Rutten said that Perkins would still be 2 weeks away. So I’m guessing McGrath would be the only inclusion. Have no idea who makes way.
Even though Hipwood will miss, and we won’t need as tall a backline, I sincerely hope BZT isn’t omitted.
3 Likes
Doubt McGrath comes back in yet, was still listed as another week and they’ll be conservative with him IMO. Groin/adductor issue would need careful build up.
Hipwood only got a fine so will play. And Daniher, McStay & Hipwood means Zerk is required.
Will be interesting when McGrath does return though. All of Kelly, Hind, Redman & D’Ambrosio were good yesterday.
Nobody banged door down in twos and we had a solid win against strong side in seniors.
Probably will be an unchanged side for Lions
2 Likes
You already know it will be -
Out - Hobbs, Zerk-Thatcher, Jones (omitted)
In - Ham, Cutler, Smith
9 Likes
Hipwood was referred directly to the tribunal, I thought that the tribunal wouldn’t meet until Monday/Tuesday.
Did they meet today?
Hipwood can accept a $1000 fine with a guilty plea and doesn’t face any suspension
They’d have had other kpf’s/2nd ruck to bring in had Hipwood missed anyway so Zerk will stay in
1 Like
Probably no changes?
Snelling out. Seems well off the pace. Needs to play VFL. McGrath straight back in.
10 Likes
Snelling to the sub and McGrath in if he is ready.
2 Likes
TBH he’s not that good.
Hipwood will get done for at least a couple.
It “looks” like a deliberate shove off the ball into the ump.
I’m suprised there wasn’t a free kick even if the ump wasn’t involved.
It’s not a tactic the AFL would surely want to encourage and he would get rubbed for it.
McGrath was interviewed pre-game yesterday and said he was “close” to playing against the Swans so he’d have to be fairly likely for the Lions given the 8 day break.
1 Like
Tribunal guidelines only allow for a fine.
A Player may also be charged with the offence of Careless Contact with an
Umpire by directly pushing an opponent into an Umpire or their direct path.
A charge of Careless Contact with an Umpire will be subject to a fixed
financial sanction.
Think the key word is careless. That was absolutely intentional and the AFL would hate the look. Either way he has been playing terribly. Might be better for us if he stays in.
1 Like
In which case:
Where contact with an Umpire is not aggressive, forceful, demonstrative
or disrespectful but could otherwise be regarded as intentional, it will be
classified as Unreasonable or Unnecessary Contact with an Umpire and
subject to a fixed financial sanction.
Only way it gets called intentional is if it gets classed as aggressive, forceful, demonstrative or disrespectful.
Either way I expect the AFL to tighten up on the rule because of optics and the loophole.
3 weakest performers of the week Snell, Langford & Guelfi.
Langford and Snell will improve IMHO. Rusty as fk.
2 Likes
In: McG
Out: Phillips, Snelling (to be medic sub)
Harry needs a big game. Couple of early goals will get him right back on his way.
1 Like
We need a proper CHB. Play one of McBride, Reid or Brand. The set up we had vs Sydney was clearly undersized and we were lucky it didn’t hurt us on the score board.
Let’s start building a team for 2023 not just surviving 2022.
4 Likes
Yeah well absolutely terrible look for the AFL. Pretty poor sportsmanship in my book by Hipwood.
2 Likes
You must have missed Guelfi’s second half.
15 Likes