POST MATCH DISCUSSION

[Adam The God 30,426]

4 hours ago, fndee said:

First impressions are, more often than not, correct Nasher. Over the past few years Healy has never missed an opportunity to put the boots into us when we were at our lowest. If he drove past 4 blokes kicking the poo out of someone on the ground he would turn the car around and push his way to the front of the queue if the bloke in the foetal position was the MFC. 

The only positive I take from his mild backtracking is that he can see fight in the prone body and he is trying to put some distance between him and his past behaviour.

G. Healy is a [censored]'s [censored]

He has been positively glowing of us in the past few weeks and even at times last year. I used not like him because he was so anti-Melbourne, but no one's making him jump on the bandwagon, because the engine isn't even on yet. He's decided to take a front seat and call things with excitement. He appears genuinely happy about Melbourne's very, very slow improvement.

1 hour ago, Peter Griffen said:

I've always wondered what happens there, can the club put in a complaint or something? the game was clearly decided by poor umpiring decisions.

I normally wouldn't say a game could be decided by poor umpiring, because many of the frees we stupidly gave away were there. However, there were a handful of incorrect decisions and frankly, mind bogglingly so at times, that given the margin on the day, eventually ended up costing us the game. We would have won by a couple of goals I reckon, possibly more with the wind in the last quarter and a bit of a lead.

Edited April 12, 2016 by AdamFarr

[monoccular 17,577]

15 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

 

There is no rule.

Nothing in the rules about stopping the clock, no time limit on taking a kick.

The only thing mentioned about time is that when kicking out after a behind, a player must kick it within a "reasonable" time.

 

15 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Nah Gerard was saying that guys who drop at the knees have every right to in order to avoid tacklers and if it's too high it's a free kick.

Dunstall, Brown and King were saying knee droppers need to not be rewarded and high tackles should be play on.

I'm not sure where I sit. I hate knee droppers, but at the same time it's going to be hard to tell the difference between guys dropping knees and guys dipping and twisting to get out of traffic. 

I think tacklers should be very careful. Nev Jetta got a way with quite a few on the weekend. Tackling isn't the number 1 aim of AFL, getting the ball, running with the ball and then kicking/marking with it is the aim. 

Personally I think some kind of balance is right, even though that will frustrate fans. Call it play on when repeat offenders keep ducking, give the benefit of the doubt to others. And if the initial tackle is below the shoulders and a player drops after contact then call it play on.

 

One of my pet hates is players who drop their head running into a player preparing to tackle or block, in effect head butting their midriff.  

As a matter of player safety this must be stopped, and IMO the player, regardless of if they are 'taken high' or not should be penalized every time. It would soon stop. 

[monoccular 17,577]

15 hours ago, Ted Fidge said:

 

There is no rule.

Nothing in the rules about stopping the clock, no time limit on taking a kick.

The only thing mentioned about time is that when kicking out after a behind, a player must kick it within a "reasonable" time.

 

15 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Nah Gerard was saying that guys who drop at the knees have every right to in order to avoid tacklers and if it's too high it's a free kick.

Dunstall, Brown and King were saying knee droppers need to not be rewarded and high tackles should be play on.

I'm not sure where I sit. I hate knee droppers, but at the same time it's going to be hard to tell the difference between guys dropping knees and guys dipping and twisting to get out of traffic. 

I think tacklers should be very careful. Nev Jetta got a way with quite a few on the weekend. Tackling isn't the number 1 aim of AFL, getting the ball, running with the ball and then kicking/marking with it is the aim. 

Personally I think some kind of balance is right, even though that will frustrate fans. Call it play on when repeat offenders keep ducking, give the benefit of the doubt to others. And if the initial tackle is below the shoulders and a player drops after contact then call it play on.

 

One of my pet hates is players who drop their head running into a player preparing to tackle or block, in effect head butting their midriff.  

As a matter of player safety this must be stopped, and IMO the player, regardless of if they are 'taken high' or not should be penalized every time. It would soon stop. 

If it continues there will be a broken neck some time, with tragic consequences and huge guilt for the recipient of the hea

[DeeSpencer 26,083]

1 minute ago, monoccular said:

 

One of my pet hates is players who drop their head running into a player preparing to tackle or block, in effect head butting their midriff.  

As a matter of player safety this must be stopped, and IMO the player, regardless of if they are 'taken high' or not should be penalized every time. It would soon stop. 

They policed that well mid way through last year, then kind of stopped doing it. 

But the knee dropping is less clear cut. Less dangerous and more about taking on a tackler than risking injury. But there's just too much of it and too many frees paid for it at the moment.

[jnrmac 20,189]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

They policed that well mid way through last year, then kind of stopped doing it. 

