Autopsy Rd 2 v Melbourne. Blues go down by 22

[Gethelred]

I agree with all this, but there's something that maddens me about the way players can't or won't belt someone back when they cop something like what Lewis did.

Leaving aside the specific Cripps and Lewis incident, i think the AFL should fall in line with civil law when it comes to retaliation. There's already precedent regarding severe acts of assault on the footy field being taken to court, so it's nothing new. I believe if a player cops a punch behind play, they should be able to do the exact same thing back to the offender without punishment at the tribunal. It would serve two purposes: 1. A reduction in cheap shots (though to what extent is debatable) and 2. Justice.

If Lewis hit Cripps and he was able to smack him in th chips right back and not be suspended, I'd love it. Always shit me that schools and sporting clubs treated th we incidents different to the real world. If a student gets physically picked on and defends themselves, they get suspended too. Maybe times have changed, but i doubt it.

See, that I can't agree with at all.

As a player myself, I had a lot of punches thrown at me. I played as a tagger, and I was annoying; constantly in your face, blocking your run, tripping you up before you took off. I was very good at it, but I never threw a punch. Did a lot of sneaky shit, but nothing that would hurt my charge; that's the line for me.

If you hurt someone, in the interests of winning, then you simply don't deserve to win. I'd prefer us going in the complete other direction; instead of allowing retaliation, increase penalties to those who partake in thuggish acts proportionate to the crime. If a player swings their fist, they are at the very least missing for the duration their target's injury lasts. If a player chooses to play the man over the ball, let them do so at their own risk, and to a certain extent I'd be okay with a player being subject to criminal charges for a crime committed on the football field (I realise that's a rather extreme view).

If you get in a brawl, you can get pinged for affray, regardless of who started it. I don't understand the perspective that what's not okay off the field is suddenly okay on it.

 

[PP34]

Sorry, can't disagree more with your assessment of Gibbs.

He's been fantastic this year.

Has seemed pretty average to me. Has won a bit of the ball but hasn't hurt the opposition a great deal. Had 5 clangers against the Dees.

 

[ShanDog]

I don't understand the perspective that what's not okay off the field is suddenly okay on it.

That's exactly the point I am arguing.

Off the football field, if you were to punch me, I would be legally and ethically justified in punching you right back.

On the football field, I have to become the personification of a punching bag or risk being suspended myself.

The latter makes no sense.

As a player myself, I had a lot of punches thrown at me. I played as a tagger, and I was annoying; constantly in your face, blocking your run, tripping you up before you took off. I was very good at it, but I never threw a punch. Did a lot of sneaky shit, but nothing that would hurt my charge; that's the line for me.

I have no problem with tagging tactics like this. I am only talking about when someone is literally punched off the play (be it to the stomach or face) i.e. the same attitude as the below:

to a certain extent I'd be okay with a player being subject to criminal charges for a crime committed on the football field (I realise that's a rather extreme view).

If this behaviour was subject to the same legal accountability as the above, a player should be entitled to defend themselves when assaulted on the field. Currently, they are not. It's dumb.

 

[Metalcrusher]

That's exactly the point I am arguing.

Off the football field, if you were to punch me, I would be legally and ethically justified in punching you right back.

On the football field, I have to become the personification of a punching bag or risk being suspended myself.

The latter makes no sense.


I have no problem with tagging tactics like this. I am only talking about when someone is literally punched off the play (be it to the stomach or face) i.e. the same attitude as the below:

If this behaviour was subject to the same legal accountability as the above, a player should be entitled to defend themselves when assaulted on the field. Currently, they are not. It's dumb.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/...k/news-story/dc951fdf936c6c1a9b732c2c468bb408

http://www.mellorolsson.com.au/news/assault-on-sporting-field-not-fair-game

Some people think you can get away with assaulting an opposition player on the football field or in other sporting activities, even though that assault may seriously injure the other player. But an assault on the football field can constitute a criminal offence.

In a leading legal text it was noted that the attitude of players, participants and others seem to be summed up by an attitude that "what happens on the field, stays on the field".

 

[Metalcrusher]

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...mvBtPd4Zjdg77vqgE7nJ-Q&bvm=bv.151426398,d.cGw

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...e/news-story/015c9522313cd1dec9f6e2042f1fa12d

 

[Gethelred]

That's exactly the point I am arguing.

Off the football field, if you were to punch me, I would be legally and ethically justified in punching you right back.

On the football field, I have to become the personification of a punching bag or risk being suspended myself.

The latter makes no sense.


I have no problem with tagging tactics like this. I am only talking about when someone is literally punched off the play (be it to the stomach or face) i.e. the same attitude as the below:

If this behaviour was subject to the same legal accountability as the above, a player should be entitled to defend themselves when assaulted on the field. Currently, they are not. It's dumb.

As I said, though, you can be charged with affray for participating in a brawl, no matter who started it. Sure, you can try to argue provocation or self defense, but there are limits to just how far you can go.

So no, I don't agree, not really. You think it's unfair/unjust that a player must become a victim or an offender; I think that offenders should be stamped out, and that violence has no place, in our game or our world. Not incompatible, but not the same thing either.

