OLD HEADS OVER YOUNG LEGS

[Demonland 65,836]

OLD HEADS OVER YOUNG LEGS by Whispering Jack

The new-look Demons are learning their lessons quickly but then again, they had so much to learn when the season began and so little time. With just under one third of the season elapsed it is fair to say that they must surely by under way given that they have managed to stretch each of last year's losing preliminary finalists to within a goal of victory.

The problem is that in both instances, Melbourne could also lay claim on each occasion to being the better of the two sides on the day or night and therein lies the tale of one lesson that the dual wooden spooner of the last two seasons has yet to learn fully - the art of winning the close contest.

What I mean by this is not simply the knowledge of how to hold one's ground when leading by nine points in wet conditions when there are less than four minutes remaining in a game. That's important but the game against the Western Bulldogs was ultimately won by wise heads over younger legs and it was set up at the beginning when everything was fresh. Despite each team having equal opportunity to score in the first quarter (15 inside 50's apiece), the Bulldogs managed 3.2 to the Demons' wasteful 0.6. And in that time, it was the youthful, enthusiastic Melbourne team that chipped the ball sideways and made some critical unforced errors for which the greasy conditions alone cannot be blamed.

One inspired move made by Rodney Eade was the decision (presumably dictated by the conditions) to replace young tall Jordan Roughead for the more nimble and agile Josh Hill. The latter's two goals and ten tackles probably turned the game the way of his team. The player he replaced was hardly needed as Bulldog ruckman Ben Hudson lowered Mark Jamar's colours.

Melbourne did regroup with its first goal coming at the 13 minute mark of the second term but only after conceding a 22 point lead. From that point to late in the final quarter when they held sway by 9 points it was the young Demon legs in the form of the exquisite Tom Scully (39 possessions in a dazzling best-on-ground performance) and Jack Trengove, the exciting Jack Grimes in defence and an emerging Jordie McKenzie that won the hearts of the crowd. Some older heads were doing quite nicely as well. Cameron Bruce was in everything and James McDonald and Aaron Davey lifted the team with their steadiness and persistence. Nathan Jones was terrier-like in his attack on the ball and Clint Bartram continued his revival after some years in the wilderness.

The Melbourne defence led by Matthew Warnock (who demolished Barry Hall), James Frawley (who gave Robert Murphy a bath), Colin Garland and Jared Rivers all stuck to their tasks and threatened to squeeze the life out of the Bulldog attack. Up forward, Matthew Bate and Jamie Bennell threw off the early shackles and were dangerous in front of goals and Daniel Hughes was lively on debut.

One lesson the young Demons could have done without learning was the need to discern between their own teammates and the umpires in the heat of the battle. The decision to clothe them in pink tops and dark shorts was atrocious and appears to have contributed to Melbourne's loss in the end when Bartram handballed to an umpire instead of to a teammate in the dying minutes of the game. This was followed soon after by the two Bulldog goals to Brian Lake and Ryan Griffen that got them

home by the skin of their teeth.

I won't start on the two Melbourne goals overruled by the intervention of the field umpires and on the say so of boundary umpires who were hardly in a better position than the man on the spot. Nor is there a need to comment on the dicey deliberate out of bounds paid against James Frawley late in the game or for that matter the deliberate running through of a point by a Western Bulldog defender - a rule emasculated by the powers that be when a field umpire was dropped for applying it in last week's round. You have to live with the umpiring be it good or atrocious and that's another lesson that Melbourne will need to learn on its long journey forward.

Reflecting on the game, perhaps the one benefit of defeat in these circumstances is that the lessons of the loss will be better understood and therefore hold the young legs and their young heads in good stead in the future for this is truly how one best gains experience.

Melbourne 0.6.6 3.9.27 7.10.52 9.12.66

Western Bulldogs 3.2.20 5.5.35 8.7.55 10.10.70

Goals

Melbourne Bate 3 Bennell Davey Green Hughes Jones Scully

Western Bulldogs Hill 2 Akermanis Boyd Everitt Grant Griffen Higgins Lake Stack

Best

Melbourne Scully Jones Trengove Grimes Davey Warnock Bate Bennell

Western Bulldogs Higgins Hudson Morris Akermanis Cross Giansiracusa

Injuries Nil

Changes

Western Bulldogs Josh Hill replaced Jordan Roughead in selected side

Reports Nil

Umpires Donlon, Findlay, McBurney

Crowd 45,444 at MCG

[Nasher 33,131]

I lost count of the number of times our boys handballed to the umpire in the clear. How ferking hard is it to put the umpires in a different colour when they've got a whole Wiggles wardrobe to choose from?

I'm absolutely gutted. This hurts a lot more than the Collingwood one did. Devastating.

How bloody good was Scully?

[Little Goffy 12,707]

heh heh. Now that I'm able to think again at all, I'm having two recurring thoughts...

We're closer to a premiership than they are.

and

Poor West Coast.

[The Great Pretender 430]

OLD HEADS OVER YOUNG LEGS by Whispering Jack

Tom Scully (39 possessions in a dazzling best-on-ground performance)

If the AFL doesn't nominate him for this week's rising star there will be hell to pay!

[Demon Stalwart 255]

Well I have to say it, since the first round against Hawthorn where we got absolutely Flogged, the Players and Coaches seem to have turned it all around.

The way Melbourne is playing warms my very spirit

Once more I have something to cheer about.

Lets be honest none of us where exepecting or predicting what the Melbourne Football club is now doing.

Most of us where predicting a few wins and that was about it

I stated at the start of the season as long as their where no more floggings Id be happy, but not in my wildest dreams could I have imagined that Melbourne would be currently playing the brand and style of football they are.

Taking into account that we have injuries some very crucial to our teams structure, Melbourne for now seems to have the Depth to cover them.

When those players return we can only improve. If we can get off too Better Starts in games than what we are, Melbourne will certainly have a major role to play in determining who plays in the finals this year. Melbourne is earning respect and for now from the other clubs and the "Rotten Media" but thats a great feeling.

As for the Umpiring, guys I know it sticks in everyones throat but Ive noticed over the years that the teams that the AFL sees playing in the finals always seem to get the majority of umpire rulings in their favour.

We as supporters can help turn that around by going to as many games as we can and showing the AFL that not only do we have the passion but also we will be there to watch our guys play.

Now to the rest of the season, who would like to review how many games they can see us winning

I see it s follows

For the remainder of the first half: Melb VS Westcoast MCG :Win

" VS Port Adel TIO : ?

VS Geelong Skilled :Loss. But real test of where Melbourne is at especially being played at skilled

Vs Carlton MCG :Win. We are good enough on current form I think it depends on how we perform against

Geelong

Second Half we play

Collingwood MCG :Could be Match of the round too close to call

Adelaide at Aami Stadium: Win. If we can learn to win away

St Kilda at Etihad: Doubtful

Essendon MCG : Should win

Freemantle Subiaco: Doubtful

Sydney Swans MCG: Possible Match of the round again? But doubt we will win

Brisbane Lions Gabba: Possible, Once again the away factor ?

Richmond MCG: Win

Hawthorn MCG: Win Hopefully, time for some Payback

Port Adelaide AMI : Doubtful

Nth Melb MCG: Win

(Disclaimer, The above predictions are based purely on how lucky I am feeling today, no other skills have been applied to arrive at these predictions )

[heartbeatstrue 57]

The quickest way to drive spectators and supporters away is for umpires to be so bad that they decide who wins close games by bad decisions.

I will never stop watching the Demons because I love that team.

But there are many (including some in my family) who actually get so [censored] with the standard of umpiring that they do stop going (shopping appeals more than watching prancing prima donnas centre stage at the 'G).

(And even dressing them in pink can't redeem them it seems)

I always put a game of concerted bad decisions down to collective incompetence (a 'bad night' by the umpiring team), but some say they're cheating. On the evidence (when they collectively determine the outcome of a close game by their collective bad decisions), how can we argue that they're not cheating?

It becomes an article of faith, umpires don't cheat to determine the result of any AFL game.

I don't believe umpires would every consciously deliberately cheat. But wonder what goes on subliminally in their minds? Do they simply get carried away individually or collectively?

Anyway, please, give me some compelling arguments to win back my friend who's decided shopping in Bridge Rd is suddenly more appealing!!

(one last complaint, reading the papers this morning is very empty. What's the point of reading how great the Dees actually played, when the game was decided by a pride of pink prima donnas, prancing around on the 'G. And no mistake, the Dees and DB and his coaching team were unbelievably FANTASTIC!)

Edited May 8, 2010 by heartbeatstrue

[Ryan Dee 140]

What about Aker's tackle on Frawley?

If there was ever a holding the ball decision then that was it, holding the ball every day of the year.

[ucanchoose 1,803]

What about Aker's tackle on Frawley?

If there was ever a holding the ball decision then that was it, holding the ball every day of the year.

Yeah the umpire called good handball!! To be fair he was standing on the wrong side as per bloody usual

[Daz's Dee's 113]

What about Aker's tackle on Frawley?

If there was ever a holding the ball decision then that was it, holding the ball every day of the year.

Totally agree, it go's both ways.

No Doubt we had some bad decisions go against us, but we also had chances that we missed, thats football and if so called supporters can't watch the way the game is played today because they are so distraught in the way the umpires run the game let them go shopping. I support the dee's and watch them through the good bad and the ugly

Seriously Cheating? Come on.

[e25 5]

The problem is not with the umpires; rather it is with the rules.

They are too vague, contradictory and open to interpretation.

A full review and overhaul of the rules is needed so that black & white rules are introduced,

so clear that there will be no need to alter them.

If headhigh contact is sacrosanct, then it is SACROSANCT.

Not "sacrosanct, but in the event the board decides contact should've been reasonably expected..."

By doing that you implore the umpire to make a value judgement and he should not be put in that position.

Clear definitions of things such as "pressure" need to be made in terms that are easily measurable, such as "a player is deemed to be under pressure if an opponent is within 3m, whether they are chasing, tackling or have their back turned & holding a conversation with a teammate"

Remove the need for umpires to make value judgements in a heartbeat.

What constitutes "holding the ball", "incorrect disposal/correct disposal", "holding the man", "high contact", "prior opportunity" needs to be more clearly defined and strictly adhered to.

Application of the rules is where a lot of breakdowns occur.

It may lead to a softer game that we don't instantly recognize, but at least players and supporters would have a better understanding of where they stand.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

Sorry it was a bad title for this thread (the sub-editor in me coming out!).

The simplest way to attract more and more spectators and fans to footy is, in close games, for umpires to put the whistles away and not pay "technically correct" marginal decisions like Frawley's deliberate OOB. Nobody cares after the game if such marginal technical infractions aren't paid in the final qtr. Throughout a game, there will be dozens of marginal decisions unpaid to simply keep the game flowing.

When the ump's keep their Acme Thunderer F58's tucked away, especially in wet weather conditions like last night, everyone comes away commenting about how great the game was, rather than how pathetic the umpires were.

[titan_uranus 22,566]

The problem is not with the umpires; rather it is with the rules.

They are too vague, contradictory and open to interpretation.

A full review and overhaul of the rules is needed so that black & white rules are introduced,

so clear that there will be no need to alter them.

If headhigh contact is sacrosanct, then it is SACROSANCT.

Not "sacrosanct, but in the event the board decides contact should've been reasonably expected..."

By doing that you implore the umpire to make a value judgement and he should not be put in that position.

Clear definitions of things such as "pressure" need to be made in terms that are easily measurable, such as "a player is deemed to be under pressure if an opponent is within 3m, whether they are chasing, tackling or have their back turned & holding a conversation with a teammate"

Remove the need for umpires to make value judgements in a heartbeat.

What constitutes "holding the ball", "incorrect disposal/correct disposal", "holding the man", "high contact", "prior opportunity" needs to be more clearly defined and strictly adhered to.

Application of the rules is where a lot of breakdowns occur.

It may lead to a softer game that we don't instantly recognize, but at least players and supporters would have a better understanding of where they stand.

Yep, there's just too much grey in the rules at the moment. But it's going to be hard to make a lot of them black and white. I mean, how do you say what is or isn't prior opportunity? Measured through time? Or just having your hands free in the tackle? Or having an option, even if you get tackled straight away? Or, as I've wanted, if you drop a basic mark but get tackled immediately after you pick the ball up?

I think it would just be too difficult to give every rule a black and white interpretation.

[Dreamin' Demon 10]

Anyway, please, give me some compelling arguments to win back my friend who's decided shopping in Bridge Rd is suddenly more appealing!!

The more of us at the game - the louder the BOOOOING becomes against the umpires!!!

[heartbeatstrue 57]

The more of us at the game - the louder the BOOOOING becomes against the umpires!!!

Great I'll use that line on her...

I also think there's a fair chance she'll fall in love with McKenzie, Scully, Grimes, Trengove etc and hopefully that will make going to the 'G more attractive than shopping in Bridge Rd. But gee those umpires set my little schemes back heaps last night

[BangkokDemon 96]

One other noticeable thing about this team, they don't like to lose.

They believe they are the equal, or better of any side above them.

This is not an ego trip, but more a belief in each other and their ability to get the job done i.e. WIN.

That they lost last night will have hurt.

But as they appear to be learning quickly, it will only make them a stronger and better team.

It will tell how much they have learnt, if next week, they do the job on a side below them.

Edited May 8, 2010 by BangkokDemon

[Binmans PA 26,289]

But there are many (including some in my family) who actually get so [censored] with the standard of umpiring that they do stop going...

The umpiring was terrible last night, but it's an equally terrible excuse to use for not going to the football. The umpires aren't going to decide every game we play and there will be some that they may even help us win (although I haven't seen this for a while).

[stranga 328]

Im convinced umpires are sick and deranged humans. The sad thing is the AFL, a supposedly world class organisation, encourages the debacle we saw last night.

If it wasnt for my passion for the MFC i would walk away from the game forever, last night was the last straw.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

Actually watching the replay of the Dunn behind (last qtr)

http://www.gameanalyser.afl.com.au/

the cheat was Brian Lake who argued and imlored the goal umpire to change his mind. The replay seems pretty clear, but that goal umpire was up against it with Lake and the boundary ump in his face. Bullying imo.

Such demonstrative behaviour by players forcibly arguing and pressuring goal umpires should be banned immediately. Easy to do and in keeping with other rules that have been introduced to protect umpires. Lake should get a reprimand at least.

[titan_uranus 22,566]

the cheat was Brian Lake who argued and imlored the goal umpire to change his mind. The replay seems pretty clear, but that goal umpire was up against it with Lake and the boundary ump in his face. Bullying imo.

Such demonstrative behaviour by players forcibly arguing and pressuring goal umpires should be banned immediately. Easy to do and in keeping with other rules that have been introduced to protect umpires. Lake should get a reprimand at least.

Initially that's what I thought, and whilst I do agree that goal umpires seem to be a bit subservient and just roll over when someone questions them, I think Lake actually did touch the ball. However it is totally unclear what happened with Hargrave, and if the goal umpire said he saw it come off the boot and was prepared to call it a goal then the decision should have stood, and the field umpire should not have involved himself.

[Lost Highway 31]

Melbourne actually had a few more frees than the dogs, but it was the crucial 'touched' ones that got the dogs over the line. The first one took so long to 'adjudicate' that it was clear the field umpire was not really certain, yet his decision over-ruled the goal ump's. The second one was just plain disgraceful - the boundary umpire was called in to decide! This is absurd stuff; his job should be merely to determine if the ball has gone over the boundary line, something they do with less than 100% accuracy. I can't believe they are watching the details of what's going on with such intensity that they can be assumed to know if a field kick has been touched before going through the goal posts.

There's another one I'd point out - it looked to me as if Trengove had taken a fair mark on the line in our forward pocket in Q4 - it was ruled out of bounds, but the replay showed what seemed a fair one-handed mark. I thought it should have been either out on the full or a mark, but perhaps someone else saw it from a better angle and can say whether it was in fact a juggle.

As for the rules in general they are a joke. You watch a game of football and learn that about 30 free kicks were awarded, sometimes in a most unbalanced manner. Thinking about the game you ask yourself, were there, according the letter of the laws of football, only 30 infringements? You just laugh. Essentially, the umpires pick them out of thin air whenever they feel like it, or at least whenever they think it's time for the 'rules' to be reimposed in that particular match after a few minutes of none being applied. If the rules were applied rigorously, there would be so many frees given that the game would take all night. Undoubtedly, the rules are a problem, but most amendments over the years have just increased the complexity of them, and the emphasis on 'interpretation', which changes like the wind, really just makes a mockery of it all.

For a start, I'd get rid of the holding the ball rule. As it is, on the one hand you get half the crowd screaming 'ball!' every time there's the merest semblance of a tackle. On the other hand, you get an ugly pack forming on top of some poor sod and you see the bloody umpire bending his knees to do the little routine he loves best, that sweeping motion with his hands that says the chump at the bottom didn't release the ball while twenty others were on top of him. Absurd. Why not let a good tackle of the man with the ball be its own reward? Even if the man under the pack tries to scoop the ball out, despite his arms being crushed, the pack usually only continues to grow. I think the umps just prefer to let a free kick restart the game than to balls it up. Especially as it seems so hard to that correctly.

As for holding the man, how often is that paid? About 5% of the time, is my guess. That's one rule that should be applied much more rigidly than the man-under-the-pack rule. The priorities are all wrong.

[heartbeatstrue 57]

Initially that's what I thought, and whilst I do agree that goal umpires seem to be a bit subservient and just roll over when someone questions them, I think Lake actually did touch the ball. However it is totally unclear what happened with Hargrave, and if the goal umpire said he saw it come off the boot and was prepared to call it a goal then the decision should have stood, and the field umpire should not have involved himself.

I wished I knew the answer to that. Watching the replay a few times, both players seemed under the ball by quite a bit. But I wonder.

If Lake did get a finger tip on it, how much demonstrating by him is reasonable? I know my instinct would be to let the umpires know very loudly (as Lake did). But then again, players are not unbiased and if the rule is like Anderson said on that other thread, if there's any doubt then the lower score stands, then umpires must be able to get on with their job of determining their decision without undue input and pressure from clearly biased players.

If Lake had kept out of it (apart from maybe voicing his opinion once so both umpires - goal & boundary - knew it), I wonder would the goal umpire have been more inclined to stick to his guns? And I wonder would he have been right or wrong? Interesting. And looking forward to next Saturday at the 'G now!

[jnrmac 19,128]

What about Aker's tackle on Frawley?

If there was ever a holding the ball decision then that was it, holding the ball every day of the year.

You guys are wrong on this!! If a player gets tackled and disposes correctly its play on. Thats what happened with Dunn. The prior opportunity ONLY comes into play if Dunn doesn't dispose of the pill correctly.

[Eth 4]

Frees overall:

Melbourne 19

Dogs 13

Reversed goals:

Melbourne 2

Dogs 0

Edited May 9, 2010 by eth38

[Little Goffy 12,707]

If those decisions had been in finals, there'd be hell to pay.

The goal umpiring decisions were 50/50, though it was fairly obvious that in one of them the goal umpire had made up his mind, the field umpire tok a difference of opinion and just kept asking everyone 'are you sure, are you sure' until they said no.

The rushed behind OBVIOUSLY was and the AFL should be ashamed to have knee-kerked around with the rule based on the error last week. Chicken#$%^ so-called leadership from HQ.

Both of the 'out of bounds on the full' decisions where the ball had been knocked over the line were CLEARLY, and I mean TOTALLY FREKAIN OBVIOUS YOU MORON, not on the full.

Throw in the stupid shirt problem, and it can be said without doubt that the impact of the umpiring was greater than the final margin of the game.

