POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 18

[Willmoy1947 4,081]

Did anyone else get a feeling from the way we played that game against WC, that we, just a little, resembled Essendon in circa 2011- 2012.

[biggestred 5,012]

1 minute ago, willmoy said:

Did anyone else get a feeling from the way we played that game against WC, that we, just a little, resembled Essendon in circa 2011- 2012.

What, drug cheats? 

No

[old dee 23,763]

5 minutes ago, biggestred said:

What, drug cheats? 

No

No the reformed lovely dee boys come on next year biggestred

[jnrmac 20,053]

4 hours ago, mrtwister said:

The deliberate OOB decisions against us in the last quarter are questioned in the 'Whistle Blowers' segment on afl.com.au. No surprise that the powers that be are happy with the decisions.

Typical that the issue wasn't that they were paid but more the fact that WC had a few that weren't. Pity somebody didn't show them those ones and ask why they WEREN'T paid in contrast to ours that were.

The tyson one was ridiculous. There were two hands on the ball or at worst a hand behind tyon's hand pushing it to the boundary. IN any case he is not allowed to drag the ball in to him lest he gets pinged. So what is he to do?

Hometown decision. Still haven't forgiven the WA maggots for their despicable 23 to 2 free kick count at half time a few years back

 

As for the Gawn one what a howler that was by the umps. He is clearly trying to get it to the Melbourne player over the head of the Weagle. FMD they are pathetic.

Edited July 25, 2016 by jnrmac

[xarronn 380]

11 hours ago, old dee said:

Jones will be gone in a couple of years and Vince has one year left at best.

Who  then to close the Gap?

 

6 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Jones only 2 years left and Bernie gone possibly this year, definitely next? - Rubbish

Jones likely to play 4-5 further years and Bernie 2-3 further years.  By then each will be 32-33.

 

I agree with you Fifty-5, I reckon both players will last longer than OD suggests. However I had a look at our list and I was surprised to see how hollow it is at the older age levels.

Of 12 players who are 26 yrs and 6 mths or older, only 4 have played regularly or even played at all this year. Vince, M Jones, N Jones and Garlett.

The other 8, Lumumba, Pedersen, Dunn, Garland, Dawes, Grimes, Spencer, Terlich do not look like they will be significant contributors going forward and certainly not leaders. It's possible all will be gone by the end of 2018.

But it seems understandable to me now, why some of these players were given contracts which seemed incomprehensible at the time. We would have had a list of babies otherwise, at least our new recruits can play in a successful VFL team with some hard bodies while they are developing.

 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,131]

On 24/07/2016 at 5:49 PM, old dee said:

they still got the loss right Ricky hard to disagree with that.

Not all losses are equal - losing by a goal in a game we dominated and should've won by 5 goals is different to getting done by 60, 148 or 186 points...

We should be winning 10 games this year, we may fall short. But the other marker is our percentage which sits at 100% and is the best we've had in some years. Losing hurts but we're on the right track. Petracca showed some sublime attack on the footy yesterday and he's played 12 games. Tyson was great. Jones found some form. Oliver's still in the reserves. Hunt continues to impress. It's not all doom and gloom.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,131]

23 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Whilst many bask in the luminosity of our great positives I'm bemused how few seem concerned about the inabity to craft a win. This is not about them 'trying' to win, which they obviously were, it's about any capability to make the magic work when required. 

In contrast the team that should have lost by all accounts didn't. They found a way to win. We need to find this ability. 

It comes with experience. We are fielding a team of relative babies every week. I know that reason wore thin sometime around 2011/12 but it doesn't make it any less true. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,131]

8 hours ago, old dee said:

Calm down. My opinion not yours Dr,

Im calm. Your opinion of others feelings is irrelevant. Just because people are able to be more analytical than just spitting the dummy because we didn't get the chocolates doesn't mean they're happy we lost. Things aren't always black and white there are shades of grey. Of course I sport the scoreboard is the only arbiter but looking at the [censored] picture we are trending in the right direction. I

[Dr. Gonzo 24,131]

7 hours ago, mauriesy said:

I think there are quite a few here that love sitting down on gameday with their computer, pad or phone in front of the game, ready to post some negative comment the instant someone makes a mistake.

