Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 187

Thread: Changes for Rnd 14 V Essendon

  1. #61
    Melican has to come back in as he was a tactical out. Jones going out could mean that Marsh stays in.

    I think they have to reward NEAFL form so Towers goes out and one of Edwards / Dawson / Florent / Robinson comes in.

    Out: Jones, Towers
    In: Melican, Dawson

    I'm praying that McVeigh has a setback or comes back via the NEAFL. Whose spot would he take anyway?

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by grarmy View Post
    For crying out loud, what has Tippo done over the past few weeks to deserve a call up? What, stay injury free?
    Clearly not!

  3. #63
    Stuck in Reserves shaun..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    691
    So just saw the footage of the Jones strike.. it seemed like an open palm to the neck/face. Fair enough if that warrants a suspension but then Joel Selwood gets off for his cheap whack on Mitchell (graded unintentional - i wonder what intent means). The inconsistencies are bothering..

  4. #64
    Can you feel it? Site Admin ugg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chucked into the ruck
    Posts
    15,929
    Hard to tell whether the palm was open or not but it was to the face. I'm not happy about the intentional grading based on what other incidents have been classified as but due to discount of two to one I can't see the Swans risking it

  5. #65
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Sydney South
    Posts
    1,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    Melican has to come back in as he was a tactical out. Jones going out could mean that Marsh stays in.

    I think they have to reward NEAFL form so Towers goes out and one of Edwards / Dawson / Florent / Robinson comes in.

    Out: Jones, Towers
    In: Melican, Dawson

    I concur with your changes and reasoning. I think jones role will be played by marsh rather than them bringing in Edwards. Melican as an extra tall defender and Dawson to play mid forward like towers has been. Keep Rohan forward

  6. #66
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,164
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Yep, Edwards is pretty quick, but he also plays in a "high energy" fashion.

    I'll be disappointed if McVeigh comes straight into the team, given how long he's been out and how many reserves players are in good form. Especially if he gets the nod over Dawson (who I'd have in ahead of Edwards, but there may be room for both).

    Melican is a good chance to return also, probably at the expense of Marsh. Marsh has been fine but the extra height will be needed against the Bombers.
    Thanks

  7. #67
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    11,125
    Who lines up on MTW?

  8. #68
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by ugg View Post
    Hard to tell whether the palm was open or not but it was to the face. I'm not happy about the intentional grading based on what other incidents have been classified as but due to discount of two to one I can't see the Swans risking it
    It was behind the play so clearly not a 'football act' so no question the conduct was intentional.

    I like Bartel's suggested distinction between 'football acts' and 'non-football acts'. I think it would help dispel some of the confusion about the MRP's gradings.

    'Football acts' may save stars from MRP bans - AFL.com.au

  9. #69
    I know this won't happen and I don't want to start sounding like Ludwig too much but I'd be keeping Towers in the side as the second ruck. Essendon only play Bellchambers as a main ruck. Naismith can lope around with him.

    For me, I'd go:

    Out: Jones, Sinclair
    In: Dawson, Melican

  10. #70
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,969
    Quote Originally Posted by shaun.. View Post
    So just saw the footage of the Jones strike.. it seemed like an open palm to the neck/face. Fair enough if that warrants a suspension but then Joel Selwood gets off for his cheap whack on Mitchell (graded unintentional - i wonder what intent means). The inconsistencies are bothering..
    Seems a pretty innocuous thing to miss a week over. He seemed to want to push and it slipped higher than he intended.

  11. #71
    Go Swannies! Site Admin Meg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    In the Brewongle
    Posts
    4,717
    Quote Originally Posted by MattW View Post
    Seems a pretty innocuous thing to miss a week over. He seemed to want to push and it slipped higher than he intended.
    The act/conduct was intentional (it was behind the play). Where he hit him is assessed under 'contact'. He may not have intended to hit him high but he clearly did. With low impact that is an automatic 2 week/1 week penalty.

    Solution? Don't hit players behind the play, even under provocation.

  12. #72
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,969
    Quote Originally Posted by Meg View Post
    The act/conduct was intentional (it was behind the play). Where he hit him is assessed under 'contact'. He may not have intended to hit him high but he clearly did. With low impact that is an automatic 2 week/1 week penalty.

    Solution? Don't hit players behind the play, even under provocation.
    OK then. An expensive way to learn the lesson. That seems to be the way with Zak, but so far he has learned them.

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO