Jump to content

sue

Members
  • Content Count

    4,270
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

sue last won the day on September 9 2018

sue had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,696 Excellent

About sue

  • Rank
    Master Demon

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,676 profile views
  1. One thing I've noticed recently is that many tackles start out as pushes in the back, but if the tackler rotates his opponent at the last minute, it is deemed a legal tackle. Pay that and there will be a free, not a ball up. Also, I've been saying for years that players jumping on the tackler and tacklee, often tackling players who do not have the ball, should be penalised. Often the last player in tackles the tackler - surely that is a free since the tackler does not have the ball. Clearly the motivation of this 'stacks-on-the-mill' behaviour is to create a ball up and it should be penalised if you want to reduce ball ups.
  2. Fun to watch because it would show how prone to MFCSS many here are. Would they be guaranteed to not get injured playing in the VFL? Better to have them playing together and with May and getting some knowledge of each other in games, something they have had almost zilch of to date.
  3. Jetta may be back too soon, but looking to 2020, I'd prefer the backs to play together as much as possible this year to get to know each other than increase our chances of winning a mach by an unknowable, but probably small percentage.
  4. It's tempting to believe that because if they were serious about having clear rules they'd get a team of lawyers to re-write the laws properly to clear up inconsistencies. Because of the nature of the game, there will always be difficulties, but there is no need for the current mess. Even getting a copy of the rules from the AFL is not easy which seems to imply they don't want fans discussing the actual rules and comparing them to what actually happens.
  5. Is there a ruck contest which doesn't infringe (c)? Why is a hand more of a block than sticking out a big bum? As for (f) is the 1metre spacing in the rules?
  6. I noticed that one too. It looked like both ruckmen did the identical thing simultaneously, so no way should that be a free against Max (or the other bloke, not that that was ever likely to happen).
  7. On the other hand, as long as the risk of injury is not higher than normal, there is a lot to be said for them spending as much time as possible playing together before 2020. Cohesion. Do either of those two need surgery?
  8. A wrongly called point (which was in fact a goal) could have a big an effect as a wrongly called goal (which was in fact a point). The main difference in reviewing is that touched ball decisions don't affect a point (and balls hitting the behind post rather than sailing through will only affect the score by 1 point, not 6. Seems to me there is a lot to be said for abandoning the video reviews entirely until they have a comprehensive reliable system in place for both.
  9. I’m not sure if I’m amused or despondent that some posters equate playing in the finals with the season still being alive. Of course playing and winning a GF is the ultimate goal, but there is plenty to play for nevertheless (including treating the rest of the year for experiment etc)
  10. That’s about the silliest thing I’ve read for a while. Complaining about a specific negativity is not the same as complaining about negativity as a concept as you have assumed.
  11. Good idea. And it is not likely to irk traditionalists as much as other innovations the AFL has been happy to drop on us. But where would be the endless stream of media controversy if they did it. But I don't think you can extend to touched balls or too much of the game would change.
  12. Let's not be too depressed. Though some will doubtless improve, in the nature of things some will also go backwards. Other clubs just have to look at us and say Richmond to see this is the case.
  13. Rather than the odd over-reaction (in either direction) what is most disturbing to me is the AFL coming up with the Orwellian title of "Behavioural Awareness Officers". Add: I apologise, the AFL heavies have read 1984. Unfortunately they didn't read it as a warning but as a style guide.
  14. The umpires could (at the AFL's direction) stamp out all such behaviour very quickly. Just pay a free for the slightest punch etc. Coaches would soon crack down on any players who gave away stupid frees. Instead they ignore the initial punch in plain sight and pay a free against the retaliator which produces a positive reinforcement for doing those cat-acts in the first place. (Yes, I like dogs and don't like cats.)
  15. That title on their backs is so silly that this has to be a fake. Good work ET. (I hope.)
×
×
  • Create New...