SJs best footy is when he plays on the edge. So wouldn't be too sure about him getting through a season penalty free. Frankly, don't think he's that fussed about individual awards. More driven by team success I reckon.
Toast Steve Johnson
- Thread starter Seeds
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #27
Hopefully. Missed 6 games and was 4 votes from a Brownlow.
- Thread starter
- #28
This is a must. I would prefer 2 to be honest. I will be filthy if they dump Chapman.
On you SJ, now stop whacking people.
Been our hardest working player on field since 2009. I don't always like what he does with it or his needless biffing people but no one covers the territory or runs themselves to sickness as often as SJ.
Amazing talent. Clearly the most dangerous mid size forward in the game for a number of years kicking bags in the 07 & 11 flags. But chuck him in the guts and he is one of the most impressive mids going around. Having got so close will no doubt inspire him to work harder. The chance of being so close to beating Gaz will mean that SJ will have a goal in mind next season.
As for the suspensions, the bump v Brisbane was rightly interpreted by the umpire as "play on" and the Melbourne knee was even softer. Not like he actually hit anyone, just depends on the rule interpretations at the time - Refer Birchall "no case to answer for" compared to Chapman's 2 weeks down to 1 with an EGP.
As for the suspensions, the bump v Brisbane was rightly interpreted by the umpire as "play on" and the Melbourne knee was even softer. Not like he actually hit anyone, just depends on the rule interpretations at the time - Refer Birchall "no case to answer for" compared to Chapman's 2 weeks down to 1 with an EGP.
- Sep 15, 2005
- 13,075
- 20,637
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I thought the club had changed it's voting system recently (during the off-season ? or the season before .. )
to ensure players who miss a game or two aren't too adversely handicapped as a result of the 'resting' policy which was starting to emerge ... ? If so, Johnson might still poll pretty well ...
Great player.
Getting sick of Cats fans being spoonfed the MRP s**t. SJ has been a marked man for 2 years.
If you want to say something about his grandstanding an arm waving when he is having s**t game, I will agree. But the reports are 95% pure AFL corruption. 5 players do worse than him the following week and its ignored. Just a reminder how corrupt the MRP is, here is one when a Brownlow favorite did to Johnson what would get Johnson 4 weeks every time. And Thompson got off.
And look how low SJ gets with this bump. Still got weeks:
Getting sick of Cats fans being spoonfed the MRP s**t. SJ has been a marked man for 2 years.
If you want to say something about his grandstanding an arm waving when he is having s**t game, I will agree. But the reports are 95% pure AFL corruption. 5 players do worse than him the following week and its ignored. Just a reminder how corrupt the MRP is, here is one when a Brownlow favorite did to Johnson what would get Johnson 4 weeks every time. And Thompson got off.
And look how low SJ gets with this bump. Still got weeks:
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,271
- 21,510
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Thompson got off because the MRP said he was propelled into Johnson by a shove from Joel Corey (something which I dispute, but anyway...). In none of Johnson's offences has he been able to blame an opposition player pushing him in to another opposition player to create (unavoidable) contact. Unavoidable contact = thrown out immediately. So the Thompson incident isn't relevant to Johnson, besides (of course) the fact that Johnson was the poor bugger in Thompson's path.
'MRP s**t...AFL corruption...' I mean, seriously. Why would the AFL not want one of its marquee players to play every week and why would the AFL be out to 'get' Steve Johnson? It doesn't make any sense.
His hit on Hanley...gone, every day of the week.
His knee on Jones...cheap shot, deserved a week and with his points and record, he will never get off for something like that
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,271
- 21,510
- AFL Club
- Geelong
You're ok missing (or playing poorly in) a game or two; you're not ok missing six games.
'Five members of the MC rate each player out of 20, so the maximum votes a player can receive each round is 100 points. Each players best 19 games count towards his final tally'
Admittedly, that is a bit better for Johnson than I thought it was (the year before it was a rating out of 10 by the five MC members, divided by five and the best 21 scores counting towards the result (reckon they might have changed it because it burnt Selwood in 2011). So Johnson (just) isn't carrying any zeroes into the count, but he has to carry every single game he played. Selwood (who played every game), on the other hand, will be able to drop every one of the games where he was neutralised by a tagger and the game against Port where he was subbed off. Enright can drop his last two games (probably the worst of his season) and one more and will probably be right up there again.
On reflection, I guess Johnson is still an outside chance, but it would be pretty amazing if he won the Carji from there.
I'm getting a wee bit tired of Tom "Nothing in it" Harley and his efforts to be impartial.
Vdubs
Hall of Famer
Maybe we have found the secret to keeping SJ super effective.
He needs regular breaks, so when he is in, he is ready and hungry to fire.
