Rd 17 vs Richmond @ MCG - Match Thread

[wolftone57]

Hickeys farewell, I rate Ladhams and we are miles better off next year bringing in McAndrew as required, over a broken Hickey.

He has done 3yrs and performed very well but the time has come.

I agree. Hickey is cooked. Got absolutely smashed in the ruck. Ladhams will not be ready for at least 3 matches. McAndrew needs to come in now. Why? Because at least he is going to give us a chance in the ruck. They got clearances simply because of Nanka's domination. He was hitting it down their throats. Our set ups were too loose and we took Mills out of the mids and put him back and we could never get momentum back once they had it. This is as much coaching as it is personnel.

Horse did the predictable thing when they got a run on, he put Mills back. I'm sure there was absolute glee in the Richmond box when he did that. So predictable. If I know it's going to happen, I'm sure opposition coaches do too. In fact, Horse went predictably flooding defence in the last and we could not extract ourselves from their forward half. I mean, Mcdonald was at fullback for crying out loud. we had no options out at all. This has happened a lot this year and is a pattern of Horse's coaching. Very predictably defensive when the pressure comes. Instead of trying to win games he tries to save them. You can't be doing that half way through the third.

He tried to justify the Francis move in his presser but there was no justification. When Lloyd was deliberately taken out by that cheap shot from Nanka behind play and I saw Francis was coming on I knew we were in trouble. A tall who moves to ball quite badly to replace one of our prime ball users, that's really going to work. Whoever thought Francis as sub was a good idea needs sacking. Even with the question over McCartin this is still a bad idea. Corey Warner should have been sub. Francis was terrible when he did come on anyway.

The last half was one of the worst displays by a Swans team in a long time. We simply could not get the ball and when we did it was deep in defence. Then we could not get it out because even Logan was on the fullback line. The Flood. This all goes back to game plan and bad selection. There have been some howlers at selection this year. As much as horse has been a great coach, he will never win another premiership. He is too inflexible. His whole philosophy is from the Roos Defensive Handbook. The game has moved on and while Horse did too, when things get tough he always reverts to form. I don't think he is getting the best out of this list.

[Thunder Shaker]

Losing Lloyd really hurt us. Nankervis is likely to go straight to the Tribunal for that hit on Lloyd.

This incident is causing discussion involving a send-off rule. See here: Longmire laments Lloyd absence as calls grow for AFL send-off rule (sen.com.au).

Sending a player off is already in the Laws of Australian football (Law 23) but does not apply to the AFL.

[wolftone57]

Losing Lloyd really hurt us. Nankervis is likely to go straight to the Tribunal for that hit on Lloyd.

This incident is causing discussion involving a send-off rule. See here: Longmire laments Lloyd absence as calls grow for AFL send-off rule (sen.com.au).

Sending a player off is already in the Laws of Australian football (Law 23) but does not apply to the AFL.

The Send Off rule is used in Junior Football only. I think that is why it was introduced

[i'm-uninformed2]

Losing Lloyd really hurt us. Nankervis is likely to go straight to the Tribunal for that hit on Lloyd.

This incident is causing discussion involving a send-off rule. See here: Longmire laments Lloyd absence as calls grow for AFL send-off rule (sen.com.au).

Sending a player off is already in the Laws of Australian football (Law 23) but does not apply to the AFL.

I get the instincts here, given we effectively lost a player for the night - and it's future opponents that get the benefit of Nankervis being penalised for the offence with a suspension.

But, I'm a bit loathe to have umpires make that call on the field, given the risk of snap judgements in a game that is 360 degrees and so fast and fluid. I'd even worry about the idea of a video referee being involved, unless there was such comprehensive camera angles and coverage that every component of an incident could be tested, and the offence so extreme and black-and-white, that it deserves a send off. Even then, could you do any video ref reviews in a timely way? And what about off-the-ball incidents that aren't obvious at the time, which potentially means you have two classes of incidents.

For me, the current system ain't perfect in terms of incentives; but it still seems better than the alternative.

[Blood Fever]

The Send Off rule is used in Junior Football only. I think that is why it was introduced

Weak as water by Nankervis. If they're serious about protecting the head and concussion, they have to up the ante. 6 weeks out would be a good start.

[Maltopia]

I get the instincts here, given we effectively lost a player for the night - and it's future opponents that get the benefit of Nankervis being penalised for the offence with a suspension.

