Rnd 18 Pre-Match Thread vs North Melbourne at SCG 1:45 PM Saturday 13 July 2024

[Blood Fever]

My suspicion with it being Mills coming back, Heeney out and Wicks back in is:
- selectors being risk averse (not wanting 2 players coming off a comparatively low fitness base coming in together).
- Risk of being a very slow forward line with very low pressure levels (if Wicks stayed out, and Heeney already being out)
- Wicks being clearly given a shot across the bow.
- This week is an effective straight shoot out this weekend between Campbell and Roberts for a spot (assuming one of them isn't the sub).

Will be interesting to see who the sub ends up being.

I don't subscribe to the same conspiracy theories of some (not on here - other forums etc) that Parker is being deliberately excluded, or some other grand conspiracy. I'm sure he is disappointed, and he may well put his name up to be traded. But equally, I hope it will see him put his head down, bum up and prove why he should be part of the best 23. The best answer to the critics (whoever they may be) within the club that means he hasn't been an automatic in is to show them why he should be in there.

Would not surprise me, if Parker plays well in reserves, and Wicks doesn't have a blinder, for changes to be Parker and Heeney in, Wicks and one of Campbell and Roberts out. Mills to play off the Half Back Line, Heeney to play more in the forward line, and Parker to play in the mid group and roll up forward.

Interesting post. Not sure who was going to play Wicks role if Heeney was able to play. Parker seems like a natural replacement for Adams. Injuries normally take care of these situations. There are shades of O'Keefe in 2014 but that might be a stretch.

[waswan]

Interesting post. Not sure who was going to play Wicks role if Heeney was able to play. Parker seems like a natural replacement for Adams. Injuries normally take care of these situations. There are shades of O'Keefe in 2014 but that might be a stretch.

Wicks isn't playing Wicks role.

He doesn't have one, injury cover only.

Parker could come in at 3qtr time and lay more tackles and get more touches.

Next week
Roberts Sub
Parker for Wicks
Heeney for Fox, Mills defense

Campbell deserves to keep playing but can see him getting shunted again here

[lwjoyner]

afl dont care abour nsw particularly the swans. Now they will change zero rodn cause the pies dont want to play it and they and vic clubs run the AFL. Pity HEENEY could not change his names to either dangerfield,butters ,or cameron What can u expect from a Vic biased AFl with 2 lawyers running the show one a female who has played the game, so what can u expect. Th vic clubs will win again and RND 1 will return (forget rnd zero) as Collingwood and other Vics want it preferably with all clubs taking part feel sorry for wa teams and who goes to Qld or NSW and the vic clubs will still want a bye for this.

[waswan]

Wicks isn't playing Wicks role.

He doesn't have one, injury cover only.

Parker could come in at 3qtr time and lay more tackles and get more touches.

Next week
Roberts Sub
Parker for Wicks
Heeney for Fox, Mills defense

Campbell deserves to keep playing but can see him getting shunted again here

I'd also accept Fox in Lloyd Sub

[SwanSand]

It’s disappointing Isaac but let’s get the flag home with a Norm Smith. I am sure this has lit a fire under him and others to get it done.

[Nico]

Adams has to play. If he wasn't sub last week we win imho. Plus Heeney out means Adams must come in as a mid.

Unless there is something we don't know, the decision to leave Parker out is a shocker. He can't be less fit than Mills.

I thought Roberts was soft and rubbish last week. Campbell will be sub.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd also accept Fox in Lloyd Sub

Both Lloyd and Roberts are in the starting 18 so neither will be sub.

[MattW]

Very impressive video message from Isaac: 'Pretty shattering': Brownlow hopes over as Swan's appeal fails - APPEAL FAILS: Brownlow hopes dashed as Sydney Swans midfielder Isaac Heeney still banned

[dejavoodoo44]

A farce of a decision.

The AFL actually argued intention doesn’t matter on high contact, despite acknowledging Heeney didn’t mean to hit him high. On that logic, careless doesn’t exist as a category any more.

There’s no distinction in character between Charlie Cameron and Heeney, but nope to that too.

That’s without getting to precedents like Hogan or Butters or Zerk-Thatcher.

Truly pretzel like stuff as always from the VFL.

I suspect that the AFL decided to crack down on players throwing their arms back and collecting their opponents high: though I don't recall there being a spate of such incidents. They then might of reasoned, that players would argue, that because they weren't looking at their opponent, then the contact was accidental. So, in their wisdom, they decided that the act of throwing your arm back made the contact intentional, because the player did intend to throw his arm back. Though strangely, they worded it "usually intentional", but then ruled on Tuesday that it should really just mean intentional, despite the fact that Heeney striking Webster on the face was obviously accidental because Webster fell over and wasn't where Heeney expected to be.

It's possible that they could have a point, if they were actually trying to outlaw players throwing their arms back to either swat away a grab, push off an opponent or just forcefully hold position in a contest. But they're not. That sort of contact probably happens hundreds of times a game and almost always without any free kick: largely because pretty well everyone sees that battling for position as a fundamental aspect of a contact sport. If anything, most of the frees are awarded to the person who throws their arm back, because sometimes the defender grabs that arm and then the umpire pays a holding free.

So, to sum up the crystal clear AFL position. Throwing your arm back is not worthy of a free kick, unless you accidentally hit a player in the head. That accidental contact is then deemed intentional and therefore worthy of a suspension. It is also pointless to argue that the obvious accident was accidental, because throwing your arm back is something that needs to be stamped out, despite being an ever present part of the game.

Another thing that I found ludicrous on Tuesday night, was that the AFL argued that because Heeney's arm was rising when he made contact, that demonstrated that the contact was intentional. Which is the sort of argument, where any reply should be commenced with the words, "Oh @@@@ off, idiot!" Then in that case, should be followed with an explanation that the arm rotates around the shoulder in an arc. The hand is at its lowest point when it's parallel with the leg, then if it moves backwards along that arc, it naturally rises. To move downwards, Heeney would've had to adjust his body position. Which may have been a bit difficult, as the only real reason to do that was to avoid Webster's head: which funnily enough, he was obviously assuming was at head height, not waist height.

And it's probably worth mentioning, that some people think that Isaac has been a little bit down on form lately, because he's carrying a shoulder injury. If this is the case, then the most likely scenario for where he picked up the injury was in the Adelaide game, when Fogarty hit him with a late shoulder charge. Which to me looked like an intentional attempt to inflict some damage, by a frustrated player who was pissed off with being thrashed. But because there was no contact with the head, no report or suspension. Though of course, a late hit on a player not expecting contact can cause a whiplash effect, which can lead to a head clash or the head cannoning into the shoulder. Or the shoulder just slipping up and making contact with the head. Luckily for both players, no head contact or ensuing concussion occurred. If Heeney did end up concussed, I'm guessing that Fogarty would have got about 4 or 5 weeks for the probably malicious late hit that caused it. So to me, that further emphasises the absurd lottery that the tribunal has become.

[waswan]

I suspect that the AFL decided to crack down on players throwing their arms back and collecting their opponents high: though I don't recall there being a spate of such incidents. They then might of reasoned, that players would argue, that because they weren't looking at their opponent, then the contact was accidental. So, in their wisdom, they decided that the act of throwing your arm back made the contact intentional, because the player did intend to throw his arm back. Though strangely, they worded it "usually intentional", but then ruled on Tuesday that it should really just mean intentional, despite the fact that Heeney striking Webster on the face was obviously accidental because Webster fell over and wasn't where Heeney expected to be.

It's possible that they could have a point, if they were actually trying to outlaw players throwing their arms back to either swat away a grab, push off an opponent or just forcefully hold position in a contest. But they're not. That sort of contact probably happens hundreds of times a game and almost always without any free kick: largely because pretty well everyone sees that battling for position as a fundamental aspect of a contact sport. If anything, most of the frees are awarded to the person who throws their arm back, because sometimes the defender grabs that arm and then the umpire pays a holding free.

So, to sum up the crystal clear AFL position. Throwing your arm back is not worthy of a free kick, unless you accidentally hit a player in the head. That accidental contact is then deemed intentional and therefore worthy of a suspension. It is also pointless to argue that the obvious accident was accidental, because throwing your arm back is something that needs to be stamped out, despite being an ever present part of the game.