But the knee dropping is less clear cut. Less dangerous and more about taking on a tackler than risking injury. But there's just too much of it and too many frees paid for it at the moment.

So flarkin typical of the AFL -  Rule of the week mentality....

[rjay 25,094]

1 hour ago, monoccular said:

 

One of my pet hates is players who drop their head running into a player preparing to tackle or block, in effect head butting their midriff.  

As a matter of player safety this must be stopped, and IMO the player, regardless of if they are 'taken high' or not should be penalized every time. It would soon stop. 

If it continues there will be a broken neck some time, with tragic consequences and huge guilt for the recipient of the hea

 

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

They policed that well mid way through last year, then kind of stopped doing it. 

But the knee dropping is less clear cut. Less dangerous and more about taking on a tackler than risking injury. But there's just too much of it and too many frees paid for it at the moment.

Also one of my pet hates 'mono' and yes 'Spence' they did police it for some part of last year but seem to have gone back on it in the games I've seen this season. In fact they've been giving head high frees to the offender.

I believe it needs to be taken out of the umpires hands (seems they can't deal with it and the players are still doing it) and go straight to video review and an automatic 2 week suspension, that's the only way this will stop.

I'm not talking dropping the knees, that's just frustrating but if a player puts himself at risk by using their head as a battering ram.

It's not just the player who ends up in the chair because of his stupidity but the poor kid he runs into who will have to live with it for the rest of his life as well.

The AFL have gone weak on this again and need to get serious.

Edited April 12, 2016 by rjay

[Earl Hood 6,101]

3 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

They policed that well mid way through last year, then kind of stopped doing it. 

But the knee dropping is less clear cut. Less dangerous and more about taking on a tackler than risking injury. But there's just too much of it and too many frees paid for it at the moment.

AS for the knee droppers and those players who immediately they feel contact on their arm, raise their arms so the tackle slides up to their neck I believe it should be play on if the tackle is initially applied correctly. If momentum, knees dropping or arms raising causes the tackler's arms to move up or down it is still play on.

We penalise high tackling because it is potentially dangerous so you don't want to reward people who try to make a tackle go high, the same logic the AFL used to stop rewarding those that lead with their head (which the AFL have now stopped doing apparently).

[sue 9,145]

6 hours ago, Redleg said:

They generally take it up with the Umpires' boss on a monday review and if they are lucky get an apology for all the wrong decisions.

Fat lot of good it does.

Could you imagine if we were one of the big boys, it would have been headline news.

I'd presume/hope that it does do some good - they may be more wary about screwing us the next week.

[TRIGON 4,790]

8 hours ago, H_T said:

He was even smart enough to give Ringwood Nissan a plug. If memory serves me correct it's definitely not the first time he's done this in the media for Nissan. Must have got a great deal for himself.

edit:

Funny that. Out of curiosity I looked up King's Twitter feed and found this...: -

 

 

Ah yes,  the "Magnificent Nissan insult" as Billy Birmingham would say.

[Akum 2,660]

9 hours ago, Redleg said:

They generally take it up with the Umpires' boss on a monday review and if they are lucky get an apology for all the wrong decisions.

Fat lot of good it does.

Could you imagine if we were one of the big boys, it would have been headline news.

How about: "I'm concerned about the number of frees paid against us in our match against North, and I need to be able to instruct my players how to avoid making the same mistakes ever again. I'm sure that we all want to see less free kicks given. Could I go through every free given against us against Norf with the umpires' boss and the umpires who officiated?

"Oh, and by the way, can the umpires'  boss help us in our training to practice how to correctly tackle players who duck and dive?"

Edited April 12, 2016 by Akum
spellling

[nutbean 8,838]

OK - I'm incensed all over again.

Fox Footy dropped a promo onto facebook saying "five reasons to watch footy this weekend" and each of the reasons gets a 2 second grab.

One of them is  - nail biting finishes and shows the pass to Billy Stretch and receiving front on contact in his attempt to mark the ball.

I looped it 5 times and came up with the same thing - 

Front on contact - pay the free

Front on contact - pay the free

Front on contact - pay the free

Front on contract - pay the free

Front on contact - pay the free

Jumping into a player with your back to the ball is front on contact

Billy - your problem was you didn't go down in a screaming heap. 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by nutbean

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

8 minutes ago, nutbean said:

OK - I'm incensed all over again.

Fox Footy dropped a promo onto facebook saying "five reasons to watch footy this weekend" and each of the reasons gets a 2 second grab.

One of them is  - nail biting finishes and shows the pass to Billy Stretch and receiving front on contact in his attempt to mark the ball.

