Strategy Changes and pre-game vs Gold Coast.

[Serongnthnks4allthefish]

I thought Banfield looked at home in defence last night. He has to stay in the team as a recognition of that fact.

Last night was a perfect example of why JL speaks of him so highly. That level of versatility is impressive.

That's why he needs to be the permanent sub.
In: Omac/Draper/Davies, NOD
Out: Pearce, Simpson
Sub: Banners

 

[Taylor]

I expect Banfield to either be getting a full game or being dropped, for no other reason than his fitness will suffer if he is playing shorter games. Granted this last one wasn't that much less than a full game.

 

[south beach]

That's why he needs to be the permanent sub.
In: Omac/Draper/Davies, NOD
Out: Pearce, Simpson
Sub: Banners

Davies you have to be kidding. This kid is way off afl level

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

That's why he needs to be the permanent sub.
In: Omac/Draper/Davies, NOD
Out: Pearce, Simpson
Sub: Banners

Sorry, neither Banners nor anyone else can be "permanent sub".

If Youngy, Walker and Noddy are fit, Banners wouldn't have even made the squad (and rightly so).

I don't mind Banners playing a full game away next week against the Suns (given Simpson is out with injury and Moose suspended, in fact Banners down back again would actually give us some size and mature bodies against a fairly tough Suns team.

That said, one very good game as sub against a bog awful Port team doesn't give Banners a right to a permanent spot. As sub or otherwise. He, JOM, Aish, Fyfe and Walters should all be at the very end of their regular Freo careers, we have to get games into the younger ones and see how many more Bruceys, Dudsys, Simpsons and Vossys we can unearth.

 

[Serongnthnks4allthefish]

Davies you have to be kidding. This kid is way off afl level

Pick any of the other two then, its not a hill I'll die on.

 

[BeinPurplenGreen]

Davies you have to be kidding. This kid is way off afl level

so as he is a 20 year old who has played 2 games of AFL you already write him off, because of his performances in a shizenhise WAFL team with a crud coach? He was good against Perth, why not at least consider him? Especially if Ryan turns out to be hurt, and we have to bring in another back, who else can we try? It is one game away against the Suns, not a lifetime gifting of games forevermore.

 

[Serongnthnks4allthefish]

Sorry, neither Banners nor anyone else can be "permanent sub".

If Youngy, Walker and Noddy are fit, Banners wouldn't have even made the squad (and rightly so).

I don't mind Banners playing a full game away next week against the Suns (given Simpson is out with injury and Moose suspended, in fact Banners down back again would actually give us some size and mature bodies against a fairly tough Suns team.

That said, one very good game as sub against a bog awful Port team doesn't give Banners a right to a permanent spot. As sub or otherwise. He, JOM, Aish, Fyfe and Walters should all be at the very end of their regular Freo careers, we have to get games into the younger ones and see how many more Bruceys, Dudsys, Simpsons and Vossys we can unearth.

I agree for the most part, but I think there could be room for the professional sub role (while it lasts that is). He's never going to displace the best 18, but there's value in a player like Banfield that slots in anywhere as he showed last night.

 

[EastcoastDocker]

Think there's value in banners as a specialist sub. He would hate it of course but it's better than playing at peel. Banners seems professional enough to deal with it and also to keep himself match fit.

He subbed Simpson, could feasible play Sharps role or Freddy's. Regular Swiss army knife

 

[Cobbler]

I actually think Pearce will get off.

No confidence, but watching it again he just had no chance to do anything else except to pull out of the contest altogether.

There’s a great picture showing Pearce has his arm behind him, IE a trailing floppy noodle. He didn’t even really brace.

 

[rgauci]

The AFL stopped awarding free kicks to players leading with their heads.

Right now players are flinging themselves into the turf, they are running back recklessly with the flight of the ball, the afl have made their own bed. They over officiate and the result is players take advantage at a risk to their own health.

By trying to protect the head, they’ve made it more dangerous with rules changes.

I would argue that DBJ was careless and put himself in harms way, similar to a midfielder leading with their head into a tackle. It was not Pearce who was careless. Dissimilar to Peter Wright, Pearce did not brace for contact.

I would argue there was no contact to the head. I would argue contact with the ground was the reason for concussion.

I would argue ‘what is his alternative’ in this situation.

We’ll lose, but I’d make noise about duty of care being the responsibility of all players, victims who are careless entering contests, are just as much at fault.

The AFL will hate that. We’ll get whipped behind the scenes, but a team has to challenge the ludicrous system.

I would use the example of Jimmy Webster

29

Jimmy Webster

Age

32

Ht

188cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.7

4star

K

10.0

4star

HB

6.8

4star

M

3.7

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

288.1

4star

No current season stats available

D

9.2

3star

K

5.6

3star

HB

3.6

3star

M

3.0

3star

T

1.8

4star

concussing Michael Frederick and having no case to answer.

 

[freo_leo29]

so as he is a 20 year old who has played 2 games of AFL you already write him off, because of his performances in a shizenhise WAFL team with a crud coach? He was good against Perth, why not at least consider him? Especially if Ryan turns out to be hurt, and we have to bring in another back, who else can we try? It is one game away against the Suns, not a lifetime gifting of games forevermore.

