Changes Vs Geelong (Round 2)

[CarloLion]

Why surely? I don't agree with the level of suspension but you can only challenge the gradings, and not the associated weightings.

So what do you challenge? The intentional ruling? Good luck.

Low impact reduced to insufficient force? Again... good luck.



Can't cite precedent because that would require the MRP to be accountable and transparent.

So little scope within the system to challenge the unfair parts of this ruling and we'll be twice as shitted off if we lose Rocky for the QClash as well.

I think we just have to take a bite of the shit sandwich here and move on.

Yeh only now just realised that it was 2 games reduced to 1 with an early plea.... Absolutely gutted

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I thought it was a strike that they were looking at...turns out they've done him for rough conduct. I was just saying on the Geelong board that due to the way the points are structured, if he had punched Mitchell in the guts with a closed fist, it would have been worth 100 points less and he would have escaped with a reprimand. Understandable that rough conduct to the head carries a high penalty, but I've got no idea why rough conduct to the body is considered so much worse than striking to the body. Insanity...

 

[Hollow Knight]

I thought it was a strike that they were looking at...turns out they've done him for rough conduct. I was just saying on the Geelong board that due to the way the points are structured, if he had punched Mitchell in the guts with a closed fist, it would have been worth 100 points less and he would have escaped with a reprimand. Understandable that rough conduct to the head carries a high penalty, but I've got no idea why rough conduct to the body is considered so much worse than striking to the body. Insanity...

Could we challenge it as a strike rather than rough conduct?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Wasn't reported by the match day umpires but now assessed as:
i) intentional conduct;
ii) low impact;
iii) body contact;
intentional being the big one...

As a Geelong supporter can I just say... WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP! Rocky should never have been cited. Will you appeal?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Could we challenge it as a strike rather than rough conduct?

I don't see why not. I only caught a glimpse of it though...maybe I was way off with my initial assumption that it would be called a strike? Thoughts?

 

[TimV!]

Put Rockys suspension down the Sam Mitchell acting hurt to play for a free kick.

 

[you pick one]

Once Mitchell and the Hawks put in a negative medical report Rock was stuffed,probably a bullshit medical but it designed to stops others from trying on the same thing.

 

[Haso]

I understand the need for the MRP to set a precedent early in the season, but it would make more sense of the MRP actually used precedent in their decision making.

 

[Bert Man]

Once Mitchell and the Hawks put in a negative medical report Rock was stuffed,probably a bullshit medical but it designed to stops others from trying on the same thing.

I highly doubt that.

 

[scott_the_man]

Out: rockliff, close, taylor
In: bewick, mcguane, raines

 

[3KZ is Football]

Out: rockliff, close, taylor
In: bewick, mcguane, raines

The vibrations say you have nailed it! If these three are fit they should all come in.

Scott_the_man, your 223rd post has clearly been your best to date, but the Thread Review Panel is still giving you two weeks for over use of the underscore, one week if you don't contest the penalty.

 

[cotter101]

I would rather give Close more of a run than just 1 game. Taylor needs some time in the ressies to build up his fitness so I would bring in McGuane for him. Yes it may be a little tall but Paparone is more of a small than a tall imo. Brown and Close will be our 2 key targets and McGuane will be the 3rd tall. Plus Close and McGuane are both able to apply defensive pressure so although it will be a tall team we won't be to slow.

So our forward line would include Brown, McGuane, Close Paparone and one of West/Leuenberger.

That's too tall and far too slow.

 

[James North]

Maybe we should play West in defence because he'd be used to the Cats' delivery style into the forward 50.

Joking.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

I don't see why not. I only caught a glimpse of it though...maybe I was way off with my initial assumption that it would be called a strike? Thoughts?

Like you I predicted earlier that the charge would be striking and the defence would be insufficient force. Seems the intent is to head that tactic off at the pass by calling it rough conduct.

 

[Scubaveg]

I really don't like the idea of dropping Close or Taylor after one game or for that matter Paps. Would like to see these guys play a few in a row to give them a chance to adapt to speed of the game and the required level. In and out after one game will start to sew doubts in their minds in stead of building confidence.

 

[a mayes ing]

I really don't like the idea of dropping Close or Taylor after one game or for that matter Paps. Would like to see these guys play a few in a row to give them a chance to adapt to speed of the game and the required level. In and out after one game will start to sew doubts in their minds in stead of building confidence.

You may not want to lose one and neither do l, but if mcguane is fit then he has to come in. It would probably be for Close.

Out: Rocky, Close
In: raines, McGuane. Wow we have no depth, Cant think of any quality mid that could replace Rocky except Beams but injured.

 

[jackess]

Crisp for Rocky
Raines for Taylor if they wanna play a tagger
McGuane for Close if fit.

 

[Dylan12]

In: McGuane, Raines, Polkinghorne, Maguire
Out: Rockliff, Merrett, Taylor, Close

 

[Hollow Knight]

They're not going to drop Merrett. Nor should they.

 

[Haso]

In: McGuane, Raines, Polkinghorne, Maguire
Out: Rockliff, Merrett, Taylor, Close

It might make some peeps feel better, but I think it's very unlikely.

 

[Dylan12]

It might make some peeps feel better, but I think it's very unlikely.

That drew an unexpected quick reaction...as much as I was being facetious, I'd still choose Maguire over Merrett for a key defensive role nine times out of ten.

 

[Haso]

That drew an unexpected quick reaction...as much as I was being facetious, I'd still choose Maguire over Merrett for a key defensive role nine times out of ten.

They call me Hurricane Haso. No they don't.

I can see the attraction, but I honestly think that he will get back to his best FB form within another week. To me Goose and Sauce play different roles, and i don't think they should be mutually exclusive in the Lions best 22. Again though, I can see why they are currently seen that way.

 

[Dylan12]

ITo me Goose and Sauce play different roles, and i don't think they should be mutually exclusive in the Lions best 22. Again though, I can see why they are currently seen that way.

Either do I, but it seems Loopy Leppa sees it that way.

 

[James North]

By that logic, Dylan, Goose shouldn't play either because of the one bad game he had vs Hawks in Rd 1 of NAB cup.

 

[Dylan12]

By that logic, Dylan, Goose shouldn't play either because of the one bad game he had vs Hawks in Rd 1 of NAB cup.

Difference of opinion James.

I rate Goose a lot higher than Merrett, although similar to what Haso said, think both work well together.

For reasons unclear to me, it doesn't seem as though that is likely to happen in 2014. What confuses me even more is the comments that unless Goose can play forward he won't play seniors. Considering Merrett can play forward and Maguire is more than competent, or in my opinion, better than or at worst as good as Merrett at full back, I don't quite get why they both aren't selected.