05-02-2022, 04:14 AM
How impressive was Harry's shot at goal for our 2nd in the match after he marked outside 50 and then launched a raking 60m kick from the line of the centre square which cleared the 197cm Josh Walker (who didn't even bother jumping to spoil) and hit the base of the fence 5m away from the goal line. And when I say "raking", I mean it. At the top of its trajectory, it was at most 10m off the ground. It was probably kicked at an angle of less than 30 degrees rather than the optimal angle for distance, around 43 degrees. Makes you wonder how far he would have kicked it if he'd given it more air.
Pity about Stocker's injury. But he has to learn to avoid going 4th man up in marking contests. In the 1st quarter, Scott bombed long to the hotspot and Ziebel was sitting under it, flanked by Young and Weitering. Stocker was behind the marking contest with Stephenson but left him and launched into the pack. Once he committed to the contest, he just had to punch it well outside D50 but instead it was Zeibel who got a fist to it to knock it goalwards where Stephenson would have picked it up for an easy goal if Larkey hadn't beaten him to it. If he had stayed down, he would have been in a good position to kill the ball after it had been punched. Letting 2 opponents behind the contest when you're effectively the goalkeeper is a cardinal sin. This isn't the first time he's done this. In the game against North last year, he jumped into a 2 on 2 contest and the only impact he had was to push everybody under the ball only to see it drop to his man Thomas who waited down behind the pack and goaled.
Not sure we'll get great joy out of Carlton's appeal of the Young suspension. I hope the appeal was taken because Young won't face an increase in the suspension if he loses.
Fact is that Young could have (and should have) targetted the ball. As it was, the bump happened just about the same time as the ball bounced at Young's feet. If he'd bent down to pick it up, chances are he would have earned a free kick if he'd turned his body so Zurhaar would have had no choice but to go over his back. And if Zurhaar had kept his head down and his head hit Young's back, there would have been no criticism of Young. Young could also have shepherded the ball, again by turning his back on Zurhaar, allowing Saad first access to it. Again, if Zurhaar hadn't modified his approach then he would have given away the free kick.
I'd imagine the best defence for Young would be to say that he had been intending to pick up the ball (and he did have his hands out in front as if he were preparing to grab the bouncing ball) but he realised Zurhaar would hit him head high at speed so he sought to protect himself (and arguably Zurhaar) by crouching away from his head). In other words, we'd want to argue this is the same as Rioli making contact after jumping for the mark and then turning his body on instinct at the last second.
I think it's wishful thinking to argue Young was stationary. He had run into that position albeit he was decelerating. Zurhaar at no point ducked his head. He was always concentrating on the ball and his head was down when he made contact with Young only because the ball was bouncing between them and he was bending down to pick it up.
If the Tribunal finds that Young chose to bump when the alternatives of gathering the ball or shepherding were open to him, then he'll be found guilty unless the bump was executed perfectly.
I think that the Tribunal will class the bump as dangerous unless it can be clearly shown that the impact was made to the upper arm or the front of the shoulder. If we're forced into a last-ditch effort of arguing that it was more on the front than the top of the shoulder, I don't like our chances. A hip and shoulder to the top of an opponent's shoulder can do a lot of damage (as it did to Bishop when Long nailed him in the 2000 GF).
Pity about Stocker's injury. But he has to learn to avoid going 4th man up in marking contests. In the 1st quarter, Scott bombed long to the hotspot and Ziebel was sitting under it, flanked by Young and Weitering. Stocker was behind the marking contest with Stephenson but left him and launched into the pack. Once he committed to the contest, he just had to punch it well outside D50 but instead it was Zeibel who got a fist to it to knock it goalwards where Stephenson would have picked it up for an easy goal if Larkey hadn't beaten him to it. If he had stayed down, he would have been in a good position to kill the ball after it had been punched. Letting 2 opponents behind the contest when you're effectively the goalkeeper is a cardinal sin. This isn't the first time he's done this. In the game against North last year, he jumped into a 2 on 2 contest and the only impact he had was to push everybody under the ball only to see it drop to his man Thomas who waited down behind the pack and goaled.
Not sure we'll get great joy out of Carlton's appeal of the Young suspension. I hope the appeal was taken because Young won't face an increase in the suspension if he loses.
Fact is that Young could have (and should have) targetted the ball. As it was, the bump happened just about the same time as the ball bounced at Young's feet. If he'd bent down to pick it up, chances are he would have earned a free kick if he'd turned his body so Zurhaar would have had no choice but to go over his back. And if Zurhaar had kept his head down and his head hit Young's back, there would have been no criticism of Young. Young could also have shepherded the ball, again by turning his back on Zurhaar, allowing Saad first access to it. Again, if Zurhaar hadn't modified his approach then he would have given away the free kick.
I'd imagine the best defence for Young would be to say that he had been intending to pick up the ball (and he did have his hands out in front as if he were preparing to grab the bouncing ball) but he realised Zurhaar would hit him head high at speed so he sought to protect himself (and arguably Zurhaar) by crouching away from his head). In other words, we'd want to argue this is the same as Rioli making contact after jumping for the mark and then turning his body on instinct at the last second.
I think it's wishful thinking to argue Young was stationary. He had run into that position albeit he was decelerating. Zurhaar at no point ducked his head. He was always concentrating on the ball and his head was down when he made contact with Young only because the ball was bouncing between them and he was bending down to pick it up.
If the Tribunal finds that Young chose to bump when the alternatives of gathering the ball or shepherding were open to him, then he'll be found guilty unless the bump was executed perfectly.
I think that the Tribunal will class the bump as dangerous unless it can be clearly shown that the impact was made to the upper arm or the front of the shoulder. If we're forced into a last-ditch effort of arguing that it was more on the front than the top of the shoulder, I don't like our chances. A hip and shoulder to the top of an opponent's shoulder can do a lot of damage (as it did to Bishop when Long nailed him in the 2000 GF).
