Pre game discussions: AFL 2021 Rd 11: Carlton vs Sydney

[ElwoodBlues1]

Does that play into our hands by making them a slower side?

They will either be slower or we wont have enough taller defenders...Jones will have his hands full with Buddy and Weitering would probably get McClean....if they have the 3rd tall forward then that leaves us a taller defender short.
Williamson will probably have to play in place of Plowman and I dont fancy him on taller stronger players, you could try Parks again but his form was very average vs the Hawks twos.

[Thryleon]

They will either be slower or we wont have enough taller defenders...Jones will have his hands full with Buddy and Weitering would probably get McClean....if they have the 3rd tall forward then that leaves us a taller defender short.
Williamson will probably have to play in place of Plowman and I dont fancy him on taller stronger players, you could try Parks again but his form was very average vs the Hawks twos.

Parks is a trier.  For mine, he comes in for insurance and overall team balance.

There is another couple of scenarios.  Kemp could come in for his AFL debut as he is a bigger size, but he didnt seem ready either.

We could also play Kennedy as the medium forward, and move SOJ back to defense to play 3rd tall or pinch hitter. 

[LP]

Parks is a trier.  For mine, he comes in for insurance and overall team balance.

There is another couple of scenarios.  Kemp could come in for his AFL debut as he is a bigger size, but he didnt seem ready either.

We could also play Kennedy as the medium forward, and move SOJ back to defense to play 3rd tall or pinch hitter.

If we think the Swans are going ultra-tall tall why not bring Meat back in to play CHB, leave De Koning as a very mobile 200cm type who can easily roam at either end and handle 2nd ruck.

I reckon SoJ has also done OK once or twice as a 3rd tall defender, and he is probably strong enough to do it for 4 qtrs now.

[Thryleon]

If we think the Swans are going ultra-tall tall why not bring Meat back in to play CHB, leave De Koning as very mobile 200cm type and can easily roam at either end and handle 2nd ruck.

I reckon SoJ has also done OK once or twice as a 3rd tall defender, and he is probably strong enough to do it for 4 qtrs now.

Yep forgot Levi (stupidly).  The problem I see is that he is another like Jones who tends to misuse the footy a bit coming out of the back.  At least he keeps it simple and doesnt bit off more than he can chew.

[cookie2]

Yes, despite his limitations I think Levi back into defence for this one.

[Mav]

Plowman got 2 weeks for the bump on JOM so he is a definite out.

Interesting one. Ordinarily, the issue of choosing to bump arises when a player hits an opponent who has the ball rather than tackling, or hits a player trying to gather a ground ball. This was a marking contest. Mitchell had kicked long and it was heading straight towards Plowman who was running towards the ball drop. JOM was running laterally and their paths were destined to intersect at right-angles. Plowman was entitled to sprint towards the ball: JOM had no right of way even though he was presumably Mitchell’s target. It was only in the last 1-2 strides (I.e. in the last split-second) that Plowman’s left arm drops down and he turns his shoulder to brace for impact. He didn’t “choose to bump”. The question really is whether he should or could have put on the brakes to minimise the impact or deviated. And in a football sense, could he really have deviated and allowed JOM to mark on the run and run unchecked into our D50?

Should Plowman be punished for bracing for impact? The main benefit of that choice was enjoyed by Plowman. But he minimised or eliminated the risk of a big head clash by keeping a half-shoulder distance between their heads. We saw with Dangerfield that 2 players crashing into each other at an angle can lead to severe concussion for one or both. And if Plowman had instead put his elbows up in preparation for a chest mark, the impact may have been much worse.

The umpires on field adjudged it a footy collision and no free was paid.

When we rebounded the ball and kicked long inside 50, Betts and Frost were sprinting laterally across the ground but directly towards each other. It could have been a massive collision, but Eddie ran slightly to the right of the incoming Frost and the impact was minimal. If they’d collided, would Frost have been in trouble if Eddie had been concussed?

Unfortunately, marking contests are inherently dangerous when players approach at pace. The guts needed draws admiration but shouldn’t always draw a free kick or a report. I remember a game in which Fev flew into a pack with the knee up (and the stops down) in a classic power forward move. He launched upwards and took the mark. Unfortunately, a Tigers player ran into the pack with the flight of the ball and Fev’s knee went smack into his face. And the umpire paid a free kick against Fev. You shouldn’t get a free kick simply because you show reckless disregard for your own safety and get yourself hurt.

JOM should be lauded for his guts in keeping his eyes on the ball and running in from the side when it was fair to assume there’d be contact. But at best he should have drawn a free.

[dodge]

I think we're appealing the Plowman 2 weeks

[PaulP]

I think we're appealing the Plowman 2 weeks

Yep.

https://www.afl.com.au/news/620383/appea...e-tribunal

Plowman is also facing two matches for his collision with Hawk Jaeger O'Meara on Saturday afternoon that was graded the same as Holman's – careless conduct, high impact and high contact.

Carlton's football boss Brad Lloyd said the club would appeal the ban.

"A fabric of our game is that we teach players from a young age to keep your eyes on the football... That is exactly what both players have done," Lloyd said.

"Lachie’s sole intent was to contest the football, which he rightfully did in a fair and reasonable manner when he arrived at the point of impact, incidentally at the same time as his opponent.

"Lachie’s eyes remained on the football the entire time and his intention was to spoil the football and any such collision was simply unavoidable, we believe there are sufficient grounds to contest the charge at the tribunal."

[PaulP]

Matthew Lloyd on Access All Areas says both Plowman and Holman should be playing next week, 100%.

[Gointocarlton]

Matthew Lloyd on Access All Areas says both Plowman and Holman should be playing next week, 100%.

And I agree, farcical that they were cited in the first place. If these two incidents are upheld, may as well put positional bibs on the players and call it netball. The game we once knew is officially dead.