Round 9 vs Bombers @ SCG - match thread

[stevoswan]

One week for Rowbottom. Careless, medium impact and high. As I suspected, fact he ran past the ball appears to have cost him. Hard to argue with.

Seriously, I reckon they should fight it. They may not if they think he could have a rest anyway but I thought they might argue that Mills push made contact inevitable (and also pushed him further passed the ball) and he just braced for contact.

Incidental, not careless and low impact.....Merrett played out the game. This is typical 'interstate' treatment by the MRP.

[Bangalore Swans]

You always let me down with your @@@@ posting

I don’t use emojis. What emoji should I use for this?

Is there an emoji for an online hero who wouldn’t dare to say that to someone in person?

[Bangalore Swans]

You really need an emoji at the start of posts like this to confirm that you’re kidding. You are kidding. Right?

Part of me is kidding. The other part of me knows that I should give people more time before forming a conclusion.

They will probably bring Campbell back for Rowbottom. I would prefe J-Mac rested and Stephen back in.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Seriously, I reckon they should fight it. They may not if they think he could have a rest anyway but I thought they might argue that Mills push made contact inevitable (and also pushed him further passed the ball) and he just braced for contact.

Incidental, not careless and low impact.....Merrett played out the game. This is typical 'interstate' treatment by the MRP.

Where I’d agree is the comparison with Lynch, who clearly raised his elbow and clocked a bloke in the head. That’s easily a week.

[Jimitron5000]

On McInerney, I was at the Hawthorn game a few weeks ago and he looked very ginger picking ground balls up. His knee was strapped but I thought (with absolutely no medical experience to base my opinion on) he had a lower back injury.
He's a gun, but doesn't seem to playing with the same zest he was earlier in the year.

[Ludwig]

Seriously, I reckon they should fight it. They may not if they think he could have a rest anyway but I thought they might argue that Mills push made contact inevitable (and also pushed him further passed the ball) and he just braced for contact.

Incidental, not careless and low impact.....Merrett played out the game. This is typical 'interstate' treatment by the MRP.

Rowbottom would know if he was pushed with enough force to cause the high impact. If he says it should be challenged, then we should do it. I would leave it to him to decide.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Got no problem challenging it if we think there's a precedent to lower the charge, but reckon the issue will still be he was at or almost past the ball at the point he got the nudge, and was not going for the ball at any point.

[Nico]

Got no problem challenging it if we think there's a precedent to lower the charge, but reckon the issue will still be he was at or almost past the ball at the point he got the nudge, and was not going for the ball at any point.

He put in a shepherd and got him high. Free kick. Move on. A shepherd is putting yourself between your opponent and your team mate. The shepherd is as old as the game. Is the shepherd dead?

[i'm-uninformed2]

He put in a shepherd and got him high. Free kick. Move on. A shepherd is putting yourself between your opponent and your team mate. The shepherd is as old as the game. Is the shepherd dead?

No, but it's the got him high bit that's the problem.

Hell, I've been more than happy to defend Rowbottom on here. And to be clear, I'd love him to get off with a downgrade of the charge. I'm just realistic about how the AFL approaches head high contact (unless you're Tom Lynch it seems).

[TheBloods]

Who cares , onto this week . Blues will be tough

[Industrial Fan]

I think the fumble was the issue more than the nudge Rowbottom got. He was going for the tackle, Merritt dropped the ball then ducked to retrieve it when Rowbottom arrived.

Not sure it changes the grading etc but it looked like he was just trying to tackle rather than bump or block to me

[stevoswan]

He put in a shepherd and got him high. Free kick. Move on. A shepherd is putting yourself between your opponent and your team mate. The shepherd is as old as the game. Is the shepherd dead?

This is something I've been wondering for years now....ever since 'blocking' free kicks started to be paid. I believe the rule is you can shepherd an opponent as long as the ball is within 5m.

I don't think the umpires are totally aware themselves....there seems to be confusion as to what constitutes a 'block' and what constitutes a 'shepherd'. 20 years ago, Rowbottom's bump/shepherd whatever it was, would have attracted little scrutiny.

- - - Updated - - -

Who cares , onto this week . Blues will be tough

Obviously not you. No one is surprised.

[liz]

I think the fumble was the issue more than the nudge Rowbottom got. He was going for the tackle, Merritt dropped the ball then ducked to retrieve it when Rowbottom arrived.

Not sure it changes the grading etc but it looked like he was just trying to tackle rather than bump or block to me

Yes and no. I reckon he was running towards Merrett with the intention of tackling him, not anticipating that Merrett would fumble the ball. But the fumble happened long enough before Rowbottom arrived for him to change his action to a shepherding one, rather than a tackling one. Rowbottom was entirely within his rights to shepherd in that situation - ie the ball was close enough - but not to catch Merrett high. He needed to just lower his body a tad to ensure the contact was all to Merrett's chest.

I don't have a problem with Rowbottom sitting out a match for that. If he doesn't, the competition is saying that it is fine for players to be collected high in that way. That's not where the competition is right now (for good reason).

[stevoswan]

Yes and no. I reckon he was running towards Merrett with the intention of tackling him, not anticipating that Merrett would fumble the ball. But the fumble happened long enough before Rowbottom arrived for him to change his action to a shepherding one, rather than a tackling one. Rowbottom was entirely within his rights to shepherd in that situation - ie the ball was close enough - but not to catch Merrett high. He needed to just lower his body a tad to ensure the contact was all to Merrett's chest.

I don't have a problem with Rowbottom sitting out a match for that. If he doesn't, the competition is saying that it is fine for players to be collected high in that way. That's not where the competition is right now (for good reason).

As opposed to a competition which seems to be saying that it is ok to elbow someone in the head, enough to draw blood, as long as it looks like an accident.....and you come from Richmond?

[Bangalore Swans]

This is something I've been wondering for years now....ever since 'blocking' free kicks started to be paid. I believe the rule is you can shepherd an opponent as long as the ball is within 5m.

I don't think the umpires are totally aware themselves....there seems to be confusion as to what constitutes a 'block' and what constitutes a 'shepherd'. 20 years ago, Rowbottom's bump/shepherd whatever it was, would have attracted little scrutiny.

- - - Updated - - -



Obviously not you. No one is surprised.

Leave TB alone. Many people feel Rowbottom could do with a rest. He’s not going to win the Brownlow so why does one week matter? He can come back in two weeks and give the team his tenacious defensive midfield skills after a good rest. Doing what Rowbottom does is tough week after week. Need to manage these players every now and then.