Rd 17 vs Richmond @ MCG - Match Thread

[gloveski]

Losing centre clearances with such regularity makes it hard to defend a lead like that under the satanic 666 rules.

I can see why Longmire is keen to secure a clearance “beast”. I have hopes it could be Sheldrick. Did his injury on Thursday limit his CBAs?

It’s interesting as we need a good centre clearance/stoppage beast with height but they need to also have leg speed . The Bont types just don’t grow on trees unfortunately If we are not winning the ruck our one paced midfield gets shown up .
Chad has been a big loss as he has the strength/pace to break away from the congestion .
If we are winning the ruck contest we can then throw Gulden in the mix and Papley to use there breakaway speed . But the last thing we want is those guys getting tackled constantly it just wears them out if the ruck contest is being halved.
Richmond in the second half around the contest we’re able to use there fleet footed mids like Bolton to burst from stoppages because Nank became so dominate .
Hickey just can’t run out games currently and is a shadow of the player he was in previous years for us .

Win or even halve the ruck contest and add in a stoppage beast and we are along way to solving our problems.
Sheldrick doesn’t have the height but he could well be the beast we are looking for . Just needs to build his tank


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stevoswan]

Never once said to get rid of Horse, disappointed with the season, frustrated with the MC, bewildered by the mid coach..... Fan forum, assume all of that is still allowed ?

Fair enough about Horse.....but all I am doing is disagreeing with some of the (more negative) things you say.....fan forum, assume that is still allowed?

Certainly not trying to 'cancel' you....as some on here have implied (not you).

[stevoswan]

Rightto leave it there fellas, time for Stevo to come in and respond to everyones opinion

Settle down mate....you do have it in for me it seems. I've steered clear of here for 2 days....it's been very calming!

- - - Updated - - -

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

Who's surprised? Must be time for caj23 to add to the pile-on.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, I became a Swans supporter during the low ebb of the early 90s*. Apart from the odd down year, I've been luckily supporting the Swans through what is unquestionably their most consistently successful era. An era where we've had excellent coaches, highly competent administrators and a huge range of quality players. So, I have little time for throwing the toys out of pram, that some posters indulge in after a loss.

+1

[troyjones2525]

Settle down mate....you do have it in for me it seems. I've steered clear of here for 2 days....it's been very calming!

- - - Updated - - -



Who's surprised? Must be time for caj23 to add to the pile-on.[emoji2]

- - - Updated - - -



+1

Relax Stevo, no malice there, I just thought it was funny!

Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

[stevoswan]

Relax Stevo, no malice there, I just thought it was funny!

All good.

[Mel_C]

Was Lloyd given a free for the Nankervis bump? I'm struggling to remember but I don't think he was, because otherwise the game would have stopped and another swan would have had to take the kick. How did the umpires miss that??

[troyjones2525]

Yes, we were paid a down field free kick.

Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

[Mel_C]

Yes, we were paid a down field free kick.

Sent from my SM-F936B using Tapatalk

Thanks. So the umpires weren't completely blind.

[Mel_C]

Nankervis has been suspended for 3 weeks. The AFL were asking for 4 weeks.

[Meg]

Nankervis has been suspended for 3 weeks. The AFL were asking for 4 weeks.

3 weeks good, but should have been four. The action was worse than just ‘careless’.

[stevoswan]

3 weeks good, but should have been four. The action was worse than just ‘careless’.

Agree.....Titus's view on the incident is accurate:

"While the Tiges were inaccurate up forward, Toby Nankervis aimed true when he clipped Jake Lloyd high. Perhaps what stood out most about the bump was how completely unnecessary it was."

https://www.titusoreily.com/afl/the-monday-knee-jerk-reaction-afl-round-seventeen2023

[MattW]

3 weeks good, but should have been four. The action was worse than just ‘careless’.

Agree.

[liz]

Three doesn't feel right for an incident that has resurrected the discussion about a send-off rule (regardless of how one feels about a send-off rule). That suggests the incident wasn't viewed as a normal football action gone wrong. Bear in mind that Sicily recently received a three match suspension for his tackle gone wrong.

I get the arguments for a send-off rule but, on balance, I'm not in favour. We would probably start with it kept for the worst incidents (Hall on Staker; Gaff on Brayshaw) but there are always grey areas in contact sport played at high speed where players often have to react and adjust very quickly and I fear it would creep towards being used for incidents that are only worth a one or two week suspension.

I'd like them to first start penalising completely unnecessary acts properly. Five weeks. Six weeks. They never classify bumps as deliberate but this was as close as they come. Not just the bump itself, but the fact it was high. It could never have been anything other than high given a ruckman chose to bump a smaller player and didn't even try to lower his body. It's not as if Lloyd had slipped, or otherwise lowered his body in a way that Nankervis couldn't have expected. So he chose to bump in a manner that couldn't result in anything other than high contact, and Nankervis should have known this.