It might be a little "happy we are losing", or the somewhat opaque view through the "veil of negativity", or it could be just plain "MFCSS".

But it's particularly galling when you can't watch the match and are trying to get a handle on it through Demonland. When I first read the Gameday discussion on Saturday I thought we were 10 goals down, only to discover we were actually a goal or two up.

If one thing watching the utter garbage of the last decade has taught it's that performance is relative. Gone are the days where we don't even give an effort, we don't spread we don't chase etc. We are finally playing modern footy but have a young team and a dearth of experienced leaders. No one is disputing that. But that doesn't mean I'm happy with the result. I was happy with the effort but the execution and result was infuriating, I was tearing my hair out at times at our disposal and decision making.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,131]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

The tyson one was ridiculous. There were two hands on the ball or at worst a hand behind tyon's hand pushing it to the boundary. IN any case he is not allowed to drag the ball in to him lest he gets pinged. So what is he to do?

Hometown decision. Still haven't forgiven the WA maggots for their despicable 23 to 2 free kick count at half time a few years back

 

As for the Gawn one what a howler that was by the umps. He is clearly trying to get it to the Melbourne player over the head of the Weagle. FMD they are pathetic.

The first step is admitting there's a problem. They never admit any umpire could make a mistake or be influenced by the crowd so it will never be remedied.

[leucopogon 1,519]

On review I don't have a problem with the Gawn deliberate call. He's basically handballed it out on the full, they should make hand balling on the full the same as kicking out on the full, an automatic free kick. The Tyson one was dodgy, I don't agree with that one at all, especially as a numbe of very similar ones weren't paid to us earlier in the game.

[mauriesy 7,256]

I thought Tyson's was more deliberate than Gawn's.

[Pates 9,659]

Both deliberates are harsh in their own ways and the frustrating thing is on another day they wouldn't be paid there is the lack of consistency. For both of them the issue is body language, Tyson looks relaxed and given up on the contest in that he is thinking he will force the ball out. Now looking at it the force initially shown by him on the ball doesn't appear to match the speed in which the ball goes out. Therefor you can only conclude it was affected by the West Coast player coming through at the same time. I thought he was very stiff and was very much a crowd affected free kick. I also think it wet conditions there should be a fair degree of leniency.

The Gawn one again, his body language is what hurt him. He didn't look intently at the Melbourne player in getting it over to him, he kinda saw him and put it in his general direction. He also might be becoming a victim of his own success in that he's actually got better skills than that usually. I think it was his intent to put it out and he didn't mask it well enough.

Whether or not they'll be paid the same this week.....

[P-man 13,366]

18 hours ago, Chris said:

I think a lot of that was repeat entries which caused issues. We weren't good enough when the forward line was open and we were almost to good a locking it in our forward half. This meant our forward line was rarely open and was mostly blocked full of WC players. We do need to find a way around this though, maybe being more patient around the middle and working from side to side to draw out their players and then going back in when it opens up a little. We seemed to just bomb it back in once we got it back. Being patient isn't our strong suit normally though and with our mistakes could have been costly. 

I agree with this, but persistence usually pays off when you're getting that many repeat entries. When the umps decided to put the whistle away, we just didn't get that eventual reward. Kent was tugged back (twice) in the pocket. Hogan had defenders all over him on a couple of occasions. I'm sure there were other 50/50s that on another day could've gone our way.

Of course we'd then have been left with another set shot, which to me was by far the worst enemy - accuracy in front of goal. You can talk about quality of entires and ball movement etc, but if the kicking for goal improves even 25% we win the game. It really can become a virus. When Watts missed his I knew it was looking fatal. 

[old dee 23,763]

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Not all losses are equal - losing by a goal in a game we dominated and should've won by 5 goals is different to getting done by 60, 148 or 186 points...

We should be winning 10 games this year, we may fall short. But the other marker is our percentage which sits at 100% and is the best we've had in some years. Losing hurts but we're on the right track. Petracca showed some sublime attack on the footy yesterday and he's played 12 games. Tyson was great. Jones found some form. Oliver's still in the reserves. Hunt continues to impress. It's not all doom and gloom.

Good morning Dr I do not disagree with your opening sentence I always have and will continue to hate the words "honourable loss"

It is my big bug bare because it is to me the symbolism that has come to be part of the MFC family.