 

[ShanDog]

As I said, though, you can be charged with affray for participating in a brawl, no matter who started it. Sure, you can try to argue provocation or self defense, but there are limits to just how far you can go.

So no, I don't agree, not really. You think it's unfair/unjust that a player must become a victim or an offender; I think that offenders should be stamped out, and that violence has no place, in our game or our world. Not incompatible, but not the same thing either.

Self defence is a defence to affray. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Metalcrusher]

One point of difference is this .... the instigator HAS a choice to start/snipe. The respondent merely acts be it in self defence or anger.

 

[Blueballs38]

At a stretch 2019. I think 2020-2021 is more likely.

What I saw on the weekend was a team starting to gell and start following the game plan. Defence, attack and midfield all working together beautifully in the third. We have a very good foundation for the future but still a bit of deadwood ..... a couple of serviceable (better than what is currently on the list) DFAs, a couple of wise trades and another good year of recruiting ...... as well as a dose of luck, no injuries and more of what I saw and better in the third and yes we could make the 8 in 2018.

Will we, no ...... and I am more than patient to wait to 2020 but there is always a team that makes a jump ..... we just never have because this is the first time we are building a team that could possible jump before it learns to run properly.

 

[Blue Pulse]

Different game plan IMO. We tried to have a shoot out with the Tiges- keeping the game open betting that our defence would take care of their forwards (which happened) and that our forward line with JW would perform ok (which it did) . But unfortunately due to skill errors and the resultant turnovers in our midfield , and one player - Dustin Martin we were out gunned .
Against Melbourne we knew that we would have to close down their midfield run, which we did, and so we had a much more contested game. Unfortunately we werent experienced enough to get the game on our terms, which restricted our forward entries into treacle affairs, that resulted in JW and casboult struggling to take any sort of uncontested mark. Comparing the two games is chalk and cheese

We had 50 odd inside 50's for 19 shots on goal? That is a high number of inside 50's so I think you have to go back to looking at how that ball was delivered inside 50. Some of them weren't even to a contest they went directly to the opposition or to the oppositions advantage.
Richmond's midfield kicked half there goals and destroyed our midfield, apart from Murphy and Gibbs in the first half we gave very little. We are averaging 37% efficiency with our inside 50's at the moment so we are lacking polish with our delivery into our 50.

 

[Kramer1]

We had 50 odd inside 50's for 19 shots on goal? That is a high number of inside 50's so I think you have to go back to looking at how that ball was delivered inside 50. Some of them weren't even to a contest they went directly to the opposition or to the oppositions advantage.
Richmond's midfield kicked half there goals and destroyed our midfield, apart from Murphy and Gibbs in the first half we gave very little. We are averaging 37% efficiency with our inside 50's at the moment so we are lacking polish with our delivery into our 50.

Good point, though I think a combo of poor delivery and poor forward play. There isn't great system or understanding between our forwards...or any particularly smart operators that find space, dummy lead, repeat lead, block for team mates, create space or separation for others...you know, the stuff forwards are supposed to do.

It's why we are still seeing entries like the kick to Matt Wright, two against one, hard on the boundary, like we saw on the weekend.

Lot easier for mids to look polished when they don't have to thread the needle (Cripps to SPS) every single time.

 

[therubbernub]

We had 50 odd inside 50's for 19 shots on goal? That is a high number of inside 50's so I think you have to go back to looking at how that ball was delivered inside 50. Some of them weren't even to a contest they went directly to the opposition or to the oppositions advantage.
Richmond's midfield kicked half there goals and destroyed our midfield, apart from Murphy and Gibbs in the first half we gave very little. We are averaging 37% efficiency with our inside 50's at the moment so we are lacking polish with our delivery into our 50.

We might have had a high number of inside 50's but the game was congested which meant that we couldnt have effective entries. If it was more open then JW would have had space to run into and time. We slowed the game down to prevent their run but it also hindered ours

 

[Blue Pulse]

I understand that they congested the forward line, but on a number of occasions, the kick in was very poor from players who were not under much pressure. The kick going in doesn't always have to hit a target but should be placed in the best position for our player to create a contest and at least force a ball up.

 

[koutamarto]

Played a specific role within the gameplan. Bolts (or any other coach at this level) would not allow a player to just go kick chasing if that's what you're suggesting.

Im not suggesting that at all. What i am suggesting is i would like to see our small forwards actually apply some pressure to opposition half backs.
Out of curiosity how exactly do YOU know what that specific role and what the game plan is?

 

[Smegger]

Im not suggesting that at all. What i am suggesting is i would like to see our small forwards actually apply some pressure to opposition half backs.
Out of curiosity how exactly do YOU know what that specific role and what the game plan is?

I don't, that's why i'm implying if Bolts wasn't happy with a player not performing his role he wouldn't put up with it. Players don't always get dropped purely on lack of form and match-ups. Both sides will rack up stats every week and it gets evaluated during and after each match. But i agree defensive pressure is something we're definitely lacking atm. It seems tackling will be a focus this week.