Rd 17 vs Richmond @ MCG - Match Thread

[KTigers]

Yes, there will be at least four mediocre teams in the finals this year and we could have been one of them. I guess a
week or two filling up space in the finals before being put to the sword by Collingwood or Port is better than
nothing.

[Roadrunner]

And who is meant to be coaching the team and changing the attitude when needed, why have a coach at all?

Good questions Merdo- why not put your hand up for the job? I feel confident you would change their attitude, as well as make the right moves during the game. ????

Seriously, the lads are struggling to play pressure football for four quarters and centre clearances seem to be a constant issue. Mills should play there for sure, but with the Lloyd injury a case can be made for playing him more down back. Robbie is a bit out of form- has been moved around a bit- so this move was understandable. We were beaten in the ruck and that’s where our problems started. Parks played ok without really asserting himself and we really only had Errol who played his heart out and Rowy. Their experienced players taught us a lesson how to play in the changed conditions.

I’m not making excuses for Horse and Co, as I think having Francis as the sub was wrong given the forecast for showers, and we should have had Corey. But the boys love Horse and the effort is there- the execution needs to improve and we need to work out the clearance issue- not simple!

[Industrial Fan]

Im all for 20mins being served thru the protocol

Im no stupid enough to believe it decided the game

Poor umpiring hasnt decided our season, injuries caused our situation but we caused ourselves to stay there.

Couldnt have been gifted more of an opportunity to qualify for finals in an even season and we have failed the test time and time again

likewise I don’t think anyone on here is stupid enough to think the hit on Lloyd didn’t have any bearing on the outcome of the game.

Injuries, lack of confidence from the GF and lack of composure in key moments are what has kept us out of the top half of the ladder.

As KT says no point just sneaking in to the finals and getting belted.

[KTigers]

It's a cliche but I'll say it anyway. When our better players are not firing we just need enough of the other players to lift
to "cover" for them. Yesterday at the GWS game, Josh Kelly (tagged down to 6 disposals), Tom Green and Toby
(all brilliant players) were nowhere near their usual selves but enough of the other guys who you've barely heard of all
did an extra bit to make up for the non-contributing stars and win the game. It's frustrating at the moment especially given
we made the GF last year. Last year's result raises the bar a bit for Longmire. Expectations for the team are higher than
where their age/development stage would normally have put them. He is signed to the end of 2025 now. He will see it
out (we're not big on changing coaches historically), but 15 years in the gig by then, I think he'll be over it himself.
It's a very stressful job.

[KTigers]

Here is more discussion on the send-off rule on SEN: AFL greats square off on send-off rule in heated debate.
Luke Hodge: in favour. Named a few incidents.
Dermott Brereton: against. (IMO a weak argument with the appeal to tradition fallacy.)

It's not a surprise that Brereton would be against it. With his Tribunal rap sheet, he would have been sent off several times a year.

It's weird that Dermott is even asked for his thoughts on what the tribunal penalties should be anymore.
Maybe his agent (and he'll have one, because he's.... you know.... a star, just ask him) should just issue a
statement that Dermott believes that short of a player coming onto the field with an AR-15 assault rifle and
massacring half the opposition team, no player should ever be suspended for anything. And even that
"infringement" is only worth a week on the sideline.

[Blood Fever]

Yeah. His tough guy image wears very thin in this day and age. Send off rule not far away. Nankervis the perfect example of where it should apply.

[KTigers]

Yeah. His tough guy image wears very thin in this day and age. Send off rule not far away. Nankervis the perfect example of where it should apply.

I just googled him. He's 58. Aren't you meant to be a grownup by then? Surely. Oh well, it is what it is with him I guess.

[caj23]

Talk about a storm in a teacup.

There has been no send off rule in the AFL for 150 years and it's been just fine. We weren't disadvantaged by Lloyd being off on Thursday night as we had a sub, a Richmond player was also subbed off earlier than Lloyd so both teams were even.

Hell, Nankervis' bump was far from the worst thing we've seen this year and posters on here are baying for his blood

We were disadvantaged because after 12 seasons as an AFL senior coach, Longmire hasn't worked out that the sub needs to be a mid sized player, not a lumbering KPP or a ruckman, especially on a night where rain was forecast.

[neilfws]

I'm 0-2 attending MCG games now. Enjoyable trip to Melbourne in all other aspects though.

Disappointing because at half-time I thought the Swans were going alright and if they'd been able to maintain that standard, a good chance. Unfortunately they really fell away through the second half, Tigers ball use was better and they adapted to the conditions. By the end they only had to be a little better and so they were. You always know it's gone wrong when you see Mills dropped way back into defence.

The Lloyd incident was right in front of me; I somehow missed the moment of contact as I was watching something else, but saw the aftermath and he did not look in a good way at all. It did seem to unsettle a few players though as I mentioned, they played well enough through to half-time.

Discovered the American Doughnut kitchen at Queen Vic market this trip, two thumbs up to that anyway!

[Thunder Shaker]

Talk about a storm in a teacup.

There has been no send off rule in the AFL for 150 years and it's been just fine.

Changes can occur when such changes are deemed necessary. Some examples:
* Players used to stay on the ground when bleeding. The blood rule was introduced in the 1980s when the dangers from blood-borne diseases such as HIV-AIDS became apparent.
* Head knocks were not treated with any special caution. Now players are assessed with a strict concussion protocol and if they are deemed to be affected they don't play again for 12 days at least.
* Incidents had to be reported by an umpire or they didn't go to the Tribunal. Now there's a video review after every game.

The handling of incidents between players has changed over time. It's worth having the discussion on a send-off rule even if no change is made at this time.

As for "it's been just fine", that is contentious. Is it really fine that someone could intentionally injure an opposing player and the perpetrator gets to play out the game? (I'm not referring to the Nankervis-Lloyd incident here.) Yes, the perpetrator would go to the Tribunal and get a suspension. But the current match - the one most affected by such an incident - is least affected by a suspension. Forcing the perpetrator off the ground for 20 playing minutes would remedy this. It is a side issue whether the player is replaced or the perpetrator's team plays with one player missing from the ground.

[caj23]

Changes can occur when such changes are deemed necessary. Some examples:
* Players used to stay on the ground when bleeding. The blood rule was introduced in the 1980s when the dangers from blood-borne diseases such as HIV-AIDS became apparent.
* Head knocks were not treated with any special caution. Now players are assessed with a strict concussion protocol and if they are deemed to be affected they don't play again for 12 days at least.
* Incidents had to be reported by an umpire or they didn't go to the Tribunal. Now there's a video review after every game.

The handling of incidents between players has changed over time. It's worth having the discussion on a send-off rule even if no change is made at this time.

As for "it's been just fine", that is contentious. Is it really fine that someone could intentionally injure an opposing player and the perpetrator gets to play out the game? (I'm not referring to the Nankervis-Lloyd incident here.) Yes, the perpetrator would go to the Tribunal and get a suspension. But the current match - the one most affected by such an incident - is least affected by a suspension. Forcing the perpetrator off the ground for 20 playing minutes would remedy this. It is a side issue whether the player is replaced or the perpetrator's team plays with one player missing from the ground.

How often do intentional hits actually occur in the game? Very rarely.

The umpires are already struggling with consistency in decision making as it is, so you really want them adjudicating on something as important as that?

FWIW our very own Wicks probably would’ve been sent off a couple of weeks ago had the rule been in place

[Blood Fever]

I reckon this issue will escalate due to the serious effects of concussion now being discovered. Where the head is concerned and a player has deliberately or carelessly targeted it, especially where a concussion has occurred, then a send off is not unreasonable. Lloyd and others in his situation are totally vulnerable which adds to the severity of the act. Not tolerated in any other sport, except maybe ice hockey.

Separate issue to who the sub is.

[MattW]

Changes can occur when such changes are deemed necessary. Some examples:
* Players used to stay on the ground when bleeding. The blood rule was introduced in the 1980s when the dangers from blood-borne diseases such as HIV-AIDS became apparent.
* Head knocks were not treated with any special caution. Now players are assessed with a strict concussion protocol and if they are deemed to be affected they don't play again for 12 days at least.
* Incidents had to be reported by an umpire or they didn't go to the Tribunal. Now there's a video review after every game.

The handling of incidents between players has changed over time. It's worth having the discussion on a send-off rule even if no change is made at this time.

As for "it's been just fine", that is contentious. Is it really fine that someone could intentionally injure an opposing player and the perpetrator gets to play out the game? (I'm not referring to the Nankervis-Lloyd incident here.) Yes, the perpetrator would go to the Tribunal and get a suspension. But the current match - the one most affected by such an incident - is least affected by a suspension. Forcing the perpetrator off the ground for 20 playing minutes would remedy this. It is a side issue whether the player is replaced or the perpetrator's team plays with one player missing from the ground.

Nice post.

I'd be open to a system whereby serious foul play causing a concussion can result in the offending playing missing the remainder of the game (but the team retaining 18 on the field). To be adjudicated by a video umpire reviewing vision.

[Blood Fever]

How often do intentional hits actually occur in the game? Very rarely.

The umpires are already struggling with consistency in decision making as it is, so you really want them adjudicating on something as important as that?

FWIW our very own Wicks probably would’ve been sent off a couple of weeks ago had the rule been in place

Happy for Wicks to be sent off for that head high contact. Red card would stop reckless head contact. Serious health issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Agree with keeping 18 on the field

[KTigers]

I think a send-off rule will happen eventually but it's probably a bit of a way off. They have it in lots of sports and they are all still
functioning. The danger I think is leaving the decision up to a field umpire. They only see things in real time and are often not
close enough to see all the actions involved closely enough. Hence we have the situation now where probably 10%-15% of their calls
are bewildering to us watching them afterwards in slo-mo. Maybe the send-off decision could be made by an official who does
have the benefit of watching a replay. Like I said, I just can't see the AFL moving towards a send-off rule very quickly. It's not
really their style.
Right now we're discussing it because Jake Lloyd was taken out of the game and we lost and are cranky about it. Would people
feel the same if one of our guys had taken the annoying Nankervis out of the game and we'd won? Maybe, but just a bit less
stridently.