Round 22 - Non MFC Games

[daisycutter 28,430]

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You still have to wait for the ump to call play on. You can't just tackle the guy because you think he has played on. Ump got it right but it looked awful.

technically yes, but common sense in this case surely dictates the ump should have allowed play-on and the bett's tackle. ... bad decision

[Redleg 37,447]

30 minutes ago, Wrecked Owl Dees Function said:

At least the Crows won't rest against Wce now.

Just what i thought. 

[Jibroni 4,016]

2 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

But what if Port also win their next 2 games while absolutely thumping a rabble in GC. They'll end up with a better percentage than Sydney with the final ladder as follows:

5) Port

6) Sydney

7) Melbourne 

Sydney have Carlton next week which could also be ugly. Still a lot of possibilities.

[Bring-Back-Powell 13,095]

Who do we hope wins out of Dogs and Port tomorrow?

If Port win, we can probably afford to lose 1 game as Dogs can't go ahead of us. Win both games and we'd finish 7th and play either Port of Sydney away (the side that has the smaller win next week). Lose and finish 8th and hope Port finish 5th.

If Dogs win, we probably have to win both games. But most importantly if we do win both games, we'd play Port over there as they'd finish 6th and us 7th.

 

 

 

 

[rjay 23,846]

10 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You still have to wait for the ump to call play on. You can't just tackle the guy because you think he has played on. Ump got it right but it looked awful.

Yes you do, but the umpire in control on the inside of Mills & Betts was in the process of calling play on & raising the whistle to his mouth when Pannell jumped in...the TV angle wasn't great but the look on his face when usurped was priceless.

I think one ump got it right but the one who won out with his call got it wrong. 

 

[Macca 16,173]

Ok, if we happen to meet the Swans in the finals so be it.

Honestly, after all this time it would be great to just get some September action.

We haven't met the Swans in a final since 1987 when we obliterated them (against all odds)

Bring it.

 

[sue 8,402]

22 minutes ago, rjay said:

Yes you do, but the umpire in control on the inside of Mills & Betts was in the process of calling play on & raising the whistle to his mouth when Pannell jumped in...the TV angle wasn't great but the look on his face when usurped was priceless.

I think one ump got it right but the one who won out with his call got it wrong. 

 

Can anyone explain to me why the rule cannot be changed so that  the player on the mark can make his own judgment that his opponents has played on?  If the umpire decides he got it wrong and went too early then award the 50.  Surely doing it this way around would work better. Or am I missing something?

 

[Bang Bang Bang 5,429]

36 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Who do we hope wins out of Dogs and Port tomorrow?

If Port win, we can probably afford to lose 1 game as Dogs can't go ahead of us. Win both games and we'd finish 7th and play either Port of Sydney away (the side that has the smaller win next week). Lose and finish 8th and hope Port finish 5th.

If Dogs win, we probably have to win both games. But most importantly if we do win both games, we'd play Port over there as they'd finish 6th and us 7th.

 

 

 

 

Definitely Port Adelaide tomorrow. I don't have enough faith in us beating both Brisbane and Collingwood. 

If Port Adelaide win and we smash Brissie, then we're all but confirmed for September. I'd take that. But as I said, I don't consider beating Brisbane a certainty by any means.

[hardtack 10,126]

1 hour ago, dl4e said:

The fact is he ran too far and should not have been awarded the goal. Having said that apart from that incident and the Mills 50 in the last quarter the umpiring was so in favour of the crows it wasn't funny. I would hate to play them there in a final.

Absolute nonsense... no way he ran too far.

[monoccular 15,989]

1 hour ago, Is Dom Is Good said:

Very good result for us.

Win both our games and we will avoid the Swans week one of finals.

Richmond lose and we most likely play them..... that would be a dream.

 

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Not necessarily.

If port beat the dogs tomorrow, then thump GC next week they could finish 5th and Sydney 6th.

IF IF IF!!

IF we win the next six we win the flag, pure and simple.

We have to beat who ever we play. 

[doc roet 1,198]

29 minutes ago, sue said:

Can anyone explain to me why the rule cannot be changed so that  the player on the mark can make his own judgment that his opponents has played on?  If the umpire decides he got it wrong and went too early then award the 50.  Surely doing it this way around would work better. Or am I missing something?

 

Isn't that what happened?

[Akum 2,660]

1 hour ago, Macca said:

Ok, if we happen to meet the Swans in the finals so be it.

Honestly, after all this time it would be great to just get some September action.

We haven't met the Swans in a final since 1987 when we obliterated them (against all odds)

Bring it.

 

After tonight, Swans are clearly the AFL-nominated premiers. Their path is being well & truly smoothed and we'll be the first speed bump to get levelled out.

[biggestred 4,244]

3 minutes ago, Akum said:

After tonight, Swans are clearly the AFL-nominated premiers. Their path is being well & truly smoothed and we'll be the first speed bump to get levelled out.

A gws v swans gf would rate its socks off in sydney...

No doubt this thought gives the head honchos at afl office raging boners

[Macca 16,173]

1 minute ago, Akum said:

After tonight, Swans are clearly the AFL-nominated premiers. Their path is being well & truly smoothed and we'll be the first speed bump to get levelled out.