This is the last thing I am saying on the subject ( until the next time someone uses it ) because a good percentage on here think I am totally negative which I am not.

Now onto Sunday 31st and our eighth win for 2016

 

 

Edited July 25, 2016 by old dee

[sue 9,096]

2 hours ago, Pates said:

......

The Gawn one again, his body language is what hurt him. He didn't look intently at the Melbourne player in getting it over to him, he kinda saw him and put it in his general direction. He also might be becoming a victim of his own success in that he's actually got better skills than that usually. I think it was his intent to put it out and he didn't mask it well enough.

Whether or not they'll be paid the same this week.....

If that is applied as a sign of deliberate OOB, you wouldn't want to risk a look-away hand pass near the boundary line.  As long as there is a target nearby I don't think umpires should guess the mental state of the players.  It's hard enough to guess whether the OOB is a skill error or not without adding more mind-reading.

Edited July 26, 2016 by sue

[Willmoy1947 4,081]

1 hour ago, Pates said:

Both deliberates are harsh in their own ways and the frustrating thing is on another day they wouldn't be paid there is the lack of consistency. For both of them the issue is body language, Tyson looks relaxed and given up on the contest in that he is thinking he will force the ball out. Now looking at it the force initially shown by him on the ball doesn't appear to match the speed in which the ball goes out. Therefor you can only conclude it was affected by the West Coast player coming through at the same time. I thought he was very stiff and was very much a crowd affected free kick. I also think it wet conditions there should be a fair degree of leniency.

The Gawn one again, his body language is what hurt him. He didn't look intently at the Melbourne player in getting it over to him, he kinda saw him and put it in his general direction. He also might be becoming a victim of his own success in that he's actually got better skills than that usually. I think it was his intent to put it out and he didn't mask it well enough.

Whether or not they'll be paid the same this week.....

Yes, in the ump's eyes, a future Brownlow Medallist has just got to get better at being deceptive....ie G Williams.

[drdrake 3,157]

If the Umpires made the right call, then that means they missed about 10 others for the match and I reckon through the round over 100.  That is more the issue the inconsistency between umpires.  There was one by Shannon Hurn inside our forward 50m that was more deliberate that both of our two in question.

 

[Akum 2,660]

42 minutes ago, Pates said:

Both deliberates are harsh in their own ways and the frustrating thing is on another day they wouldn't be paid there is the lack of consistency. For both of them the issue is body language, Tyson looks relaxed and given up on the contest in that he is thinking he will force the ball out. Now looking at it the force initially shown by him on the ball doesn't appear to match the speed in which the ball goes out. Therefor you can only conclude it was affected by the West Coast player coming through at the same time. I thought he was very stiff and was very much a crowd affected free kick. I also think it wet conditions there should be a fair degree of leniency.

The Gawn one again, his body language is what hurt him. He didn't look intently at the Melbourne player in getting it over to him, he kinda saw him and put it in his general direction. He also might be becoming a victim of his own success in that he's actually got better skills than that usually. I think it was his intent to put it out and he didn't mask it well enough.

Whether or not they'll be paid the same this week.....

Very interesting post.

I've been wondering whether it points to an absolutely essential part of our training & preparation that's been left out entirely, and that's learning how to "con" the umpires. All the best teams and players do it. For example, the TV cameras picked up & replayed a blatant two-handed throw by Sam Mitchell right in front of goal, but umpires will never penalise him because he has learned over the years how to con them.

From what we've seen so far this year, the most reliable path to success is to duck, dive, stage, throw your head back, hold off the ball (as long as you don't pull the jumper), hold in the ruck, appeal en masse for ridiculous frees - and, most importantly of all, to look convincing when you do it.

The best way to avoid getting penalised for putting it out deliberately is not to stop doing it, but to "disguise" it so that you con the umpire into doubting whether you did it deliberately. Even the commentators say, when a dubious "deliberate" is awarded, that it's fair enough because he didn't disguise it well enough, as if the ability to disguise it is the criterion of the free being paid or not.

A number of games this season seem to have been won or lost from a dubious free late in the game. We're one of the teams that seem to end up on the wrong side of those calls, while others (Norf, Hawks, WCE, Cats) have the extra skills required to end up on the right side. Maybe it's these skills we should be practising more.