They won the flag last year with that coach?

That coach also lead the WA state team to their first state match win in 7 years, away from home too

 

[EastcoastDocker]

The AFL stopped awarding free kicks to players leading with their heads.

Right now players are flinging themselves into the turf, they are running back recklessly with the flight of the ball, the afl have made their own bed. They over officiate and the result is players take advantage at a risk to their own health.

By trying to protect the head, they’ve made it more dangerous with rules changes.

I would argue that DBJ was careless and put himself in harms way, similar to a midfielder leading with their head into a tackle. It was not Pearce who was careless. Dissimilar to Peter Wright, Pearce did not brace for contact.

I would argue there was no contact to the head. I would argue contact with the ground was the reason for concussion.

I would argue ‘what is his alternative’ in this situation.

We’ll lose, but I’d make noise about duty of care being the responsibility of all players, victims who are careless entering contests, are just as much at fault.

The AFL will hate that. We’ll get whipped behind the scenes, but a team has to challenge the ludricrous system.

The alternative is Pearce makes the decision to throw his head back, stay on the ground after and get a concussion test, fail it on purpose. Say to the AFL, c'mon suspend me I dare you and take the 10day protocol instead of 3 weeks.

 

[rgauci]

The alternative is Pearce makes the decision to throw his head back, stay on the ground after and get a concussion test, fail it on purpose. Say to the AFL, c'mon suspend me I dare you and take the 10day protocol instead of 3 weeks.

Did the player who concussed Frederick 1-2 years ago get suspended?

 

[s_wd6]

It’s not getting overturned because the tribunal have fingers in their ears every time we give evidence.

Need to move on and figure out how on Earth we’re going to contain Gold Coast. North and Essendon I think we can manage enough without him. Think GC is pencilled in as a loss though.

 

[freo_leo29]

It's as simple as Draper in for Pearce IMO

He probably gets most of the role on King too, with Cox more suited to Walter

 

[rgauci]

Lincoln McCarthy

11

Lincoln Mccarthy

Age

32

Ht

176cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.6

3star

K

6.8

3star

HB

4.9

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

3.2

5star

G

0.9

4star

D

9.1

2star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.7

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

3.3

4star

G

0.9

4star

D

9.2

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.8

3star

M

1.6

2star

T

2.2

4star

G

0.0

1star

concussed Karl Worner in 2024 and wasn’t suspended.

 

[imperial_oz]

Now if I was running the defence, the first thing I would do would be to call the MRO to justify his assessment and have him explain what Pearce should have done differently to avoid a sanction.

Obviously, the AFL will not want that to happen and they may try to prevent him being questioned. Then ignore the appeal process and take the AFL to court where they can't hide this clown from scrutiny....because he's a complete moron.

That will also put the AFL on notice that we have had enough of their shit.

 

[s_wd6]

It's as simple as Draper in for Pearce IMO

He probably gets most of the role on King too, with Cox more suited to Walter

Don’t think it should be though. Draper playing means holding free kick every time suns look like going i50

 

[ilikepotatoes]

Now if I was running the defence, the first thing I would do would be to call the MRO to justify his assessment and have him explain what Pearce should have done differently to avoid a sanction.

Obviously, the AFL will not want that to happen and they may try to prevent him being questioned. Then ignore the appeal process and take the AFL to court where they can't hide this clown from scrutiny....because he's a complete moron.

That will also put the AFL on notice that we have had enough of their shit.

Not approach the ball at speed.

It's what they rolled out when Archer got done for someone landing into his ankles early in the season.

 

[The Feeder Club]

McCarthy marked the ball and Worner ran across him from the side, it's the wrong comparison. Neither Pearce or Wright got to the ball first

 

[muzzington]

Keep at least 2 car lengths away from the ball at all times.

 

[freo84]

The club needs to make a stink about this. I mean make a massive stink and really call it out. It's bullshit.

 

[imperial_oz]

Not approach the ball at speed.

It's what they rolled out when Archer got done for someone landing into his ankles early in the season.

So, we are going with speed limits on players to avoid collisions?

Not a shot at you but that's a just a stupid argument for the AFL to make

 

[ilikepotatoes]

So, we are going with speed limits on players to avoid collisions?

Not a shot at you but that's a just a stupid argument for the AFL to make

The Archer reasoning is worthwhile reading in terms of this for that reason. That literally mentioned speed graphs and said it was too little deceleration too late.

"
We find that this was rough conduct against Cleary, which, in the circumstances, was unreasonable.

We carefully considered the evidence.

We consider that the relevant circumstances are:

A) This was not a contested ball situation… Cleary was always closer to the loose ball and was always going to reach the loose ball before Archer. Archer gave evidence that he intended to tackle Cleary if Cleary took possession of the ball.

B) It was reasonably foreseeable that Cleary may, at least to some extent, go to ground and not cleanly gather the ball and then straighten up in a manner that would have permitted Archer to tackle him without the unreasonable risk of injury.

