Review Semi Final, 2019 - Brisbane Lions vs. GWS

Who were your five best players against GWS?


  • Total voters
    141
  • Poll closed .

(Log in to remove this ad.)

lioninthesand

Premiership Player
Feb 22, 2016
4,420
7,624
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Browny's segment showing the bombing forward to Davis/Haynes on On The Couch was hard to watch! Every one had good options and plenty of time. Bugger.
I can't watch that. 360 was hard enough.

Keep in mind, that is also a symptom of the game though. Both teams not switching because they were so gassed so the outer wing felt really chaotic and congested. Players would have felt like they had less time than they did. Plus, absolutely cooked. They were set up like a wall. Us not having much luck going forward. It's not just a case of "we stupidly stuffed up entries".. we fell into a trap that the game presented. It sucks, this loss hurts more today now there's been time to reflect.
 

martinson

Club Legend
Apr 4, 2015
1,666
2,145
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
I can't watch that. 360 was hard enough.

Keep in mind, that is also a symptom of the game though. Both teams not switching because they were so gassed so the outer wing felt really chaotic and congested. Players would have felt like they had less time than they did. Plus, absolutely cooked. They were set up like a wall. Us not having much luck going forward. It's not just a case of "we stupidly stuffed up entries".. we fell into a trap that the game presented. It sucks, this loss hurts more today now there's been time to reflect.
Well it's fairly obvious ,perhaps in hindsight.

Tiredness and being gassed doesn't generally affect great players with good vision . We had some inexperienced players who need to work on their composure under pressure . Some will never get it . It was evident watching the game that we had them on toast ,they were more out of tickets than we were but for some reason we felt the pressure more.

As for the non paid free kicks , a friend of mine who supports another club and was impartial on the whole thing said the umpiring was disgraceful , just kept missing our obvious ones . He's fairly respected in the game and I can't repeat his theory because I'd get laughed off here again. Some of the decisions in the 3rd quarter particularly were baffling to say the least.

Once everyone at the club has calmed down the guys are going to be bitterly disappointed . As the boss says we just need to learn from it . It's only a game of footy ,let's hope the Pies don't put in a mare this week
 

CarterS

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 14, 2001
8,078
5,324
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lions
I agree with Whateley On The Couch, last week's incident against Bontempelli was worse than the Lachie Neale incident and it would be an insult to our intelligence if Greene is banned for a week.

“I thought last week’s (incident on Bontempelli) was unreasonable and unnecessary contact, but that was adjudged to be serious misconduct and a fine.

“I think we get treated as mugs in this scenario that this week and last week are treated completely differently. I think it’s an insult to our intelligence.

“Last week’s vision is more damning than this week’s vision. But for them to be treated the way that they have, I’m amazed.”
 

Skoob

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 6, 2010
13,886
20,973
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
I agree with Whateley On The Couch, last week's incident against Bontempelli was worse than the Lachie Neale incident and it would be an insult to our intelligence if Greene is banned for a week.
It isn't this week's penalty that is wrong though. Last week, the AFL requested a financial sanction, and the tribunal obliged. This week could be assessed 2 ways ie. Unreasonable contact or eye gouging. The former guarantees no more than a week off, the latter is a lottery as to how the AFL might influence the tribunal and how compelling the vision is.
For the charge this week, the sanction is correct.
747416
 

CarterS

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 14, 2001
8,078
5,324
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lions
It isn't this week's penalty that is wrong though. Last week, the AFL requested a financial sanction, and the tribunal obliged. This week could be assessed 2 ways ie. Unreasonable contact or eye gouging. The former guarantees no more than a week off, the latter is a lottery as to how the AFL might influence the tribunal and how compelling the vision is.
For the charge this week, the sanction is correct.
View attachment 747416
Yes agree on the charge but the point was as per the quote below my post, why are the charges different, the incidents looked the same?? That's the insulting part.
 

Skoob

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 6, 2010
13,886
20,973
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Yes agree on the charge but the point was as per the quote below my post, why are the charges different, the incidents looked the same?? That's the insulting part.
Aside from the likely interference and possible motives, the 2 incidents were assessed by 2 different entities. Last week the charges were determined by the Tribunal panel, and this week the charge is laid by the the MRO.
I think the video last week was less conclusive in regard to unreasonable contact to the face, but there was a lot more going on and therefore a rough conduct charge was made. The Tribunal got it wrong in its assessment, in the opinion of many, but there are still plenty of knuckle draggers who think "there was nothing in it", "It's a contact sport". Robbo scoffed that it was even as big a fine as it was.
When different people are making the determinations, you get different results and as mentioned, that's before you consider any outside pressure or motives.

That anyone is surprised at the inconsistency is more mind boggling than the decisions themselves.
 