I dislike the English language labels assigned to classifications. It is one of the reasons I've never been keen on going back to the negligent/reckless distinction that we used to have. I remember pulling teeth out (ok, hair) watching Whately and Robinson mumble and fumble their way through discussions debating whether an incident was negligent or reckless. Similarly, no-one likes applying the intentional classification because, in normal language usage, that implies pre-meditation. I doubt we get any serious pre-mediated incidents nowadays. Maybe the off-the-ball tummy taps, but those typically don't cause injury. I don't think the Gaff hit was premediated. I don't even think Hall's hit on Staker was. He just, for whatever reason, had a momentary brain snap.

I'd like it if they moved to a Cat 1/Cat 2 classification (and Cat 3 if its needed), with clear criteria provided for when an incident will be classified as Cat 2. Without spending hours thinking about it, I'd suggest that if a player is genuinely contesting the ball but something goes wrong, it is Cat 1. If they are not, or they are contesting the ball in an unreasonable manner (like jumping off the ground other than to contest a mark or spoil), it would be Cat 2.

That's not perfect, and there will remain some grey areas. For example, some bumps arise from shepherding actions, which is a legitimate football action, even though it is a deliberate act to bump. I am not sure how these would fit into my classification.

This Nankervis one would be a classic Cat 2 for me. He wasn't moving at speed towards Lloyd while Lloyd had the ball. So it's hard to argue he just had to "brace for contact". And he never shaped to tackle either. I'd have to watch the De Goey one again, as I can't recall the extent to which he was already committed to contest the ball. But I don't think he ever shaped to tackle either, and the fact he jumped off the ground would probably place it firmly in Cat 2.

[MattW]

Three doesn't feel right for an incident that has resurrected the discussion about a send-off rule (regardless of how one feels about a send-off rule). That suggests the incident wasn't viewed as a normal football action gone wrong. Bear in mind that Sicily recently received a three match suspension for his tackle gone wrong.

I get the arguments for a send-off rule but, on balance, I'm not in favour. We would probably start with it kept for the worst incidents (Hall on Staker; Gaff on Brayshaw) but there are always grey areas in contact sport played at high speed where players often have to react and adjust very quickly and I fear it would creep towards being used for incidents that are only worth a one or two week suspension.

I'd like them to first start penalising completely unnecessary acts properly. Five weeks. Six weeks. They never classify bumps as deliberate but this was as close as they come. Not just the bump itself, but the fact it was high. It could never have been anything other than high given a ruckman chose to bump a smaller player and didn't even try to lower his body. It's not as if Lloyd had slipped, or otherwise lowered his body in a way that Nankervis couldn't have expected. So he chose to bump in a manner that couldn't result in anything other than high contact, and Nankervis should have known this.

I dislike the English language labels assigned to classifications. It is one of the reasons I've never been keen on going back to the negligent/reckless distinction that we used to have. I remember pulling teeth out (ok, hair) watching Whately and Robinson mumble and fumble their way through discussions debating whether an incident was negligent or reckless. Similarly, no-one likes applying the intentional classification because, in normal language usage, that implies pre-meditation. I doubt we get any serious pre-mediated incidents nowadays. Maybe the off-the-ball tummy taps, but those typically don't cause injury. I don't think the Gaff hit was premediated. I don't even think Hall's hit on Staker was. He just, for whatever reason, had a momentary brain snap.

I'd like it if they moved to a Cat 1/Cat 2 classification (and Cat 3 if its needed), with clear criteria provided for when an incident will be classified as Cat 2. Without spending hours thinking about it, I'd suggest that if a player is genuinely contesting the ball but something goes wrong, it is Cat 1. If they are not, or they are contesting the ball in an unreasonable manner (like jumping off the ground other than to contest a mark or spoil), it would be Cat 2.

That's not perfect, and there will remain some grey areas. For example, some bumps arise from shepherding actions, which is a legitimate football action, even though it is a deliberate act to bump. I am not sure how these would fit into my classification.

This Nankervis one would be a classic Cat 2 for me. He wasn't moving at speed towards Lloyd while Lloyd had the ball. So it's hard to argue he just had to "brace for contact". And he never shaped to tackle either. I'd have to watch the De Goey one again, as I can't recall the extent to which he was already committed to contest the ball. But I don't think he ever shaped to tackle either, and the fact he jumped off the ground would probably place it firmly in Cat 2.

I don't think there's anything wrong with careless/reckless.

Collins Dictionary online:

'If you are careless, you do not pay enough attention to what you are doing, and so you make mistakes, or cause harm or damage.'

'If you say that someone is reckless, you mean that they act in a way which shows that they do not care about danger or the effect their behaviour will have on other people.'

The difference is the latter involves an awareness of the risk of harm to others and insufficient heed to avoid it. The former does not have the concious awareness of the risk associated with an action (which is then ignored).

Nankervis was classically reckless. He did not care about the real chance his concious, unnecessary action would cause head trauma to the opponent.

My view is if the player is reckless and it results in concussion, they're sent off but can be replaced.

At this press conference yesterday, Longmire suggested the purpose of a send-off would be to balance loss of the concussed player.

That's not my rationale. Given the serious, long-term damage caused by concussion, the penalty for a reckless action causing foreseeable head injury should be severe and immediate. The offending player should lose the opportunity to help their team win the game.

[Maltopia]

Thanks. So the umpires weren't completely blind.

I recall hearing the umpire saying he had been reported, so they did see the incident and deem it an infringement.