I looped it 5 times and came up with the same thing - 

Front on contact - pay the free

Front on contact - pay the free

Front on contact - pay the free

Front on contract - pay the free

Front on contact - pay the free

Jumping into a player with your back to the ball is front on contact

Billy - your problem was you didn't go down in a screaming heap. 

 

 

Credit where credit is due Thomas was looking at the ball for the whole time.

But I do agree with the bolded, if he didn't go for the ball as hard and let Thomas hit his body more, then fell on the ground, then the free kick would have been paid.

[leucopogon 1,519]

13 minutes ago, nutbean said:

OK - I'm incensed all over again.

Fox Footy dropped a promo onto facebook saying "five reasons to watch footy this weekend" and each of the reasons gets a 2 second grab.

One of them is  - nail biting finishes and shows the pass to Billy Stretch and receiving front on contact in his attempt to mark the ball.

I looped it 5 times and came up with the same thing - 

Front on contact - pay the free

Front on contact - pay the free

Front on contact - pay the free

Front on contract - pay the free

Front on contact - pay the free

Jumping into a player with your back to the ball is front on contact

Billy - your problem was you didn't go down in a screaming heap. 

 

 

I actually disagree, Thomas spoils the ball and is watching it in flight. The problem with that play is Buggs poorly executed kick, look how much space he could have kicked into for Stretch to run into and take an uncontested chest mark. Inst ead he tries to drop it on his head, why? Stretch had metres of separation from any opponent and a veritable paddock to run into. It boggles the mind really how bad that kick of Bugg's was.

Edit: By the way just wanted to give some kudos to Anthony Hudson, who has become my favourite commentator by far (even better than D. Commetti). Doesn't engage in the ridiculous hyperbole that Hamish McGlochlan, BT, Derwayne and the rest of the numpties use as stock in trade these days. Don't mind G. Healy on the special comments either, he's definitely on the Dees bandwagon as others have said on this forum.

Edited April 13, 2016 by leucopogon

[nutbean 8,838]

11 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

I actually disagree, Thomas spoils the ball and is watching it in flight. The problem with that play is Buggs poorly executed kick, look how much space he could have kicked into for Stretch to run into and take an uncontested chest mark. Inst ead he tries to drop it on his head, why? Stretch had metres of separation from any opponent and a veritable paddock to run into. It boggles the mind really how bad that kick of Bugg's was.

 

running with your back to the ball  even if you are watching the ball , has consistently been interpreted one of two ways- unless the spoil has been made ( which it was ) with no body contact on your opposition then it is play on - once you take your opponents body  it has been called a free. Problem is that Billy took the contact and tried to grab the ball after the spill. This is probably a good trait but had he gone to ground I would have thought the free would have been paid.

[Skuit 10,031]

Wow. I hadn't been able to bring myself to watch it again until now. My memory of the event was completely warped with a Billy snap from about 40 out. Bizarre (and only a couple stouts in at the time).

Stretch has actually done very well and shown a lot of poise in the situation. Found and led to space initially. Kept his feet in the marking contest and his eyes on the ball in the face of oncoming contact. Regathered cleanly, didn't dish off to a calling but covered team-mate (VDB?) or attempt to squeeze the initial shot, evaded with some footwork and found room again for a ping. Not bad for a tenth-gamer. Probably the only issue (apart from kicking it - and it was after the siren so it may have interrupted the execution) was initially pivoting into traffic rather than open space on his right foot and it may well be that he turned toward the caller.

[Demonised 1,355]

33 minutes ago, leucopogon said:

I actually disagree, Thomas spoils the ball and is watching it in flight. The problem with that play is Buggs poorly executed kick, look how much space he could have kicked into for Stretch to run into and take an uncontested chest mark. Inst ead he tries to drop it on his head, why? Stretch had metres of separation from any opponent and a veritable paddock to run into. It boggles the mind really how bad that kick of Bugg's was.

Disagree with this. A hundred times we see someone running with the flight of the ball (eyes on ball or not) crashing into the player trying to mark and a free kick is paid, whether the spoil is made or not. But not this time.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

The more I watch it, the more it is clear Bugg's kick was a very poor one. Stretch had a gap on Thomas and acres of space in front of him to kick to, but instead he plonked it on his head and let Thomas back in the game. We blew a lot of golden opportunities in that last quarter.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

5 minutes ago, Forest Demon said:

The more I watch it, the more it is clear Bugg's kick was a very poor one. Stretch had a gap on Thomas and acres of space in front of him to kick to, but instead he plonked it on his head and let Thomas back in the game. We blew a lot of golden opportunities in that last quarter.

 

1 hour ago, leucopogon said:

I actually disagree, Thomas spoils the ball and is watching it in flight. The problem with that play is Buggs poorly executed kick, look how much space he could have kicked into for Stretch to run into and take an uncontested chest mark. Inst ead he tries to drop it on his head, why? Stretch had metres of separation from any opponent and a veritable paddock to run into. It boggles the mind really how bad that kick of Bugg's was.