CarterS

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 14, 2001
8,078
5,324
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lions
Aside from the likely interference and possible motives, the 2 incidents were assessed by 2 different entities. Last week the charges were determined by the Tribunal panel, and this week the charge is laid by the the MRO.
I think the video last week was less conclusive in regard to unreasonable contact to the face, but there was a lot more going on and therefore a rough conduct charge was made. The Tribunal got it wrong in its assessment, in the opinion of many, but there are still plenty of knuckle draggers who think "there was nothing in it", "It's a contact sport". Robbo scoffed that it was even as big a fine as it was.
When different people are making the determinations, you get different results and as mentioned, that's before you consider any outside pressure or motives.

That anyone is surprised at the inconsistency is more mind boggling than the decisions themselves.
Can't say surprised but definitely disappointed. The whole point of having one bloke in charge of it was supposed to improve consistency?

Who sits on the tribunal jury?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

dlanod

Moderator
Sep 14, 2006
41,414
54,042
Sydney
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
When different people are making the determinations, you get different results and as mentioned, that's before you consider any outside pressure or motives.
When the same person is making the determinations you still get different results, going back and rewatching some of the high contacts that were fines versus one weeks off, e.g. Ablett, etc...
 

dlanod

Moderator
Sep 14, 2006
41,414
54,042
Sydney
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
GWS; CCMariners; NQCowboys; Ravens
Browny's segment showing the bombing forward to Davis/Haynes on On The Couch was hard to watch! Every one had good options and plenty of time. Bugger.
on the couch just showed snippets of our ball entry into our 50 and man the options we had with handballs to open players or chip to lead up players was so obvious, Unfortunately we had the blinkers on.
If anyone spots this ending up on Youtube, etc, feel free to post a link. I'm curious.
 

Skoob

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 6, 2010
13,886
20,973
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Can't say surprised but definitely disappointed. The whole point of having one bloke in charge of it was supposed to improve consistency?

Who sits on the tribunal jury?
Tribunal/Appeal Board Chairs: David Jones, Ross Howie, Geoff Giudice AO, Murray Kellam QC and Peter O’Callaghan QC Tribunal Jury Members: Wayne Henwood, Michael Jamison, Jason Johnson, Stephen Jurica, Richard Loveridge, Stewart Loewe, David Neitz, David Pittman, Paul Williams and Shane Wakelin. Appeal Board Panel Members: David Jones, Ross Howie, Geoff Giudice AO, Murray Kellam QC, Wayne Henwood, Stephen Jurica, Richard Loveridge and Peter O’Callaghan QC
 

luthor

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 13, 2001
12,668
13,782
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lions
I'm convinced that when Christian referred the Bont case direct to the Tribunal, it never entered his mind that events would transpire they way they did. The certain suspension that Christian would have anticipated got totally white anted by the AFL's Counsel. "We recommend a fine" was surely was a shock to Christian.

This time, he's got more specific footage so he can hand down the suspension himself and dare the Tribunal to screw him over a second time.
 

Lionheart182

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 29, 2008
9,569
7,139
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Blazers/Heat, ORST beavers
I'm convinced that when Christian referred the Bont case direct to the Tribunal, it never entered his mind that events would transpire they way they did. The certain suspension that Christian would have anticipated got totally white anted by the AFL's Counsel. "We recommend a fine" was surely was a shock to Christian.

This time, he's got more specific footage so he can hand down the suspension himself and dare the Tribunal to screw him over a second time.
This has probably been answered already but why wasn't this weeks incident referred directly to the tribunal as well?
 

Skoob

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 6, 2010
13,886
20,973
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
When the same person is making the determinations you still get different results, going back and rewatching some of the high contacts that were fines versus one weeks off, e.g. Ablett, etc...
For sure.

I remember keenly watching the rule changes video the AFL put out at the start of a season a few years ago (I think when they re-re-interpreted deliberate rushed behinds and soften the amount of contact allowed before/in marking contests). They showed what was not allowed before and what would now be allowed. One of the "allowed" examples was a worse action (push in the back) than what would not be allowed.
Interpretation (poor interpretation) is not restricted to umpires. The AFL rules committees, MRO, Tribunal, all make dud or inconsistent decisions, often predisposed to certain players.
Swap Toby Greene or Gary Abblett for some obscure second year player, and they'd be in trouble. In assessing incidents, there is no doubt that there is an element of "I know that is the action we are trying to rule against, but it would be a terrible shame for player X to be rubbed out for that". Suddenly, some offences don't seem so bad, when committed by certain players. The same 'logic' can sometimes be applied according to who is on the receiving end.

The problem is that they are all very weak in applying scrutiny and the rules. Way too much discretion allowed at all levels. Interpretation does come into it, but too often, something like "A hand in the face is forbidden" becomes "Awww, it wasn't very hard, and he was only off the field for a short time. Lucky it only needed 3 stitches, otherwise you'd be in strife".
 

luthor

Brownlow Medallist
Oct 13, 2001
12,668
13,782
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Lions
This has probably been answered already but why wasn't this weeks incident referred directly to the tribunal as well?
Because the footage of the Neale incident provides unequivocal evidence of a raking motion across the face and in the vicinity of the eye region. What Greene did to Bontompelli was more prolonged and on the balance of probability, was a "worse" act. It's just with that incident, there is no CLEAR vision of Greene raking the eye region.