The suspensions are off the agenda, but he clearly has thrived this year missing 7 games.
Player management at its best?
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,271
- 21,510
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Considering he missed both Hawthorn H&A games, the Fremantle H&A game and the loss to Adelaide, I'd suggest that he could have timed his brain snaps slightly better.
Just following on from this, since 21 games in 2011 and 19 games in 2012 both constituted four games missed, my bet is it will be the same in 2013 (i.e. 21 games again), though I can't be sure. If it is, I'll go back to saying Johnson is out of contention.
Unavoidable contact???!!! Give me a break. He lined Johnson up, and laid him out.
Corey was about 3 metres behind Thompson when Thompson hit SJ. Corey ended up slowing up and making contact because the impact slowed up Thompson. That excuse was pure bullshit by the mrp. Its relevant because it shows corruption. No way could they have come to that conclusion.
Why does the AFL fiddle with the draw? Why did the AFL go after Rendell with such glee? Football is very tribal, and power plays abound. Last year Demetriou suggested some Geelong officials would do well to leave Geelong and use their expertise to help the new franchises. Geelong refused. About a couple of weeks later Selwood and SJ were have rules invented for them to get them reported. eg "Pushing your brother over."
The AFL are sick of Geelong's success. They want someone new on the scene and Geelong is clogging up the works.
Look at the point of impact. Johnson was studiously low, hit well below the head, did not leave the ground. Perfect bump. After the initial impact Hanley's head brushed past his back. That is all. Hanley feels his chin...and bingo!
Don't disagree on that one - even though from the way Jones did not retaliate, got to his feet immediately and was certainly not injured, it would have to be insufficient force for anyone other than SJ.
Rioli chickenwings? Franklin nearly breaking a guys neck? Hodge breaking Murphy's jaw. And plenty others. But not us for the past 18 months. And the fact there is close ups and super close up of Chappy's bump, everything SJ does, but then we get these grainy long distant shots of Roughead lining up Guthrie off the ball and sending him off the ground. Reprimand. Get real.
I know you will go on about conspiracy theories etc...but the the reasons the MRP give for their decisions are way more whackier.
Oh, and this pic shows the point of impact with Hanley.
Note how Stevie is coming in low, arm tucked. Absolutely correct technique and he is not jumping off the ground. His impact was well below neck/shoulder height. Slo mo replays show there may have been incidental contact to SJ's back after he went through. Incidental contact and out of SJ's control. That is hardly reportable. Except if you are SJ and they are looking feverishly to get you on anything.
"Gone every day of the week".... You have to be kidding me. Or do you mean just a Geelong player?
How the * did Thompson get off, and SJ get weeks?
It would be ok if it was a once off, but this is a pattern.
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,271
- 21,510
- AFL Club
- Geelong
I'm not saying that; the MRP did. And Johnson has never had a similar defence, so the incidents have nothing in common. In fact, as far as I can remember, he hasn't even contested any of his penalties; he has accepted the verdicts.
Corruption...yeah, righto. Just because they're idiots, doesn't mean they are corrupt.
To create as many blockbuster games as possible, to get the best teams possible playing in the best timeslots and to get people putting the AFL on the TV and going to the games. Things which are totally inconsistent as this so-called vendetta against Geelong, which sidelines its best players time and again with 'unjust' penalties.
That's funny. Demetriou flatly denies that such an approach was ever made. And so does Brian Cook.
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2012/06/07/331341_gfc.html
Let's suppose for a second that is true. So why is Hawthorn still up the top of the ladder and why do they get such an apparent dream run with the MRP? Why wouldn't a team like Carlton, Richmond or North Melbourne be on the end of this preferential treatment?
He hit him in the head. I'm not sure how you can watch the footage and dispute this. Hanley also had to leave the ground before coming back on, from memory.
No, deliberately dropping the knees into a prone player like that gets very little leeway with regards to 'impact' from the MRP, because there's no legitimate reason to do it and it's a cheap shot. It doesn't matter that Jones wasn't injured. If Jones had been injured, it would have been 'high' or 'severe' impact and Johnson would have missed three weeks with his carry over points. In fact, you could argue that the MRP was quite generous to Johnson, only assessing it as 'reckless' and not 'intentional'.
I'm not sure we get all the same footage that the MRP has at its disposal, but I think the bolded might have something to do with it...
Again...if it's all down to the AFL hating Geelong and its success, why would Hawthorn be the chosen recipient of such good fortune? Why did Demetriou drive the Simonds Stadium qualifying final, when no-one would have batted an eyelid if it ended up at Etihad? I'm sorry, but I just find this 'AFL is out to get Geelong' talk to be pathetic.
