One would be hard pressed to funny a more blatant effort of squibbing.

It's hard to take people seriously when they don't understand the game.

I think the fact that the OP doesn't even know how to spell his name tells us everything we need to know about Cam Pedersen...

One would be hard pressed to funny a more blatant effort of squibbing.

It's hard to take people seriously when they don't understand the game.

It's even harder to take people seriously when they are so sure they are right that they dismiss a contrary opinion so arrogantly.

It's decisions like taking Pederson that Neeld finds himself without a job.

It's even harder to take people seriously when they are so sure they are right that they dismiss a contrary opinion so arrogantly.

A player only ducks his head like that when he's expecting contact from behind.

Perhaps you can also explain why he decided not to try to take the mark ? Attempting to take the mark, a straight forward one at that, meant that contact from behind was much more likely. Knocking it away lessened his exposure to forceful contact. Hot potato hot potato. His self preservation act was obvious and deplorable.

That said, he has opportunities to rectify this embarrassing moment.

Pedo will be okay.

You been working out, Benny boy?

It's decisions like taking Pederson that Neeld finds himself without a job.

Not really. Pedersen, Rodan and Gillies were the poster boys for Neeld's moneyball recruiting failure but .....

The inability to develop midfielders (Trengove, Sylvia, Gysberts just to name a few) and half forward rotation types (Blease, Tapscott, Bail) led to us having such a horrible midfield, with no ball winning or using ability. In turn that led to Neeld's downfall.

Using the last few spots on the list for a bit of key position depth and leadership even if it failed was hardly a disaster. Most clubs have a few hits and misses with those types of players.

A player only ducks his head like that when he's expecting contact from behind.

Perhaps you can also explain why he decided not to try to take the mark ? Attempting to take the mark, a straight forward one at that, meant that contact from behind was much more likely. Knocking it away lessened his exposure to forceful contact. Hot potato hot potato. His self preservation act was obvious and deplorable.

That said, he has opportunities to rectify this embarrassing moment.

If you actually read my original post you will see the answers to your question. I gave a possible 'good' explanation for what he did. And concluded that while I wouldn't stake life on it being correct (i.e. shock horror, you may be right), I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

You can be as dogmatic as you like that you are right, but there is no need to accuse anyone with a contrary opinion of knowing nothing about the game.

If you actually read my original post you will see the answers to your question. I gave a possible 'good' explanation for what he did. And concluded that while I wouldn't stake life on it being correct (i.e. shock horror, you may be right), I'd give him the benefit of the doubt.

You can be as dogmatic as you like that you are right, but there is no need to accuse anyone with a contrary opinion of knowing nothing about the game.

"It is clear he knocks it down before he ducks and then goes backwards and sideways. It seems to me possible he was trying to be clever by using a a fast play to the crumber and then shepherd the oppo player coming towards him. And looked clumsy.''

This was your diagnosis of the unfortunate effort. I asked you ''why didn't he take the mark ?''. Where is your answer ? He wasn't being clever knocking away a ball that he could easily mark. Taking the mark was the best and only logical decision for Pedersen. The only reason he bunted the ball away and ducked his head is that he wasn't sure who was behind him and was desperate to avoid a hit to his noggin.

Also, if the ball was kicked by a Melbourne player I doubt he would have ducked and knocked the ball away. He would have assumed that he was in the clear hence the ball being passed to him. His uncertainty came because the ball was kicked by an opposition player and he wasn't certain who was behind him. Clearly he would have assumed that the target of the kicker was close by, hence his self-preservation and awkward footy moment.

I get that you still won't get it.

I get that you still won't get it.

Different name, same old Ben-Hur.

"It is clear he knocks it down before he ducks and then goes backwards and sideways. It seems to me possible he was trying to be clever by using a a fast play to the crumber and then shepherd the oppo player coming towards him. And looked clumsy.''

This was your diagnosis of the unfortunate effort. I asked you ''why didn't he take the mark ?''. Where is your answer. He wasn't being clever knocking away a ball that he could easily mark. Taking the mark was the best and only logical decision for Pedersen. The only reason he bunted the ball away and ducked his head is that he wasn't sure who was behind him and was desperate to avoid a hit to his noggin.

Also, if the ball was kicked by a Melbourne player I doubt he would have ducked and knocked the ball away. He would have assumed that he was in the clear hence the ball being passed to him. His uncertainty came because the ball was kicked by an opposition player and he wasn't certain who was behind him. Clearly he would have assumed that the target of the kicker was close by, hence his self-preservation and awkward footy moment.

I get that you still won't get it.

My answer to your allegedly unanswered question of 'why didn't he take the mark' was in my original post where I wrote: "It seems to me possible he was trying to be clever by using a fast play to the crumber and then shepherd the oppo player coming towards him."

When writing that sentence originally I had started to add "instead of taking a mark and thus slowing down the play". But I deleted that because I thought that was implicit from the italicised words in the above sentence.

If I took the same attitude to you as you did to me, I'd now write 'Only an [censored] would not see the obvious inference'.

But I'll just say: I guess you missed the inference. Looks like I should have spelt out what I meant more.

One other possibility is that he misinterpreted the umpires call of "play on" in his ear as the ball was kicked. Thinking the mark would not be paid he knocked the ball to advantage. I guess the only person who really knows is Pedersen himself.

