Review Round 17, 2024 - Brisbane Lions vs. Adelaide

[Perrip]

It’s a product of an insanely inconsistent MRO/tribunal, the crows probably legitimately think they have a chance of getting him off or at the very least getting the weeks reduced

Going off the Crows statement about the tribunal tonight, they accept the high contact and severe impact grading but want it changed it from intentional to careless. Which under the guidelines, still results in 3 or more games.

 

[T Rick]

Going off the Crows statement about the tribunal tonight, they accept the high contact and severe impact grading but want it changed it from intentional to careless. Which under the guidelines, still results in 3 or more games.

Off the ball contact is by default "intentional", as it should be. I have zero faith in the MRO/Tribunal to do anything remotely consistent so understand the Crows position but morally their appeal is beneath them as a club.

 

[PeterSalt]

Unfortunately this Twitter account no longer auto-posts expected scores for every single shot at goal. Elon Musk you star

This is the breakdown from Andrew Whelan between set shots and general play:
View attachment 2043083

So it clearly shows Adelaide shot the lights out. +1.21 points per set shot is basically off the scale.

I haven't seen this before. Might have get on twitter and see if I can follow it

Curious, with Adelaide's +1.21 per set shot rated by industry average or against Adelaide themselves?

Watching the game from home it looked/felt like 4-5 goal win to Brisbane, not the final 11 point margin

 

[Grasshopper17]

I haven't seen this before. Might have get on twitter and see if I can follow it

Curious, with Adelaide's +1.21 per set shot rated by industry average or against Adelaide themselves?

Watching the game from home it looked/felt like 4-5 goal win to Brisbane, not the final 11 point margin

My understanding it's always vs industry average.

Otherwise we could kick 10-20 every week and be rated above average

 

[PeterSalt]

My understanding it's always vs industry average.

Otherwise we could kick 10-20 every week and be rated above average

lol .. TBF - seems like we have that problem fairly regularly

 

[p4p1]

I’ll be really disappointed if the Tribunal caves on the grading. You only have to look at the vision to know it was intentional and more so that he intended to hurt Starc; every talking head has said his hit was intended to hurt even if he didn’t mean to hit him in the head so the incident can’t be careless but like you said expect they’ll fold like they always do.

Completely agree. He intended to hurt him, not knock him out but definitely wind him, which can result in other more serious injuries.
When I watched it on replay, it looked like both feet left the ground when he went to hit him, which could spell trouble for him. The AFL have said (admittedly not always stuck to it though) that if you elect to bump and jump off the ground, you’re gone.

 

[Gadzorks]

Going off the Crows statement about the tribunal tonight, they accept the high contact and severe impact grading but want it changed it from intentional to careless. Which under the guidelines, still results in 3 or more games.

You choose to bump, it's intentional irrespective of the consequence. Especially of ball.

Ridiculous challenge.

 

[Grasshopper17]

I’ll be really disappointed if the Tribunal caves on the grading. You only have to look at the vision to know it was intentional and more so that he intended to hurt Starc; every talking head has said his hit was intended to hurt even if he didn’t mean to hit him in the head so the incident can’t be careless but like you said expect they’ll fold like they always do.

Like, I get the hate etc, but honestly it's in the past, Adelaide play Essendon next week so honestly I hope they're somehow able to talk it down to just a week.

But he should absolutely have been red carded and Adelaide should have been down to 17 on the field for the remainder of the game. There is no way they should have been able to be advantaged by what happened to Starce in-game the way they were.

This is not a knee jerk reaction by the way... This is a view I've held ever since I was at the MCG the day Tom Stewart KO'd Dion Prestia in the first quarter of one of the best games I've ever seen live.

 

[p4p1]

Like, I get the hate etc, but honestly it's in the past, Adelaide play Essendon next week so honestly I hope they're somehow able to talk it down to just a week.

But he should absolutely have been red carded and Adelaide should have been down to 17 on the field for the remainder of the game. There is no way they should have been able to be advantaged by what happened to Starce in-game the way they were.

This is not a knee jerk reaction by the way... This is a view I've held ever since I was at the MCG the day Tom Stewart KO'd Dion Prestia in the first quarter of one of the best games I've ever seen live.

I am coming around to the red card. As the rule currently stands, it benefits (potentially) only the teams that play the suspended players team afterwards. The impacted team is still down one man.

My only issue with the red card is the AFL ****s up just about everything and red cards will be given in the wrong circumstances within the first week of a red card system being in place.

 

[Grasshopper17]

I am coming around to the red card. As the rule currently stands, it benefits (potentially) only the teams that play the suspended players team afterwards. The impacted team is still down one man.

My only issue with the red card is the AFL ****s up just about everything and red cards will be given in the wrong circumstances within the first week of a red card system being in place.

Yep. Definitely has to be done via video review. Say they have 15 minutes after the incident to make a call. Not the umpires, somebody off field. Not fair on the umpires to expect them to make a call in real time - the game is hard enough on them as it is.

My view is it would only be for blatant dirty acts. So Jimmy Webster in preseason gets it. Sam Powell-Pepper in preseason line ball. But Peter Wright and Toby Greene who both were (clumsily) contesting a mark are ok to play on, as is Callum Brown who collected McCartin in a contest for the ball and I feel more of a big deal was made about that than warranted because of who he ran into.

 

[martinson]

I don't know what penalty Rankine should get and in no way is Starcevich even minutely responsible but Rankine (imo) expected Starcevich to turn towards him as he usually would and got a bit of a shock at the consequence of what he did. He was about to put his arm out as if to take it all back and thought OMG he's not getting up.

The calls that Rankine is a dog and a grub and whatever else is way off the mark. On anything else I've seen he's a fair player who cops more than his share himself.