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,271
- 21,510
- AFL Club
- Geelong
He went off the line of the ball and decided to bump. All contact made to Hanley was completely within Johnson's control, because he chose to bump him when he didn't need to.
catempire
Premium Platinum
The aspect of the Hanley report that was wrong/inconsistent was it being judged "medium" impact when the Lions medical report stated: "Hanley had suffered no damage and would require no ongoing treatment."
This is the aspect of the MRP that I most hope Evans fixes over summer: if the medical report and damage sustained is to be used as a proxy for the force of the contact, it must be used consistently across incidents. In particular, no damage must always = low impact. This year we have seen the medical report waved at us to justify whatever it is the MRP wants it to justify.
This is the aspect of the MRP that I most hope Evans fixes over summer: if the medical report and damage sustained is to be used as a proxy for the force of the contact, it must be used consistently across incidents. In particular, no damage must always = low impact. This year we have seen the medical report waved at us to justify whatever it is the MRP wants it to justify.
- Aug 17, 2006
- 23,271
- 21,510
- AFL Club
- Geelong
There needs to be more transparency across the board (do I hear the word 'precedent'?). From my (slightly hazy) memory of the Hanley incident, I thought he was taken from the field and assessed for a period (not sure if the sub came on, while they did a concussion test, but I don't think so). To me, it's fair enough that if a player comes off the field due to the incident, even if he goes back on a few minutes later, that it is called 'medium'. If he had been subbed off, that would have obviously been 'high' and if he was KO'd and missed the next week, it would probably be 'severe'. Coming from the ground and requiring an assessment (even if it's minor and doesn't show provide any issues with the player returning) constitutes a step up from things like the Chapman hit on Gray, or the Kelly hit on Goddard (where the player just gave his chin a bit of a rub and got on with it), which were called 'low'.
It should be reasonable for the MRP to justify their findings, with regard to impact, as well as conduct. How else can the club decide if it will challenge? If they said that '...there was no lasting damage and Hanley was able to return to the field, but he did need to come off and spent several minutes on the bench while he was being assessed, which we feel constitutes "medium" impact...' most of us would think it was fair enough and Geelong and Johnson would have a much clearer idea of whether they can challenge the charge on impact, as well as conduct. I can't remember the last time a player tried to challenge impact from 'medium' down to 'low', or 'high' down to 'medium'. They seem to think that the finding has been made by the doctor and that's that, so they only really challenge the conduct.
Catatonic Shock
Premiership Player
Can we not make this thread, which is a Toast to the Champion Norm Smith medallist 3 time Premiership player Steve Johnson into a MRP thread.
There are plenty of those already.
There are plenty of those already.
catempire
Premium Platinum
Yes, the use of precedent would solve at least 50% of the deficiencies in the system as it stands.
Ultimately, if they want to say coming off the ground = "medium" then everyone will have to live with that but it's much easier to do so if every incident is assessed the same basis.
Personally, I think the system has got to the stage where it is punishing incidents that should not be punished. My view is that conduct should be punished if (a) it has the potential to cause serious injury; and/or (b) it is manifestly against the spirit of the game (i.e. dirty play). I'm 100% supportive of punishing bumps where the intent or likely outcome was significant contact to the head. But we have reached the stage where players are missing matches because an otherwise fair bump is resulting in suspension because of very slight or incidental contact to the head which has resulted in no injury and no significant time out of the game.
Ultimately, if they want to say coming off the ground = "medium" then everyone will have to live with that but it's much easier to do so if every incident is assessed the same basis.
Personally, I think the system has got to the stage where it is punishing incidents that should not be punished. My view is that conduct should be punished if (a) it has the potential to cause serious injury; and/or (b) it is manifestly against the spirit of the game (i.e. dirty play). I'm 100% supportive of punishing bumps where the intent or likely outcome was significant contact to the head. But we have reached the stage where players are missing matches because an otherwise fair bump is resulting in suspension because of very slight or incidental contact to the head which has resulted in no injury and no significant time out of the game.
Umm, err...SJ knocked the ball out of Hanley's hands in the bump and almost got it himself. Explain to me how he went off the line of the ball again?
SJ contacted the ball in the bump. You can see it spill out of Hanley's hands. You could almost say Johnson ran straight at the ball for pete's sake. Try and look at the incident again without the MRP speil running in the background and you will see awhole different incident. lol
Every single player who has bumped a player a split second before he got rid of it would get weeks according to your logic.
The incidental contact argument was pulled out of the MRP's arse when it wanted to get Lindsay Thomas off at the start of the year. Thomas's victim was knocked clean out and took no further part in the game. Hanley played on no probs. Steve Johnson was a marked man, absolutely.
In the case of Chappy's bump, no time out of the game.