It's just as well Danny Hughes slotted the shot after it was called back instead of play on with Green(?) one his own 15m out, or that would have been another one chalked up for the umpires.

Ah well, Dogs have Sydney, Brisbane have Geelong, Carlton have Port at AAMI (and Saints still to go this round).

A solid win over the Weagles and we're likely in the 8 anyway next week.

But these one-goal losses to Collingwood and the Bulldogs could end up costing us a spot in the top 4!

[Jrod 0]

First off i would like to say that as Melbourne Demon fans we need to get a grip and return to reality, a top 4 side??? seriously? We shouldn't be even contemplating top 8 at this stage. It is great that we are now competetive but we are yet to play good teams at their home ground. Or even play well away from the MCG!!!

We have been pounded by two of the worst teams in the comp in Hawthorn and North Melbourne. North would have been a much worse game if the Roos had come out ready to play instead of wandering on to the field sipping pina colada's in the 3rd quater!

Our wins:

Richmond and Adelaide - No way should we have come close to losing these two.

Brisbane - great win, brissy caught off guard away from home with a slow midfield and injured superstar forward.

Our losses:

Got absolutley smashed and embarresed by Hawthorn and North Melbourne, and 1st quater against the Dogs!

Narrow losses to good sides in Collingwood and the Dogs. The dogs are old and slow, not premiership contenders in my eyes. Collingwood probably caught off guard, hadn't seen our midfield and defense play the way they can and obviously couldn't prepare a game plan for it. Mark my words we will get thumped by collingwood once Malthouse has had a chance to see what our midfield is capable of!

The real truth will be revealed against Geelong. No doubt we go in with better odds than the last two years. But i wouldn't be touching melbourne for anything less than $10 to $1! Dees need to play well at a different ground before we can start to really think about becoming a competetive team in the league! We have battled through 4 years of filth, over handballing, underskilled football. It is GREAT to have the young talent comming through, and i am almost on a horn thinking about when we get Morton, Jurrah and Pettard all on the field with Grimes, Scully, Trengrove and McKenzie. The future is bright but near future is blind.

The failure that is Watts needs to be forgotten. It was a mistake to pick him ahead of Natanui or even a traffic cone. We need to accept this and look at other options. I don't want to become an essendon type fan shouting the name Gumbleton/Laycock/Johns as being our saviour after 4 years of giving nothing! Call a spade a spade, watts is a failure. We have gotten nothing out of him and he is battling in VFL!... We should be glad we got Scully and Trengrove and not be greedy resting our hopes on Watts, who ironically is the least electric player ever to suit up for Melbourne!

As far as umpiring goes.

They hurt us badly in the fourth quater, but we lost because we couldn't kick a goal in the 1st.

The out of bounds on the full rule needs to be revisited, an unintentional kick shouldn't be out on the full, it is punishing players chasing the ball hard trying to keep it in play! The AFL wants the play to continue at all costs so why punish players for this?

Holding the ball - this rule is unbelievably stupid!!! I hate seeing a player get tackled, withstand the tackle, get spun, still deliver a good handball, then be penalised for being strong enough to ignore a poor tackle attempt. That is an awful tackle! Why should it be rewarded? Holding the ball should only be reserved when a player is brought down to ground or locked up after trying to take another player on! It shouldn't be when players get spun around or when they are in the bottom of the pack and the umpire thinks they didn't do enough to keep the ball alive!

Holding the man - this needs to be paid way more often!!! It is absurd that a guy chasing the ball can be pulled, held, shunted before he even picks up the ball! This is not rewarding the player who is first at the ball!

In the back - The worst applied rule going around. The amount of times a player gets pushed in the back when he is kicking and it doesn't get called is unreal! You chase a player down, tackle them, and some how you get punished because you tackled them from behind? Where else should a player tackle someone from when chasing them down???

Rant over.

I cannot wait to see how we go the next few weeks. If we smash westcoast and compete against geelong we are here for real! Otherwise we still have a lot of work to do and key positions to fill!

Edited May 10, 2010 by Jrod