Regardless, they've got a lot of talent but they're not unbeatable.  No team is this season.  Sydney got it done tonight and their professionalism won out in the end.  Still, there was only one kick in it. 

Our best is very good and we just need to find that form at the right time.  If we'd never shown that form then I wouldn't rate us as much of a show.

I'm confident that we'll win our last 2 games and then we go from there.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,390]

1 hour ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

But what if Port also win their next 2 games while absolutely thumping a rabble in GC. They'll end up with a better percentage than Sydney with the final ladder as follows:

5) Port

6) Sydney

7) Melbourne 

Nah it's 

4) Port

5) Sydney

6) Richmond 

7) Melbourne

 

[deanox 8,503]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

You still have to wait for the ump to call play on. You can't just tackle the guy because you think he has played on. Ump got it right but it looked awful.

Actually that's not correct.  Mills never went back behind his mark, which means Betts had every right to tackle him. You can't even claim Betts came from behind because Betts was actually standing on the mark adder Mills wandered forward.  

There were only two justifiable decisions, play on (thus holding the ball) or stopping play and bringing Mills back behind his own mark. 

The idea that a player can mark the ball, keep walking forward but it not be play on until the umpire calls play on is not represented in the rules. IF Mills went back behind his mark first then no problems with the umpire having to call play on before the tackle could be laid. But that isnt what happened.  

Edited August 18, 2017 by deanox

[Dr. Gonzo 22,390]

32 minutes ago, deanox said:

Actually that's not correct.  Mills never went back behind his mark, which means Betts had every right to tackle him. You can't even claim Betts came from behind because Betts was actually standing on the mark adder Mills wandered forward.  

There were only two justifiable decisions, play on (thus holding the ball) or stopping play and bringing Mills back behind his own mark. 

The idea that a player can mark the ball, keep walking forward but it not be play on until the umpire calls play on is not represented in the rules. IF Mills went back behind his mark first then no problems with the umpire having to call play on before the tackle could be laid. But that isnt what happened.  

Yeah should've been called back behind the mark I thought

[3Dee 1,153]

Here's a good site which shows exactly who we should be cheering for this weekend.

https://thearcfooty.com/2017/08/18/round-22-much-matter/

[bandicoot 1,395]

18 minutes ago, 3Dee said:

Here's a good site which shows exactly who we should be cheering for this weekend.

https://thearcfooty.com/2017/08/18/round-22-much-matter/

Interesting that we are a 91% chance to make the finals if we beat Brisbane. 

 

[JV7 2,339]

If Port & GWS win today and we win tomorrow we are basically in even IF we lose to Collingwood next week, WC would have to beat Adealaide by as much as we beat Brisbane which you'd thinks unlikely... I know people will say just win our last 2 and were in but it's nice to know alternatives.... The thing is for us to avoid Sydney would be better for the dogs to beat port today

Edited August 18, 2017 by JV7

[daisycutter 28,430]

9 hours ago, sue said:

Can anyone explain to me why the rule cannot be changed so that  the player on the mark can make his own judgment that his opponents has played on?  If the umpire decides he got it wrong and went too early then award the 50.  Surely doing it this way around would work better. Or am I missing something?

 

no rule change needed, it's up to the umpire at the end of the day. just needs common sense

[sue 8,402]

52 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

no rule change needed, it's up to the umpire at the end of the day. just needs common sense

Leaving aside the temptation to say umpires and commonsense don't mix, it is only extremely rarely that they don't pay a 50 if the player tackles etc before they shout play on.  Making a decision after the fact seems better than simultaneously shouting " 2 metres back Fred , move it on, play on" simultaneously.   How often do we see the player play on well before the umpire calls play on. (Rhetorical question)

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by sue

[brendan 3,380]

1 hour ago, JV7 said:

If Port & GWS win today and we win tomorrow we are basically in even IF we lose to Collingwood next week, WC would have to beat Adealaide by as much as we beat Brisbane which you'd thinks unlikely... I know people will say just win our last 2 and were in but it's nice to know alternatives.... The thing is for us to avoid Sydney would be better for the dogs to beat port today

I'm holding out hope that tigers drop a game and port win there next 2, fair chance we play tigers then 

[hardtack 10,126]

1 hour ago, JV7 said:

If Port & GWS win today and we win tomorrow we are basically in even IF we lose to Collingwood next week, WC would have to beat Adealaide by as much as we beat Brisbane which you'd thinks unlikely... I know people will say just win our last 2 and were in but it's nice to know alternatives.... The thing is for us to avoid Sydney would be better for the dogs to beat port today

Everyone seems to be overlooking Essendon in the finals equation. They are not far behind us on percentage (104) and have two very winnable games in the Suns and Dockers. If we lose one game, they could squeeze ahead of us which is why percentage is very important for us in tomorrow's game.

[JV7 2,339]

7 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Everyone seems to be overlooking Essendon in the finals equation. They are not far behind us on percentage (104) and have two very winnable games in the Suns and Dockers. If we lose one game, they could squeeze ahead of us which is why percentage is very important for us in tomorrow's game.

There's 2 spots in the 8... I'm predicting we finish 7th & essendon scrap into 8th on %

Edit: if we lost 1 of the next 2 and results went as I stated above we'd finish 8th & Essendon 7th....

Edited August 19, 2017 by JV7