But, I'm a bit loathe to have umpires make that call on the field, given the risk of snap judgements in a game that is 360 degrees and so fast and fluid. I'd even worry about the idea of a video referee being involved, unless there was such comprehensive camera angles and coverage that every component of an incident could be tested, and the offence so extreme and black-and-white, that it deserves a send off. Even then, could you do any video ref reviews in a timely way? And what about off-the-ball incidents that aren't obvious at the time, which potentially means you have two classes of incidents.

For me, the current system ain't perfect in terms of incentives; but it still seems better than the alternative.

Yet they can red card players in other sports, like soccer and ice hockey. They have issues too of course such as players exaggerating contact, but if there is a will there is a way.

Imagine it is a grand final or your retirement game, who cares if you are suspended next game. Take out some opponent key players and win the game.

The commentators were even saying Nank was playing a superb game because he knew he owed it to his team as he would be out the next few games. How perverted is that? Take out an opposition key player, and then you perform better for your team the rest of the game motivates by the suspension coming after the game, further disadvantaging the team that lost a player through thuggery.

[KTigers]

He'll get one or two weeks maximum. You know why this stuff keeps happening? Because nothing much ever happens to the aggressor.
Make contact like Nankervis' a minimum six weeks penalty (and twelve weeks for second offences) and you'd stop it in a heartbeat.
Every time the AFL says "the head is sacrosanct" what they really mean is "the head is not sacrosanct".
And then to have the commentators talking up Nankervis afterwards with this corny "he's a man of honour" vibe because he "owes
it to his teammates to play well" showed yet again their mental age is about 12. I mean seriously, do they ever listen to themselves?

[Thunder Shaker]

I get the instincts here, given we effectively lost a player for the night - and it's future opponents that get the benefit of Nankervis being penalised for the offence with a suspension.

But, I'm a bit loathe to have umpires make that call on the field, given the risk of snap judgements in a game that is 360 degrees and so fast and fluid. I'd even worry about the idea of a video referee being involved, unless there was such comprehensive camera angles and coverage that every component of an incident could be tested, and the offence so extreme and black-and-white, that it deserves a send off. Even then, could you do any video ref reviews in a timely way? And what about off-the-ball incidents that aren't obvious at the time, which potentially means you have two classes of incidents.

For me, the current system ain't perfect in terms of incentives; but it still seems better than the alternative.

If a player who was concussed in a reportable incident has to be off the field for 20 minutes for a concussion assessment, it's only fair that the perpetrator is also sent off the field for 20 minutes. That should be enough time to complete a video evaluation of the incident. If the video evaluation is unfavourable, the perpetrator can be sent off for the rest of the game.

Suppose there was a send-off rule. Should the offending team play with fewer players, and if so, from when and for how long? IMO, the answers are: (1) yes, (2) from the time the incident is ruled to be reportable, and (3) for 20 minutes of playing time (the length of a full quarter), or if it happens in the last quarter, for the rest of the game.

Controversial? Yes, but so is the ability to gain an advantage by injuring a key player on the opposing side without immediate consequences.

[waswan]

All the junior red card BS aside, i think there is merit in the offending player serving 20mins for the concussion protocol to take place, a no brainer if he is reported for the incident

[Blood Fever]

I reckon the red card will come in sooner rather than later for deliberate or careless knocks to the head. CTE not BS.

[Merdo5555]

Yes, the ones I'm referring to are very predictable.

As are those defending the indefensible, like clockwork the confected moral outrage and pious moral superiority.

[Blood Fever]

Way over the top comment in keeping with your match thread contributions but as I said, each to their own.

[H2F]

Like i said in the off-season club just rested on its laurels because we made a "GF" i put quotation marks as we may of not been there but i digress.

If you dont improve your list in the off-season you will go backwards in this competition and voila from a GF to bottom 4 in the space of a few months.

[chalbilto]

Like i said in the off-season club just rested on its laurels because we made a "GF" i put quotation marks as we may of not been there but i digress.

If you dont improve your list in the off-season you will go backwards in this competition and voila from a GF to bottom 4 in the space of a few months.

And back into top 4 next season.

[MattW]

In John's press conference, he bemoaned losing centre clearances 10-1 in the second half. I checked the stats for the match and they're stark.

Scrolling down further, Papley had 1 from 4 centre bounce attendances (which seems a low number of attendances), Sheldrick 0/11, Heeney 0/4, Gulden 0/3.

Also, Hickey was dominated by Nankervis, which was also influential.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk