Autopsy AAMI Community Series - Game 1, 2021: Carlton v St.Kilda

[Joffaboy]

I hope we are keeping an eye on Kaine Baldwin from SA. Had two knee reco's, but a KPP talent.

We have enough injury busts as it is.

Rookied by the Druggies anyway

 

[kernelT]

Dermie carrying on like an absolute cabbage about the Williams suspension…

"Was there any malice in the act?" repeat x 10

Has absolutely nothing to do with it you muppet.

 

[Joffaboy]

Dermie carrying on like an absolute cabbage about the Williams suspension…

"Was there any malice in the act?" repeat x 10

Has absolutely nothing to do with it you muppet.

Yes, anyone he has coached is an angel

 

[Diehard Saint]

Dermie carrying on like an absolute cabbage about the Williams suspension…

"Was there any malice in the act?" repeat x 10

Has absolutely nothing to do with it you muppet.

Convicted under the Ben Long “potential to do harm” act.
Now let’s see if it applies to Cotchin, Fyfe, Dangerfield and Lynch.
We all know precedent doesn’t really apply to the big names.

 

[hayes]

That is Wilkie, he is our version and just like those two, is AA bound. Plays on various heights of forwards, reads the ball well, disposes the ball well and is a leader. That is Wilkie.

On Pixel 4a using BigFooty.com mobile app

Wilkie looks more of a gun lockdown player than the elite intercept type of player.

 

[The Grover]

Thinking of picking Sinclair for supercoach.

Is this backline position change locked in? Can he keep churning out high disposal numbers?

 

[kernelT]

Convicted under the Ben Long “potential to do harm” act.
Now let’s see if it applies to Cotchin, Fyfe, Dangerfield and Lynch.
We all know precedent doesn’t really apply to the big names.

Actually quite different I reckon... when long met macrae had just collected the ball, didn’t leave the ground and had less time time to choose his contact... long held his ground and macrae dropped quite low which made it very difficult for long to alter the impact.

Williams was late, launched and cleaned up Clark, could have easily not collected him high.



But you are 100% right about danger or Fyfe, no chance they get suspended for Long's bump.

 

[Munga]

Dermie carrying on like an absolute cabbage about the Williams suspension…

"Was there any malice in the act?" repeat x 10

Has absolutely nothing to do with it you muppet.

In any case I'd say yes of course there was malice. The ball was gone and Williams still decided to launch at Clark's head.

Derm. There isn't a high bar of intelligence in footy.

 

[Mowman]

Dermie carrying on like an absolute cabbage about the Williams suspension…

"Was there any malice in the act?" repeat x 10

Has absolutely nothing to do with it you muppet.

Does love the sound of his own voice

 

[Diehard Saint]

Actually quite different I reckon... when long met macrae had just collected the ball, didn’t leave the ground and had less time time to choose his contact... long held his ground and macrae dropped quite low which made it very difficult for long to alter the impact.

Williams was late, launched and cleaned up Clark, could have easily not collected him high.

View attachment 1073036

But you are 100% right about danger or Fyfe, no chance they get suspended for Long's bump.

Wasn’t comparing the two cases, just saying that the idea of “potential to do harm” is a ridiculous statement. Every tackle, fair or not has the potential to cause harm. They set a precedent last season with this, so will be interesting to see what happens this year.

 

[Premium]

Thinking of picking Sinclair for supercoach.

Is this backline position change locked in? Can he keep churning out high disposal numbers?

We are all hoping he has a great season because his use of the football is very good , by all accounts he has stepped up another level this year so he could be great value in your super coach side.

 

[phantom13]

I was pretty annoyed about the change a few years ago when the injury became considered in the punishment, specifically because so much of that is beyond anyones control (the fact that Clark wasnt KOd by the Williams hit is some act of God or Hunters head being made of Steel).

Ill also never ever recover from Koby Stevens

Koby Stevens

Age

32

Ht

189cm

Wt

87kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.4

5star

K

7.7

3star

HB

10.7

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

2.3

4star

No current season stats available

D

12.6

4star

K

6.6

3star

HB

6.0

4star

M

3.8

4star

T

4.2

5star

CL

1.6

4star

laying a perfect tackle and getting a holding the ball only to be suspended two days later for it.

ANYWAY

Williams could have gotten more, he could have also gotten off.

One week feels about right given we all have to accept the system and the outcome.

It makes no difference to us and we know that precedence counts for nothing in our MRP so *shrugs shoulders* eh.

 

[PostmanBish]

I was pretty annoyed about the change a few years ago when the injury became considered in the punishment, specifically because so much of that is beyond anyones control (the fact that Clark wasnt KOd by the Williams hit is some act of God or Hunters head being made of Steel).

Ill also never ever recover from Koby Stevens laying a perfect tackle and getting a holding the ball only to be suspended two days later for it.

ANYWAY

Williams could have gotten more, he could have also gotten off.

One week feels about right given we all have to accept the system and the outcome.

It makes no difference to us and we know that precedence counts for nothing in our MRP so *shrugs shoulders* eh.

I'm just happy that the AFL maintained consistency in the "potential to cause injury" argument. Now we just need to see that properly applied to a star player, and the careless high-shot will be well-on-the-way to being out of our game.

There'll always be an accidental high-shot here or there, but within the context of actual football, and not recklessly leaving the ground to make a late contest you have no hope of influencing, it is a reasonable thing to try and bring to the bare minimum instances, for the sake of all the players.

 

[phantom13]

I'm just happy that the AFL maintained consistency in the "potential to cause injury" argument. Now we just need to see that properly applied to a star player, and the careless high-shot will be well-on-the-way to being out of our game.

There'll always be an accidental high-shot here or there, but within the context of actual football, and not recklessly leaving the ground to make a late contest you have no hope of influencing, it is a reasonable thing to try and bring to the bare minimum instances, for the sake of all the players.

Im happy with any consistency at all from the MRP. I still have issues with the "potential to cause injury" it just seems to wishy washy (any tackle has the potential to cause injury, what if you baulking causes a defender to blow a knee out? etc).

 

[PostmanBish]

Im happy with any consistency at all from the MRP. I still have issues with the "potential to cause injury" it just seems to wishy washy (any tackle has the potential to cause injury, what if you baulking causes a defender to blow a knee out? etc).

We've had our recent experience of "potential to cause injury" close to home (and I have a mountain of sympathy for Roughy, as it was nothing malicious, and well within the definition of a "footballing incident")

Really though, anything above the shoulders which is late, or retaliatory, needs to be out of the game. We have seen tremendous damage to our players in past years, and I've often felt like St Kilda heads have been fair game, so every head-hit we can prevent, is doing good.

 

[CaptainRisky]

I have a humble pie ready to eat just in case but i don't think the leaving the ground thing is even part of what they use to determine the outcome of a clash of bodies , same as the holding the ball 360 deg , im pretty sure these are just terms made up but are not part of the laws or guide lines

 

[Armoooo]

I have a humble pie ready to eat just in case but i don't think the leaving the ground thing is even part of what they use to determine the outcome of a clash of bodies , same as the holding the ball 360 deg , im pretty sure these are just terms made up but are not part of the laws or guide lines

Leaving the ground probably isn't clearly defined in the rules, however it would surely come into play regarding whether something was negligent, reckless or intentional, particularly regards with contact to the head.

Once you have left the ground, it would completely rule out the argument that you were simply negligent, which I would define as failing to eliminate risk, whereas recklessness involves the introduction of further risks.

As for the holding the ball matter, again there the colloquial language used by fans and commentators alike is not the same as the language used in the laws of the game, however it does seem to carry over pretty well.

Section 17.6.2 states that a player will be penalised for "Holding the Ball" when, after having prior opportunity to dispose of the ball, does not correctly dispose of the ball immediately upon being "Legally Tackled".

A "Legal Tackle" is simply above the knees and below the shoulders of a player in possession of the ball and can be executed by holding either the player or their uniform.

Again, not the explicit language, but if somebody has had the time to do a full 360 spin, they are hardly likely to be able to argue that they disposed of the ball "immediately".

 

[CaptainRisky]

Leaving the ground probably isn't clearly defined in the rules, however it would surely come into play regarding whether something was negligent, reckless or intentional, particularly regards with contact to the head.

Once you have left the ground, it would completely rule out the argument that you were simply negligent, which I would define as failing to eliminate risk, whereas recklessness involves the introduction of further risks.

As for the holding the ball matter, again there the colloquial language used by fans and commentators alike is not the same as the language used in the laws of the game, however it does seem to carry over pretty well.

Section 17.6.2 states that a player will be penalised for "Holding the Ball" when, after having prior opportunity to dispose of the ball, does not correctly dispose of the ball immediately upon being "Legally Tackled".

A "Legal Tackle" is simply above the knees and below the shoulders of a player in possession of the ball and can be executed by holding either the player or their uniform.

Again, not the explicit language, but if somebody has had the time to do a full 360 spin, they are hardly likely to be able to argue that they disposed of the ball "immediately".

A lot of what you say is true but its still possible to leave the ground and hit someone fairly without any head high contact

 

[Armoooo]

A lot of what you say is true but its still possible to leave the ground and hit someone fairly without any head high contact

Oh absolutely, but if it was fair and without head contact, it wouldn't be before the MRP or tribunal and therefore we wouldn't need define whether an act was negligent or reckless.

It would essentially work like this:

Was the act illegal -- > If no, play on
Was there sufficient force to constitute a sanction-able offence -- > If no, free kick, nothing further

The penalty is then based on Intent, Force, Outcome (Rightly or Wrongly) then the rest of the secret herbs and spices (is the player marketable, is the team marketable and have an important game coming up, has there been negative media attention on the matter.

Whether they left the ground or not is therefore only relevant in assessing the Intent of the offending player, once they are at the stage of determining a punishment.

 

[Significant]

I hope we are keeping an eye on Kaine Baldwin from SA. Had two knee reco's, but a KPP talent.

He was taken by Essendon just after the Waterman announcement - very under the radar stuff!

 

[Verdun]

Might be the wrong thread, apologies if so but reckon this is worth posting:

Time 2 Talk (saints.com.au)

 

[scotteydog]

He was taken by Essendon just after the Waterman announcement - very under the radar stuff!

Cheeky Essendon, he could be a absolute bargain.