Jump to content

Question regarding rules

Rod Grinter Riot Squad
in Melbourne Demons

Featured Replies

16 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

Very good question, personally I think there shouldn't be a player come on for him and if they want him to come back on they go one down while he gets treated. 

Edited by Pates

  • Quote
    •  
    9 minutes ago, Pates said:

    The rule that has become a running is deliberate out of bounds. Fans are now cheering ironically for it and the umps are actually paying it. 

    The AFL appear to be trying to rewrite the Oxford dictionary's definition of "deliberate". 

    If you go to the AFL web site they have a page where they "explain" the way certain rules are adjudicated.

    Watch their video of the "new" "deliberate OOB" and then compare it with the way they're actually paying it.

    http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-03-17/2016-laws-of-the-game-deliberate-out-of-bounds

     

     

    Another video of interest to watchers of yesterdays game is this one:

    http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-03-17/2016-laws-of-the-game-drawing-head-contact

  • Quote
    26 minutes ago, ManDee said:

    Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

    I actually just saw that Brad Scott was unhappy about that situation that Petrie wasn't allowed to come back on. He is very lucky that Brown could come on in his place, no other game around the world allows an interchange if you've exhausted them despite injuries. 

    It's simple, you play a man down until he comes back on. 

    Amazing that even with 10+ goals from free kicks he can still be grumpy with rules/adjudication. God I hate the lot of them. 

  • Quote
    •  
    26 minutes ago, Pates said:

    I actually just saw that Brad Scott was unhappy about that situation that Petrie wasn't allowed to come back on. He is very lucky that Brown could come on in his place, no other game around the world allows an interchange if you've exhausted them despite injuries. 

    It's simple, you play a man down until he comes back on. 

    Amazing that even with 10+ goals from free kicks he can still be grumpy with rules/adjudication. God I hate the lot of them. 

    yes, but the blood rule is not an "injury". the player is forced off by the umpire so technically it's not a voluntary interchange

    i don't have a problem with that one, nor the player touching the post.

  • Quote
    39 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

    If you go to the AFL web site they have a page where they "explain" the way certain rules are adjudicated.

    Watch their video of the "new" "deliberate OOB" and then compare it with the way they're actually paying it.

    http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-03-17/2016-laws-of-the-game-deliberate-out-of-bounds

    Another video of interest to watchers of yesterdays game is this one:

    http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-03-17/2016-laws-of-the-game-drawing-head-contact

    Thanks for those links.  I can see why they have an inconsistency problem with the head ducking issue. Even the explanation is self-contradictory with the apparent onus on the tackler to avoid head high contact despite any ducking.    The running out of bounds example is so obviously deliberate whereas they now expect the player to break every bone in his body to twist back into play to avoid going over the line.  And god help you if you do a quick snap under intense pressure in a pack which goes 40 metres, bounces sideways and goes out.

  • Quote

    29 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

    yes, but the blood rule is not an "injury". the player is forced off by the umpire so technically it's not a voluntary interchange

    i don't have a problem with that one, nor the player touching the post.

    How long until we see a team out of interchanges with 5 minutes to go and 1 player absolutely spent who just can't play on... maybe he's had a cut thats been taped up earlier in the game. Pulls his tape off and goes "oh hey ump, i'm bleeding I better go off"..... :P

  • Quote

    He was most definitely over the line. The angle wasn't great but the ball was held lined up with his left leg, which was entirely over the line. Irrespective of that, you could tell he went over the line during live play.

    Having a replay system is pointless if you don't have the required technology to make an absolutely 100% certain call. 9/10 the camera gives you a *better* idea of a decision but you can never be 100% for things like touched balls because the broadcast cameras they use don't record slow-motion at a high enough framerate. It's a shambles. The face they rely on a blurred image to make a definitive call is embarrassing. I am shocked the AFL has let it continue for so long. They need high quality, high framerate line cameras.

    On top of that, what professional league in the world holds a match for points at a stadium that can't even fulfil the basic obligations for the camera placement?

    Embarrassing.

  • Quote
    2 hours ago, Pates said:

    I actually just saw that Brad Scott was unhappy about that situation that Petrie wasn't allowed to come back on. He is very lucky that Brown could come on in his place, no other game around the world allows an interchange if you've exhausted them despite injuries. 

    It's simple, you play a man down until he comes back on. 

    Amazing that even with 10+ goals from free kicks he can still be grumpy with rules/adjudication. God I hate the lot of them. 

    North are the biggest whingers in the game's history. I'm surprised they don't get ridiculed for this at all.

    Titus O???

  • Quote
    •  
    3 hours ago, ManDee said:

    Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

    Yes, it is. But expect the AFL to change it on the fly after what happened to North/Petrie on Sunday.

  • Quote

    And, of course, once the AFL changes the interchange-blood rule rule, watch them make further injury exceptions, and then further non-injury exceptions, and then do something completely different which is actually the same as it was in 1967, only in black and white.

  • Quote

    http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-02/goal-umpire-got-it-right-afl

    Well if you want to see the most bewildering goal umpire decision ever I suggest you look at this - also down in Tassie. Eddie Betts kicks through the middle of the goals. It hits the goal umpire and bounces back into play.

    The call, play on. Un-fricken-believable.

     

    Edited by jnrmac

  • Quote

    I've only watched the end of the game in poor quality on phone but it certainly looks like stretch should have got a free for interference when going for the mark. Think it was Thomas that went back with the flight and jumped all over him when not watching the ball. I could be wrong but anyone else got thoughts on this?

  • Quote
    4 hours ago, ManDee said:

    Is going off for the blood rule an interchange? In the last quarter Petrie went off for the blood rule and they had no interchanges left.