Another thing that I found ludicrous on Tuesday night, was that the AFL argued that because Heeney's arm was rising when he made contact, that demonstrated that the contact was intentional. Which is the sort of argument, where any reply should be commenced with the words, "Oh @@@@ off, idiot!" Then in that case, should be followed with an explanation that the arm rotates around the shoulder in an arc. The hand is at its lowest point when it's parallel with the leg, then if it moves backwards along that arc, it naturally rises. To move downwards, Heeney would've had to adjust his body position. Which may have been a bit difficult, as the only real reason to do that was to avoid Webster's head: which funnily enough, he was obviously assuming was at head height, not waist height.

And it's probably worth mentioning, that some people think that Isaac has been a little bit down on form lately, because he's carrying a shoulder injury. If this is the case, then the most likely scenario for where he picked up the injury was in the Adelaide game, when Fogarty hit him with a late shoulder charge. Which to me looked like an intentional attempt to inflict some damage, by a frustrated player who was pissed off with being thrashed. But because there was no contact with the head, no report or suspension. Though of course, a late hit on a player not expecting contact can cause a whiplash effect, which can lead to a head clash or the head cannoning into the shoulder. Or the shoulder just slipping up and making contact with the head. Luckily for both players, no head contact or ensuing concussion occurred. If Heeney did end up concussed, I'm guessing that Fogarty would have got about 4 or 5 weeks for the probably malicious late hit that caused it. So to me, that further emphasises the absurd lottery that the tribunal has become.

All makes sense until you see the Butters incident

Looked at the bloke, not contesting the ball, stationary in fact, got him high after intentionally striking and it was graded as careless not intentional

That's all Heens was asking for

[waswan]

So off the selection committee

Last 3 weeks
Amartey 20poss, 1 goal, 6 tackles
Season
Wicks 24 tackles in 14 games

Load up, they are too smug atm

Play Mills, Adams, Parker in the 22

When Heeney is right
Sub either fox, harryor lloyd

If I was Parker I'd tell this club to GF in the trade period. 283 Games and yet to add this season

[stevoswan]

All makes sense until you see the Butters incident

Looked at the bloke, not contesting the ball, stationary in fact, got him high after intentionally striking and it was graded as careless not intentional

That's all Heens was asking for

Yeah, the whole attitude of the league in their response to the Swans appeal was 'don't tell us what to do you NSW upstarts (who are on top of our league)'.

Frankly, the arrogance of AFL counsel Andrew Woods was staggering.

[Captain]

Not sure how Jake Lloyd keeps getting a game. Is past it.

[waswan]

Lloyd should be in and out next year, same with Harry and Fox.

Parker is gone, little things like treating a champion like that are what can change a club culture.

Sheldrick, Campbell and Parker will be approached in trade period.

All too good to not be playing
Sheldrick unfortunate with injury this year but will happen
Campbell will get approached for midfield minutes
Parker is gone, he would be stupid to stay.

Ironically playing or not, won't be any trade talk for Wicks, no one coming for him

Selection Committee arrogance

[Auntie.Gerald]

Good luck to Callum this weekend. Long 10month recovery.

We will need him firing and strong coming into the finals and I’m pumped to see how we find our best midfield rotation.

Heeney and Mills in the middle next weekend onwards will be fascinating to see how we approach this combo. Guessing Heeney may get a little more forward time with Mills back in the 22?

Ps - Bugger of an injury the rotator cuff as only 62% of athletes (that play professional sports that require dominant overhead movement) return to a pre injury level after arthroscopic RCR. Let’s hope Callum is the 6 out of 10.

[waswan]

Good luck to Callum this weekend. Long 10month recovery.

We will need him firing and strong coming into the finals and I’m pumped to see how we find our best midfield rotation.

Heeney and Mills in the middle next weekend onwards will be fascinating to see how we approach this combo. Guessing Heeney may get a little more forward time with Mills back in the 22?

Ps - Bugger of an injury the rotator cuff as only 62% of athletes (that play professional sports that require dominant overhead movement) return to a pre injury level after arthroscopic RCR. Let’s hope Callum is the 6 out of 10.

If he starts Sub im going to throw up