Early call but I think we will go in like this:

B: Simpson Jamison White
HB: Walker Henderson Tuohy

Foll: Kruezer Judd Curnow
C: Bootsma Gibbs Scotland

HF: Menzel Casboult Armfield
F: Garlett Waite Murphy

Int: Lucas McLean Bell (Robinson)


Cachia unlucky if Gibbs is back. Not expecting Yarran or Carrazzo to play.

More mobile side with a good solid defence. Tempted to put Gibbs at HB and Tuohy in middle. Boots on a wing pushing forward and back.

Armfield on Hanley and Curnow on Rockliff. Jamo on Brown. Kruezer to stick on L'burger, be a great battle.

Flexible and skilled forward line that can go tall or small. Casboult back up ruck.

Nice when Yarran, Betts, Carrots are back!


Blues by 28.

_________________
#NewBlues beginning 25th August 2015

Daniel Merrett can accept 3 matches for rough conduct on Michael Hurley – penalty impacted by previous bad record.

J Clarke can accept 1 match, rough conduct on Kavanagh

_________________
"You are being watched. The government has a secret system. A machine that spies on you every hour of every day. I know because I built it." - Finch

Personally I hope Murphy, Lucas and Henderson all have a huge night out. That would really piss Vossy off

Both would be gone you'd think. No Merrett certainly helps us and but Clarke only averages 13 disposals a game and didn't do anything in the win against Essendon* other than iron out Kavanagh. Merrett 7 defensive 50 marks in the top 2 for defense (Patful the other).

Pending availability I'd suggest...

IN : Gibbs, Carrazzo
OUT: Bootsma, Menzel

Bootsma or White would be it but I think White is showing good signs and is a big strong body with some agro.

Cachia should stay. He's a unit in the clearances. Tackles, puts his body in. Just what we need.

Got 3 weeks.

Good call.

_________________
dane's trolling again

Only if drop kruz

I don't want to ever see us with two rucks and a lumbering tall and or 3 rucks ever again

WOW stunned, the game is Farrrked.. selfishly Im happy he wont be playing this week, but this is not he game i grew up with.. the AFL and the rules committe should simply go Farrrk themselves.. just over it..

You can't sling tackle and knock a guy out

so what constitutes a sling? turning them over so you don't breach rule 234,565,000 "pushing them in the back"? so you cant tackle forcibly in that it creates a forward momentum (which is a natural consequence of inertia in motion) but on the other hand you cant turn them over to avoid breaching the former... its seriously becoming a farrrked up scenario..... get these farrrkin morons out of the rules committe, get rid of AD FFS, they don't own the game.

So the only lawful tackle is a motionless tackle. not to high , not to low , not forward , not back, not sideways, the hand must be under 79.906 degrees in extension ... JUST RIGHT... GTFO...

The tackle is a left over from a bygone era and every one has known you cant do it for two years.

Pin a blokes arms and smashing his head into the ground deliberately is not, in any way, a great part of footy.

_________________
I hope Essendon* folds.

rather than farrrk around with all these changes , just made head protection gear mandatory and leave the rest alone...

so the tackle is left over from a era gone by
The bump is left over from an era gone by
the marking contest is left over from an era gone by

The logical consequence is the farrkin game is left over from an era gone by.

You wouldn't get away with that tackle in a much more lenient environment in rugby league either. It's a seriously reckless motion that leaves the opponent with no chance to protect themselves from serious injury.

Has nothing to do with the "good old days", as such a tackle wasn't in vogue 10-20 years ago.

_________________
BLUES 2010: PAV AND JUDD = FLAGS. DOING IT FOR THE LOVE OF DICK PRATT.

HAVE YOU SIGNED UP FOR TALKINGCARLTON SUPERCOACH 2009 YET?

so with Merrett out do we go with 3 ruckmen ?

let me ask you this, had his ugly head not hit the turf would Merritt have been suspended?

You understand how the report system works, yes? As in, Hurley's head hitting the turf and being knocked out played a part in assessing the length of his suspension?

_________________
BLUES 2010: PAV AND JUDD = FLAGS. DOING IT FOR THE LOVE OF DICK PRATT.

HAVE YOU SIGNED UP FOR TALKINGCARLTON SUPERCOACH 2009 YET?

yes yes i understand.. im just trying to say that had his ugly scon not hit the beautiful turf there would be no suspension. so there's nothing wrong with the tackle just the result.

No, a free kick still would have been paid.

That sort of grapple tackle is almost impossible to not land anywhere but his head/shoulder region (outside of landing on Merrett's arm/wrist). Even if we go with the idea that he hadn't been subbed off, and been able to come back on, it downgrades it only by one activation point. Perhaps a further activation point if he landed on his shoulder and had to go off instead.

So to answer your question, if Merrett applied that tackle, Hurley landed on his shoulder instead, and wasn't subbed off but still off the ground for a lengthy period of time, that's 5 activation points, which is a level two offence. Rough conduct = 225 points.

Throw in Merrett's existing 93.75 points outstanding, that's 318.75 points, minus 25% for an early plea which brings it down to 239.06 points.

So yes, he would still have got suspended if his head had not hit first.

_________________
BLUES 2010: PAV AND JUDD = FLAGS. DOING IT FOR THE LOVE OF DICK PRATT.

HAVE YOU SIGNED UP FOR TALKINGCARLTON SUPERCOACH 2009 YET?