We acknowledge that the rules encourage players to keep their feet to the extent possible in contest situations, and we acknowledge that players are coached to try to keep their feet, but this does not always happen.

Players should be taken to be aware that it does not always happen.

Players frequently go to ground, either because they intend to, because they stumble, or because they're pushed.

We’re unable to determine here whether Cleary made an entirely voluntary election to put his knee on the ground, or whether he did so at least in part because of his momentum, movement of the ball and the pressure of the moment.

In our view the important matter is that it was reasonably foreseeable that he would do so. Cleary did not dive and did not collapse to the ground. He went to one knee and then both knees when bending over at speed in a contest situation.

Ultimately, his body moved in a way that went beyond or lower than him being on both knees, but this was a product of his speed, his momentum, the way he approached the ball.

Again, we say this was reasonably foreseeable.

While there was contact below Archer’s knees, this was not a situation where the ball was in contest and where Archer could reasonably have expected that Cleary would necessarily gather the ball cleanly and straighten up so that no such low contact would be made.

The severity of the injury that could potentially occur is also a relevant circumstance. A high speed collision from front-on of a player whose head is over the ball has the potential not only to cause injury but to cause severe injury.

This informs the nature and extent of the duty of care of a player in Archer’s position.

In those circumstances, Archer approached the contest at excessive speed, giving himself no reasonable opportunity to avoid harmful contact with Cleary in the circumstances that foreseeably arose.

Graphs indicate that he did decrease his speed by about 25% prior to impact. But given that he was running about as fast as he could, given that he was approaching Cleary from front on, and that Cleary had his head over the ball, and given that he could not reasonably predict what position clear he would be in at the moment of impact, he slowed too little and too late.

His duty of care required him to slow more appreciably and earlier in order to give himself the opportunity to avoid or minimise head high contact.

We find that Archer's conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances."

More to the point I don't see us being successful at the tribunal. Only option I see us getting anything out of this is if we appeal the tribunal inevitably upholding the suspension. The tribunal will justify it regardless.

 

[imperial_oz]

The Archer reasoning is worthwhile reading in terms of this for that reason. That literally mentioned speed graphs and said it was too little deceleration too late.

"
We find that this was rough conduct against Cleary, which, in the circumstances, was unreasonable.

We carefully considered the evidence.

We consider that the relevant circumstances are:

A) This was not a contested ball situation… Cleary was always closer to the loose ball and was always going to reach the loose ball before Archer. Archer gave evidence that he intended to tackle Cleary if Cleary took possession of the ball.

B) It was reasonably foreseeable that Cleary may, at least to some extent, go to ground and not cleanly gather the ball and then straighten up in a manner that would have permitted Archer to tackle him without the unreasonable risk of injury.

We acknowledge that the rules encourage players to keep their feet to the extent possible in contest situations, and we acknowledge that players are coached to try to keep their feet, but this does not always happen.

Players should be taken to be aware that it does not always happen.

Players frequently go to ground, either because they intend to, because they stumble, or because they're pushed.

We’re unable to determine here whether Cleary made an entirely voluntary election to put his knee on the ground, or whether he did so at least in part because of his momentum, movement of the ball and the pressure of the moment.

In our view the important matter is that it was reasonably foreseeable that he would do so. Cleary did not dive and did not collapse to the ground. He went to one knee and then both knees when bending over at speed in a contest situation.

Ultimately, his body moved in a way that went beyond or lower than him being on both knees, but this was a product of his speed, his momentum, the way he approached the ball.

Again, we say this was reasonably foreseeable.

While there was contact below Archer’s knees, this was not a situation where the ball was in contest and where Archer could reasonably have expected that Cleary would necessarily gather the ball cleanly and straighten up so that no such low contact would be made.

The severity of the injury that could potentially occur is also a relevant circumstance. A high speed collision from front-on of a player whose head is over the ball has the potential not only to cause injury but to cause severe injury.

This informs the nature and extent of the duty of care of a player in Archer’s position.

In those circumstances, Archer approached the contest at excessive speed, giving himself no reasonable opportunity to avoid harmful contact with Cleary in the circumstances that foreseeably arose.

Graphs indicate that he did decrease his speed by about 25% prior to impact. But given that he was running about as fast as he could, given that he was approaching Cleary from front on, and that Cleary had his head over the ball, and given that he could not reasonably predict what position clear he would be in at the moment of impact, he slowed too little and too late.

His duty of care required him to slow more appreciably and earlier in order to give himself the opportunity to avoid or minimise head high contact.

We find that Archer's conduct was unreasonable in the circumstances."

More to the point I don't see us being successful at the tribunal. Only option I see us getting anything out of this is if we appeal the tribunal inevitably upholding the suspension. The tribunal will justify it regardless.

This is an absolute imbecilic example of f****d up reasoning intended to get a desired outcome.

It wouldn't survive 5 minutes in anything but the AFL kangaroo court.

You still have to bring the MRO before the tribunal and question his assessment. He wouldn't survive.