Bugg did aim for the right spot but it hung in the wind it started out to strech's left then floated all the way to his right. Criticise all you want but I'd like to se you guys make that kick in that wind under that pressure. He made the correct decision and was an inch off on the execution. Their play in the last 20 seconds was fantastic to be that close to a shot on goal is an achievement in itself. There is a reason clubs rarely win from there. 

[jnrmac 20,189]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Forest Demon 4,681]

48 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

 

Bugg did aim for the right spot but it hung in the wind it started out to strech's left then floated all the way to his right. Criticise all you want but I'd like to se you guys make that kick in that wind under that pressure. He made the correct decision and was an inch off on the execution. Their play in the last 20 seconds was fantastic to be that close to a shot on goal is an achievement in itself. There is a reason clubs rarely win from there. 

I get your point, but it's not like the wind came from nowhere, it had been blowing all day. 

 

[leucopogon 1,519]

5 hours ago, nutbean said:

running with your back to the ball  even if you are watching the ball , has consistently been interpreted one of two ways- unless the spoil has been made ( which it was ) with no body contact on your opposition then it is play on - once you take your opponents body  it has been called a free. Problem is that Billy took the contact and tried to grab the ball after the spill. This is probably a good trait but had he gone to ground I would have thought the free would have been paid.

I know that's what they pay but I didn't really think it was deserving of a free kick in this instance and I would have been disappointed in Stretch for trying to milk it for a free. Hats off to the lad for having the wherewithall to grab the spill and try to boot the winning goal. Still [censored] off about Bugg though.

[leucopogon 1,519]

4 hours ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

 

Bugg did aim for the right spot but it hung in the wind it started out to strech's left then floated all the way to his right. Criticise all you want but I'd like to se you guys make that kick in that wind under that pressure. He made the correct decision and was an inch off on the execution. Their play in the last 20 seconds was fantastic to be that close to a shot on goal is an achievement in itself. There is a reason clubs rarely win from there. 

I'd give my left nut for a chance to execute that kick (and I'm a left footer like Bugg). I'd have used the right boot and floated it 5-10 m in front of where Stretch and Thomas competed for it. That's all that needed to be done, a little floater kick there was that much bloody space in front of him.

[Akum 2,660]

1 minute ago, leucopogon said:

I know that's what they pay but I didn't really think it was deserving of a free kick in this instance and I would have been disappointed in Stretch for trying to milk it for a free. Hats off to the lad for having the wherewithall to grab the spill and try to boot the winning goal. Still [censored] off about Bugg though.

Stretch is one of our youngest & lightest players with a handful of games.

By refusing to duck or dive or in any other way to stage for a free, he put himself far ahead of Harvey, Waite, del Santo, McMillan, Ziebell, Cunnington, Thomas and the rest of Norf - not to mention their perpetually whinging coach - in the character stakes.

[leucopogon 1,519]

Just now, Akum said:

Stretch is one of our youngest & lightest players with a handful of games.

By refusing to duck or dive or in any other way to stage for a free, he put himself far ahead of Harvey, Waite, del Santo, McMillan, Ziebell, Cunnington, Thomas and the rest of Norf - not to mention their perpetually whinging coach - in the character stakes.

Agreed wholeheartedly. I have to say that the complaining and arm waving that has been a feature of Hogan's early season antics have made me cringe and its something that I hope Jesse eliminates from his game because it reminds me of Matthew Lloyd in his pomp. Neita never had to resort to such carp playing deep forward. 

[nutbean 8,838]

10 hours ago, Akum said:

Stretch is one of our youngest & lightest players with a handful of games.

By refusing to duck or dive or in any other way to stage for a free, he put himself far ahead of Harvey, Waite, del Santo, McMillan, Ziebell, Cunnington, Thomas and the rest of Norf - not to mention their perpetually whinging coach - in the character stakes.

Agree ( except I think you are being harsh on a lot of North footballers who are as hard as nails - exclude Harvey, Waite, Thomas who love to play for "umpire intervention").

I like what Stretch did - didn't like that he didn't take the mark but he was under extreme pressure from a kick that did him no favours  - he is crashed into but stands upright and goes again and wins the ball to snap. I will re-iterate that a lot of footballers would have accentuated the contact earning a free. I watch the game and there are so many frees given to players who "accentuate" contact  - drives me banana's.

It is interesting that you mention character - in a lot of ways character is absolutely spontaneous. In that split second Billy went for the mark  - the ball went to ground and he buttered up a second time. Lindsay Thomas in that split second would have gone to ground like he had been shot. I like Billy's character.