Can't believe that you blokes are arguing about one incident that happened nearly 12 months ago....

Gee it must be the off season and there is no one to bag at this time of the year....

Fair Dinkum.....

Can't believe that you blokes are arguing about one incident that happened nearly 12 months ago....

Gee it must be the off season and there is no one to bag at this time of the year....

Fair Dinkum.....

Bossdog, you can't expect to see any new stuff at this time of year. In cases like this where it is relevant to the coming season (in a minor way), re-hashing/re-interpreting old stuff does have its uses (other than dealing with the terminal boredom of no footy).

My answer to your allegedly unanswered question of 'why didn't he take the mark' was in my original post where I wrote: "It seems to me possible he was trying to be clever by using a fast play to the crumber and then shepherd the oppo player coming towards him."

When writing that sentence originally I had started to add "instead of taking a mark and thus slowing down the play". But I deleted that because I thought that was implicit from the italicised words in the above sentence.

If I took the same attitude to you as you did to me, I'd now write 'Only an [censored] would not see the obvious inference'.

But I'll just say: I guess you missed the inference. Looks like I should have spelt out what I meant more.

No player in the AFL would avoid taking an uncontested mark in the middle of the ground.

Seemingly you can't bring yourself to accept the bleeding obvious. It only makes you look like you don't understand footy.

No player in the AFL would avoid taking an uncontested mark in the middle of the ground.

...

Well there's were we'll disagree. I've seen cocky Geelong players do it from time to time (maybe only once a game or two). It looks great when it comes off as it speeds up the play and leave the oppos flat-footed. It takes confidence and skill which maybe Pedo doesn't have IF that was what he was trying to do.

I'm also inclined to give Pedo the benefit of the doubt because I don't recall seeing him do it again.

Not really. Pedersen, Rodan and Gillies were the poster boys for Neeld's moneyball recruiting failure but .....

The inability to develop midfielders (Trengove, Sylvia, Gysberts just to name a few) and half forward rotation types (Blease, Tapscott, Bail) led to us having such a horrible midfield, with no ball winning or using ability. In turn that led to Neeld's downfall.

Using the last few spots on the list for a bit of key position depth and leadership even if it failed was hardly a disaster. Most clubs have a few hits and misses with those types of players.

How can you blame Neeld for not developing Sylvia, if Daniher and Bailey Failed its not Neelds fault, Neelds without a job because he recruited spuds pure and simple and not only where they spuds he put them On long contracts, he deserves to be on Newstart.

Well there's were we'll disagree. I've seen cocky Geelong players do it from time to time (maybe only once a game or two). It looks great when it comes off as it speeds up the play and leave the oppos flat-footed. It takes confidence and skill which maybe Pedo doesn't have IF that was what he was trying to do.

I'm also inclined to give Pedo the benefit of the doubt because I don't recall seeing him do it again.

I appreciate you giving him the benefit of the doubt Sue but from playing a lot of footy there is no player in the world who would risk tapping an uncontested mark down to someone to keep the play moving. Also, there is no coach in the world who would recommend this as the risk is simply to great for only a small reward (gaining a quarter of a second).

I have seen Stevey J move the ball on similiar many times but when he does it the ball is still in motion and its not an uncontested marking situation.

Pedo looked scared here, nothing less nothing more. If I was an opposition player I would have absolutely given it to him here and make him remember it, if I was a team mate after watching that I would have been nothing less than incredibly embarrassed. Just like I was as a supporter.

My issue with him is not that he's scared it's that he simply isn't good enough.

He showed nothing to suggest he was up to AFL standard and I doubt he will.

My issue with him is not that he's scared it's that he simply isn't good enough.

He showed nothing to suggest he was up to AFL standard and I doubt he will.

Amen to that Robbie.

IMO a good VFL level player

End of story.

Amen to that Robbie.

IMO a good VFL level player

End of story.

Exactly.

Merry Christmas od and I hope the New Year brings some joy and heaps of wins.

Exactly.

Merry Christmas od and I hope the New Year brings some joy and heaps of wins.

Thanks Robbie I hope the same for you and your family I hope 2014 is a healthy one particularly for Marilyn .

My issue with him is not that he's scared it's that he simply isn't good enough.

He showed nothing to suggest he was up to AFL standard and I doubt he will.

Hope you are wrong 'Robbie' but his performance to date says you are right on the mark. At 27 yo going into next season he's had plenty of opportunity.

No player in the AFL would avoid taking an uncontested mark in the middle of the ground.

Seemingly you can't bring yourself to accept the bleeding obvious. It only makes you look like you don't understand footy.

FFS, make your point, have your little snipe, then drop it.

You're the king of "I don't care what anyone thinks", yet you're like a dog with a bone when anyone disagrees with you. If in reality you didn't care, you wouldn't even deign to reply.

FFS, make your point, have your little snipe, then drop it.

You're the king of "I don't care what anyone thinks", yet you're like a dog with a bone when anyone disagrees with you. If in reality you didn't care, you wouldn't even deign to reply.

My daily care factor determines my output. You won't be surprised to learn that it won't be governed by you, or anyone else.

Although I'm flattered that you and others get so agitated by my offerings that they feel the need to enter the fray when it doesn't concern you.

I clearly occupy your thoughts far more than you mine.