centric with multiple players presenting.

Bombers gave our forwards latitude but that doesnt effect pressure fwds like Wicks and Bell . A pressure fwd has to create his own involvements through tackling , chasing , causing turnovers. They dont get to stand around getting on the end of others play like others do , they have to earn it through grunt . Doesnt matter what the opposition is like , if you dont work hard as a pressure fwd you wont get the ball . They both had 10+ and Wicks nearly had 20 which shows how hard they worked . And i had fired up the grill for both and was ready .

[aardvark]

Entertaining game but if we played like that against the Demons we'd lose by 6 goals. The next 5 weeks will sort us out. Carlton, Richmond, Melbourne, Port & Saints. I'd be happy with 3-2.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Watching the replay of the Rowbottom-Merritt incident, it appears to me that Mills nudges RB in the back with his right hand and pushes him off balance. It doesn't look like a hard push, but enough to throw RB off balance where he was not in total control of his body when he comes in contact with Merritt. Both Mills an RB were running hard at the contest, so even a little push could throw someone off balance. The nudge from Mills pushes RB's body upward so his head is now directly in line with Merritt's head approaching from the other direction, so RB raises his arms to protect himself.

I don't know how the incident will be adjudged, but I don't think RB was trying to bump and could do nothing else under the circumstances.

Interested what others think.

I think this is all true, and Rowbottom's actions were clumsy - more than malicious. You could see he was almost stumbling.

What we just don't know is whether, regardless of him being a bit off balance, the AFL takes the view that he still ran past the ball in making contact. I'm not arguing for it, I'm just pointing it out as the risk which may see it elevated from careless to intentional - which switches it from a fine to a week.

As for the McCartin one, I think the umpires handled it perfectly. Both players had eyes on the ball, were going for the ball and contested the ball. Caldwell got there a nanosecond earlier to have first hands on the ball, so it was fair enough he got the free kick. But that's all it should be. It was just pure courage from both players.

[dejavoodoo44]

Watching the replay of the Rowbottom-Merritt incident, it appears to me that Mills nudges RB in the back with his right hand and pushes him off balance. It doesn't look like a hard push, but enough to throw RB off balance where he was not in total control of his body when he comes in contact with Merritt. Both Mills an RB were running hard at the contest, so even a little push could throw someone off balance. The nudge from Mills pushes RB's body upward so his head is now directly in line with Merritt's head approaching from the other direction, so RB raises his arms to protect himself.

I don't know how the incident will be adjudged, but I don't think RB was trying to bump and could do nothing else under the circumstances.

Interested what others think.

Yes, having just seen the replay, there is a definite push by Mills. Hopefully that's enough to get Rowbottom off.

[joeykanga]

Bombers gave our forwards latitude but that doesnt effect pressure fwds like Wicks and Bell . A pressure fwd has to create his own involvements through tackling , chasing , causing turnovers. They dont get to stand around getting on the end of others play like others do , they have to earn it through grunt . Doesnt matter what the opposition is like , if you dont work hard as a pressure fwd you wont get the ball . They both had 10+ and Wicks nearly had 20 which shows how hard they worked . And i had fired up the grill for both and was ready .

I'm totally with you on this one .maybe also post it on the Bell thread....they were tireless these two and they're not going to do highlight moments...it's the grunt they provide that improved everything for our side this week. The effort and pressure it's everything

[Markwebbos]

A relatively stress free night at the SCG for once.

I didn’t think the McCartin (T) Caldwell contest should have been a free kick.

Bit of a breakout game for the Chad I suspect (in terms of getting noticed outside of Sydney).

Thought Wicks was a great in. The twin rucks went well. I’d still like to see Florent being used more offensively. That kick inside 50 in I think Q3 showed his class.

The Mongrel Punt has this to say about JPKs twin GOAT achievements

Sydney v Essendon - The Big Questions - The Mongrel Punt

They should have stopped the game, gave him the game-ball and honoured a bloke that has been an absolute warrior for the club, and a bastion of all that is good about the league.

[i'm-uninformed2]

I wanted to ask you about J-Mac. Does he seem a bit fumbly or down on confidence at the current time?

I contrast him at the current time to Chad who is one grabbing everything, picking great corridor options and breaking the lines.

J-Mac always seems to come back well after a week out. Should we be managing J-Mac next week so that he freshens up and come back with confidence.

He doesn’t strike as the sort of bloke who gets too down on confidence.

It’s not always as easy when you’re not at the ground to observe running patterns and power, but from what I could see he wasn’t doing the long surging runs between the arcs he’s renowned for. Whether that’s because he was playing a bit more behind the ball, or he has a bit of a niggle, hard to know. But from what I could tell, he lacked his usual burst which suggests the latter.