The Tribunal had a Get Out of Jail Free card last week, aided and abetted by the AFL "Prosecution". They ignored probability and went with the "two bob each way" option …....a fine.

This time, there is clear evidence and the suspension handed down by the MRO is totally consistent with the parameters he has to work with.

If the Tribunal overturns this, they have to disagree with Christian.

I'd be amazed if they do because it makes the process a total and utter joke.

Who knows though?
 

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 13, 2001
10,161
16,409
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
Because the footage of the Neale incident provides unequivocal evidence of a raking motion across the face and in the vicinity of the eye region. What Greene did to Bontompelli was more prolonged and on the balance of probability, was a "worse" act. It's just with that incident, there is no CLEAR vision of Greene raking the eye region.

The Tribunal had a Get Out of Jail Free card last week, aided and abetted by the AFL "Prosecution". They ignored probability and went with the "two bob each way" option …....a fine.

This time, there is clear evidence and the suspension handed down by the MRO is totally consistent with the parameters he has to work with.

If the Tribunal overturns this, they have to disagree with Christian.

I'd be amazed if they do because it makes the process a total and utter joke.

Who knows though?
Maybe Greene should have been suspended last week, but this doesn't look like unreasonable contact to the eyes. Barely contact at all.

I'm surprised Neale stayed down as long as he did, so maybe there's something more to it than it appears, but from what we've seen so far I think Christian is trying to make two wrongs equal a right. Which has become typical of the guy lately; making decisions that seem right rather than following the guidelines as they're written.

I think the single match review officer strategy has already hit the point where there's too much pressure on one guy.
 

Mighty Lions

Senior List
Jan 9, 2019
219
459
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Well it's fairly obvious ,perhaps in hindsight.

Tiredness and being gassed doesn't generally affect great players with good vision . We had some inexperienced players who need to work on their composure under pressure . Some will never get it . It was evident watching the game that we had them on toast ,they were more out of tickets than we were but for some reason we felt the pressure more.

As for the non paid free kicks , a friend of mine who supports another club and was impartial on the whole thing said the umpiring was disgraceful , just kept missing our obvious ones . He's fairly respected in the game and I can't repeat his theory because I'd get laughed off here again. Some of the decisions in the 3rd quarter particularly were baffling to say the least.

Once everyone at the club has calmed down the guys are going to be bitterly disappointed . As the boss says we just need to learn from it . It's only a game of footy ,let's hope the Pies don't put in a mare this week
For me the bombing into the forward line he been a problem all year, not just Saturday night. Sure the pressure in playing finals lifts a couple of levels and that helps to understand why we panicked a little in those last few minutes however this year we consistently brought the ball into our forward line like a grenade thrown out of a bunker. Plenty BF posters are crying out loud for a "power forward". That will firstly be not easy to find, secondly cost us big $$$$ & thirdly if we find that composure needed to settle before we offload the ball, we already have the guys in the forward line to be much more effective and do the job needed to score.
 

notliondown

Club Legend
Jul 22, 2007
1,492
3,228
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
I've read elsewhere that Neale has said it was a punch/hit to the face not gouging.

But that really is incidental.

This is deliberate high contact the head/face. I don't care whether its gouging, raking, punching, pinching or pulling of his hair. The face and head are sacrosanct, it's that simple.

It's ultimately ridiculous that he got off last week and within days repeats the offense. Thats the real issue - whether this incident is worse or not doesn't matter. He has intentionally attacked a prone player in the area of the face. That simple fact alone negates debate.
 

martinson

Club Legend
Apr 4, 2015
1,666
2,145
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
For me the bombing into the forward line he been a problem all year, not just Saturday night. Sure the pressure in playing finals lifts a couple of levels and that helps to understand why we panicked a little in those last few minutes however this year we consistently brought the ball into our forward line like a grenade thrown out of a bunker. Plenty BF posters are crying out loud for a "power forward". That will firstly be not easy to find, secondly cost us big $$$$ & thirdly if we find that composure needed to settle before we offload the ball, we already have the guys in the forward line to be much more effective and do the job needed to score.
Because we bomb it long along the wing some players just repeat the procedure into the forward pocket.

If you don't want to have nightmares don't watch the on the couch footage. We had simple opportunities to wrap it up . We have serial offenders in the entry stakes ,they should be able to clean it up in the off season , although one has had a few years now.
 

Lionheart182

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 29, 2008
9,569
7,139
Melbourne
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Blazers/Heat, ORST beavers
I've read elsewhere that Neale has said it was a punch/hit to the face not gouging.

But that really is incidental.

This is deliberate high contact the head/face. I don't care whether its gouging, raking, punching, pinching or pulling of his hair. The face and head are sacrosanct, it's that simple.

It's ultimately ridiculous that he got off last week and within days repeats the offense. Thats the real issue - whether this incident is worse or not doesn't matter. He has intentionally attacked a prone player in the area of the face. That simple fact alone negates debate.
Absolutely. In criminal terms he has shown himself have a low probability of rehabilitation.
 

Top Bottom