People get horribly judgemental about in the game decisions made by players that misfire. In this instance Rankine broke the rules and someone got concussed. He's copped 4 weeks. He'll be more careful in future.

As far as red cards go I can see the point except if Starcevich had got up there'd just be a push and shove and not even a free seeing the ump didn't see it. So you'd have to hand out the red card on the basis of the consequence ?? In our game it would likely mean another ump in the stands with vison access ?

 

[Grasshopper17]

In our game it would likely mean another ump in the stands with vison access ?

Well they'd probably sit in the ARC with the score review people.

 

[Big Sauce 21]

Surprised it got rated severe contact, Cripps on Ah Chee i'd rate severe.

 

[martinson]

Richmond won a flag because Balme knocked Southby out.

Incredibly even though you can still put the vision up and it's plainly one of the most brutal acts I've ever seen on a footy field there wasn't even a free paid let alone a report.

 

[werdna78]

I don't know what penalty Rankine should get and in no way is Starcevich even minutely responsible but Rankine (imo) expected Starcevich to turn towards him as he usually would and got a bit of a shock at the consequence of what he did. He was about to put his arm out as if to take it all back and thought OMG he's not getting up.

The calls that Rankine is a dog and a grub and whatever else is way off the mark. On anything else I've seen he's a fair player who cops more than his share himself.

People get horribly judgemental about in the game decisions made by players that misfire. In this instance Rankine broke the rules and someone got concussed. He's copped 4 weeks. He'll be more careful in future.

As far as red cards go I can see the point except if Starcevich had got up there'd just be a push and shove and not even a free seeing the ump didn't see it. So you'd have to hand out the red card on the basis of the consequence ?? In our game it would likely mean another ump in the stands with vison access ?

If Team A player causes a concussion and the player from Team B is out for the game.

Team A lose the player and he goes off the field until an umpire has checked to see what intent their was.

If no intent he can rejoin the game, if intent he's off for the remainder.

Still should always pay 18 on 18.

 

[martinson]

Surprised it got rated severe contact, Cripps on Ah Chee i'd rate severe.

I didn't think there was that much in it but he caught Starcevich completely off guard and obviously in a vulnerable spot.

 

[martinson]

If Team A player causes a concussion and the player from Team B is out for the game.

Team A lose the player and he goes off the field until an umpire has checked to see what intent their was.

If no intent he can rejoin the game, if intent he's off for the remainder.

Still should always pay 18 on 18.

Too hard to be adjudicated upon . Nightmare for the ump.

Has to be someone with clear access to the vision, contact with Team B to see the consequence which sometimes takes up to 20 minutes.

Most of the time also very difficult to judge intent. It can take 3 hours of evidence and submissions at the Tribunal to go through it all sometimes and even then that gets appealed.

 

[martinson]

I’d argue Richmond got a flag or won a game when Cotchin ironed at Shiel I think it was in the first quarter of the PF when Shiel was at his height and left GWS a player down (before subs). It certainly had a massive bearing on the game and what was more incomprehensible was that the MRO predictably let the AFL darling off.

Sheedy was well educated in the violence of the game and brought it to Essendon via Merrett

It's been part of the Tigers DNA ever since Graeme Richmond and Hafey came to the club and that's over 50 years ago.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Still should always pay 18 on 18.

Happy with everything else. Disagree vehemently with this. If soccer teams can compete adequately 10 or even 9 on 11, 17 on 18 is hardly unreasonable.

 

[martinson]

He flushed him or split him right down the middle with a cowardly act; you can’t sugarcoat that it wasn’t a dangerous unprovoked hit designed to seriously hurt an unsuspecting and vulnerable Starcevich. It was cowardly the sort of hit that Cameron did on Andrews and May on Martin.

Don't agree at all. Rankine isn't that kind of player. It was just a conglomeration of circumstances that looked bad but really wasn't his intention.

 

[martinson]

He flushed him or split him right down the middle with a cowardly act; you can’t sugarcoat that it wasn’t a dangerous unprovoked hit designed to seriously hurt an unsuspecting and vulnerable Starcevich. It was cowardly the sort of hit that Cameron did on Andrews and May on Martin.

McIvor, Cameron on Andrews was an absolute clunker, one of the worst ever seen.. Harris was out for 7 or 8 weeks. Just flushed him on the jaw 9 feet off the ground with his Elbow against the flight of the play.

Not even a remote comparison.

 

[Happy_Neale]

I’ll be really disappointed if the Tribunal caves on the grading. You only have to look at the vision to know it was intentional and more so that he intended to hurt Starc; every talking head has said his hit was intended to hurt even if he didn’t mean to hit him in the head so the incident can’t be careless but like you said expect they’ll fold like they always do.

Fully agree with you but there is a precedent where the player can argue they did not mean to hit them in a certain spot/high etc

Has happened multiple times this year where an off the ball hit has slipped high and they’ve escaped suspension because they ‘didn’t mean to hit them high’. Crazy defence when you think about it but it seems to work for some!

 

[Schache_off]

Don't agree at all. Rankine isn't that kind of player. It was just a conglomeration of circumstances that looked bad but really wasn't his intention.

You speak in absolutes about someones intention. In the heat of the moment, he may or may not have intended to do that. No one but Rankine knows that

 

[BuntonRules]

I am coming around to the red card. As the rule currently stands, it benefits (potentially) only the teams that play the suspended players team afterwards. The impacted team is still down one man.

My only issue with the red card is the AFL ****s up just about everything and red cards will be given in the wrong circumstances within the first week of a red card system being in place.

Yer can't lump this responsibility on the umpires. Make the decision off field, like the HIA. Does not have to be immediate.

 

[luthor]

Well done to the 12 people other than me that gave Payne a vote.

I thought he was excellent