    Going off under the blood rule should surely NOT be counted as an interchange.  It is not a choice by the coaching team, it is an order by the maggots 

  • Quote
    4 hours ago, Pates said:

    Very good question, personally I think there shouldn't be a player come on for him and if they want him to come back on they go one down while he gets treated. 

    No way. Imagine some psychopath (from Hawthorn, Norf, etc) in his last game in a GF running around biffing all and sundry to force the opposition to play with reduced numbers. 

  • Quote
    Just now, monoccular said:

    Going off under the blood rule should surely NOT be counted as an interchange.  It is not a choice by the coaching team, it is an order by the maggots 

    tend to agree........but when said player wants to go back on it should then count as an interchange

    so in petrie's case with no interchanges left he can't go back on (as was the case)

  • Quote

    3 minutes ago, Ash82 said:

    CfrjsBeUYAEKHYa.jpg

    Even more amazingly, when you watch the video, the goal umpire starts to signal what appears to be a 'touched' call, then stops, then goes back to seen position, then says she thinks it's a goal. wtf?

    Edited by mrtwister

  • Quote

    I just can't believe this was then reviewed and allowed to be a goal.. Again no outcry from the club or the media at the inept umpiring yesterday...It's only Melbourne...

    Imagine Collingwood were cruelled like we were yesterday. Eddie would be calling for heads!!

  • Quote

    Gotta trust the goal umpire there, she was in the perfect position to call it. It was obviously very close though

  • Quote
    4 hours ago, Pates said:

    Very good question, personally I think there shouldn't be a player come on for him and if they want him to come back on they go one down while he gets treated. 

    No way. Imagine some psychopath (from Hawthorn, Norf, etc) in his last game in a GF running around biffing all and sundry to force the opposition to play with reduced numbers. 

  • Quote

    4 hours ago, Pates said:

    Very good question, personally I think there shouldn't be a player come on for him and if they want him to come back on they go one down while he gets treated. 

    No way. Imagine some psychopath (from Hawthorn, Norf, etc) in his last game in a GF running around biffing all and sundry to force the opposition to play with reduced numbers. 

  • Quote
    1 hour ago, Ash82 said:

    CfrjsBeUYAEKHYa.jpg

    ball has to be all the way across to me that is part way therefore play on... i didnt think that was really a bad call at all. a camera on the goal post would have been nice though...

  • Quote
    1 hour ago, Ash82 said:

    CfrjsBeUYAEKHYa.jpg

    Does Goldie fend off Stretch with a raised right forearm?

     

     

  • Quote
    •  
    11 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

    ball has to be all the way across to me that is part way therefore play on... i didnt think that was really a bad call at all. a camera on the goal post would have been nice though...

    Yes but the umps get confused looking at the thick goal post rather than the line......

  • Quote

    • Archived

    This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    Go to topic listing

    Featured Content

    • WHAT’S NEXT? by The Oracle

      What’s next for a beleagured Melbourne Football Club down in form and confidence, facing  intense criticism and disapproval over some underwhelming recent performances and in the midst of a four game losing streak? Why, it’s Adelaide which boasts the best percentage in the AFL and has won six of its last seven games. The Crows are hot and not only that, the game is at the Adelaide Oval; yet another away fixture and the third in a row at a venue outside of Victoria. One of the problems the Demons have these days is that they rarely have the luxury of true home ground advantage, something they have enjoyed just once since mid April. 

      • 2 replies
      Demonland

    • REPORT: Gold Coast

      From the start, Melbourne’s performance against the Gold Coast Suns at Peoples First Stadium was nothing short of a massive botch up and it came down in the first instance to poor preparation. Rather than adequately preparing the team for battle against an opponent potentially on the skids after suffering three consecutive losses, the Demons looking anything but sharp and ready to play in the opening minutes of the game. By way of contrast, the Suns demonstrated a clear sense of purpose and will to win. From the very first bounce of the ball they were back to where they left off earlier in the season in Round Three when the teams met at the MCG. They ran rings around the Demons and finished the game off with a dominant six goal final term. This time, they produced another dominant quarter to start the game, restricting Melbourne to a solitary point to lead by six goals at the first break, by which time, the game was all but over.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • CASEY: Gold Coast

      Coming off four consecutive victories and with a team filled with 17 AFL listed players, the Casey Demons took to their early morning encounter with the lowly Gold Coast Suns at People First Stadium with the swagger of a team that thought a win was inevitable. They were smashing it for the first twenty minutes of the game after Tom Fullarton booted the first two goals but they then descended into an abyss of frustrating poor form and lackadaisical effort that saw the swagger and the early arrogance disappear by quarter time when their lead was overtaken by a more intense and committed opponent. The Suns continued to apply the pressure in the second quarter and got out to a three goal lead in mid term before the Demons fought back. A late goal to the home side before the half time bell saw them ten points up at the break and another surge in the third quarter saw them comfortably up with a 23 point lead at the final break.

      • 0 replies
      Demonland

    • PREGAME: Rd 17 vs Adelaide

      With their season all over bar the shouting the Demons head back on the road for the third week in a row as they return to Adelaide to take on the Crows. Who comes in and who goes out?

      • 134 replies
      Demonland

    • POSTGAME: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      The Demons did not come to play from the opening bounce and let the Gold Coast kick the first 5 goals of the match. They then outscored the Suns for the next 3 quarters but it was too little too late and their season is now effectively over.

      • 231 replies
      Demonland

    • VOTES: Rd 16 vs Gold Coast

      Max Gawn has a massive lead in the Demonland Player of the Year award ahead of Jake Bowey, Christian Petracca, Clayton Oliver and Kysaiah Pickett. Your votes please. 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 & 1.

        • Like
      • 41 replies
      Demonland
    View All