Run is very important.....but no player in the history of the game has ever run faster than the ball. So fix up the precision and accuracy of the disposal
Short memory Lods, i'm pretty sure i said the exact same thing last week except it was Pittonet instead of O'Keefe!
I suspect there is still a bit of a difference between Pittonet and O'Keefe
Unless there is an issue with one of the rucks, O'Keefe is just there for show. In the unlikely event that he does play it just reinforces the fact that the coaching group are committed to two rucks.
So that then begs the question.... If a coaching group that contains a Brownlow medallist and triple premiership mid-fielder with over 150 games of senior coaching, and years as an assistant at a moderately successful Port...and our best ruckman this century think that there are times when the two ruck option should be used. and knowing the strengths and weaknesses, and fitness levels of both our ruckman far better than any of us.
Why are they on a different page to those questioning the two ruck set-up?
They're either as stubborn as mules, or they have a 'cunning' plan that depends on time for Pittonet and TDK to work together and develop a combination. In all the games both have played probably less half have been together.
In the end they'll either work it out or abandon it.
Surely O'Keffe can't be an emergency. Three rucks ? what drugs are the MC on?
Being named an emergency is sometimes a bit like a 'participation certificate'. It's a reward for effort and it sends the message that "you're not too far away" If we have to make a late change it's a pretty fair bet it won't be O'Keefe coming in....most likely it will be Cincotta, if he's fit.
Lewis Young and Lemmey are ahead of him in the pecking order ...
Lemmey's a project. A work in progress...He was OK last week in defence, but there is a big jump from a 'try' in defence and a full game at AFL level. If Young's not selected that will set the rumour mill off again
I have developed a bit of a sniffle and, as Ms DJC is scheduled to have an operation on Friday, I thought I should do a RAT; positive!
That's a bugger. Good luck with it and hopefully the operation can go ahead. I had a procedure scheduled about 18 months ago and had a bit of a sniffle develop overnight. Felt not too bad when I woke up but tested anyway for a positive result. Had to cancel the procedure and by lunchtime I was flat out feeling awful.
On a positive note there was little drama in re-scheduling. Hospitals and surgeon were very good and understanding. Spent the rest of the day feeling awful but managed to get some anti virals and felt better pretty quickly.
It will depend on what they decide and I don't think they'll be taking advice from us
One factor that may come into play is the number of changes they want to make. With the forced changes, will they be concerned about too many changes On the other hand, with McGovern and Saad out of the game the drive from the backline will need bolstering
GWS usually only relies on the one ruck, Briggs. It really makes sense for us to only play one. If that's not the case, and we play both, then there may be some 'alternate' thinking taking place. (or they may just be stubborn )
It will be interesting to see what the selection folk do with the rucks this week. It will tell a bit of a story as to how committed they are to the "Two ruck solution"
I'm not sure whether there's a transcript of the Judge's decision online yet, but he addresses all these issues. (State of inebriation, activity at the bar, the entrance to Parliament). He goes into specific detail as to why he gives weight to some aspects and little weight to others.
I think we probably bring some of our own biases to these issues. Did folks who think the judgement was a bit dubious watch all of Justice Lee's summation?
It may be my own experience working in a system that not only dealt with external wrong-doings but accusations of wrong-doing within the system...but one of the things that really annoys me is ‘pre-judging’ an accused because of the way they look, sound or a media reported description of events.
Every accused is entitled to a presumption of innocence and a due process to determine their fate. Every accuser/ victim should also be allowed to tell their story. Sadly, that will always take a bit of courage, especially in relation to sexual assault.
Unless we sit through a court process or listen to a full judgement, we really have no idea.
Yesterday Lehrmann received his due process. Justice Lee was thorough and methodical in his summation and findings. He gave a detailed account based on evidence of every aspect of the evening. Where behaviour seemed strange, he addressed it and gave reasons why it might have occurred. Where things stretched credibility, he called it out. Where evidence was a bit dodgy, he called it out.
He determined on the basis of all probability that a rape did occur. Anyone listening to his summation would find it hard to disagree. He was clear to point out the difference between a criminal and civil case, and the burden of proof, and that in a criminal case the same finding of guilt may not necessarily have been made.
He was actually quite critical of just about all of the parties involved in the case. He found them all a bit reckless or ‘unreliable’. They were all a bit dubious…but he found Lehrmann was not only dubious but also a ‘rapist’.
Ten and Wilkinson can consider themselves lucky. Justice Lee found Lehrmann was identifiable and therefore ‘defamed’. Had the ‘truth’ aspect failed the other parties would have been looking at a seriously large payout.
As it is the costs of this case will be extensive. Lehrmann will find he may have recovered his ‘hat’…but he will be left with little else.