[Akum 2,660]

41 minutes ago, sue said:

If that is applied as a sign of deliberate OOB, you wouldn't want to risk a look-away hand pass near the boundary line.  As long as there is a target nearby I don't think umpires should guess the mental state of the players.  It's hard enough to guess whether the OOB is a skill error or not without adding more mind-reading.

 

1 minute ago, drdrake said:

If the Umpires made the right call, then that means they missed about 10 others for the match and I reckon through the round over 100.  That is more the issue the inconsistency between umpires.  There was one by Shannon Hurn inside our forward 50m that was more deliberate that both of our two in question.

 

These posts again point out the importance of disguising the deliberate OOB. Currently the free is paid not on the intent of the player, but according to whether they disguise it well enough to create enough doubt in the umpire's mind. And, probably, according to how many of the opposing team throw their arms in the air to appeal.

The top teams like WCE have all this down to a fine art; we're still naive enough to expect umps to pay it on its merits. 

[The heart beats true 18,106]

5 minutes ago, drdrake said:

If the Umpires made the right call, then that means they missed about 10 others for the match and I reckon through the round over 100.  That is more the issue the inconsistency between umpires.  There was one by Shannon Hurn inside our forward 50m that was more deliberate that both of our two in question.

 

This is what has annoyed me in both the AFL and media's handling of this since the game. It's not about whether the umpire could have adjudicated those as free kicks - clearly they could have because they did. It's about the consistency of the rule within the game. Not one media 'observer' has shown the Hurn incidents in the context of the 2 free kicks paid. That's the issue. 

[jnrmac 20,053]

1 hour ago, sue said:

If that is applied as a sign of deliberate OOB, you wouldn't want to risk a look-away hand pass near the boundary line.  As long as there is a target nearby I don't think umpires should guess the mental state of the players.  It's hard enough to guess whether the OOB is a skill error or not without adding more mind-reading.

Agree with this. The umps also talk to each other. I heard one say when Hurn  kicked a ball out of the backline towads the boundary line "skill error". So the umps are miked and they each hear the others intrepretation.

The fact he called out skill error because he adjudged the ball came off the side of he boot rather than being deliberate means that umps are in fact guessing intentions. This will inevitably lead to inconsistencies. Particularly in the last qtr of a close game with a rabid home town crowd and, I assume, home town umps...

[sue 9,096]

4 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Agree with this. The umps also talk to each other. I heard one say when Hurn  kicked a ball out of the backline towads the boundary line "skill error". So the umps are miked and they each hear the others intrepretation.

The fact he called out skill error because he adjudged the ball came off the side of he boot rather than being deliberate means that umps are in fact guessing intentions. This will inevitably lead to inconsistencies. Particularly in the last qtr of a close game with a rabid home town crowd and, I assume, home town umps...

I wonder how an umpire judges a skill error as distinct from a very skilfully executed 'skill' error.  I hope all this doesn't end in "last touch has free awarded against them".

[Redleg 40,815]

8 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Agree with this. The umps also talk to each other. I heard one say when Hurn  kicked a ball out of the backline towads the boundary line "skill error". So the umps are miked and they each hear the others intrepretation.

The fact he called out skill error because he adjudged the ball came off the side of he boot rather than being deliberate means that umps are in fact guessing intentions. This will inevitably lead to inconsistencies. Particularly in the last qtr of a close game with a rabid home town crowd and, I assume, home town umps...

Just saw Roos presser. He mentioned the poor kicking for goal, the 6 day break and then the 10 free kicks to WCE. When pressed on the 2 deliberate OOB in the last quarter,  he just shook his head and it was clear to see he was angry about the umpiring.

[stevethemanjordan 6,952]

23 hours ago, Chris said:

I think a lot of that was repeat entries which caused issues. We weren't good enough when the forward line was open and we were almost to good a locking it in our forward half. This meant our forward line was rarely open and was mostly blocked full of WC players. We do need to find a way around this though, maybe being more patient around the middle and working from side to side to draw out their players and then going back in when it opens up a little. We seemed to just bomb it back in once we got it back. Being patient isn't our strong suit normally though and with our mistakes could have been costly. 

Good point.

Even so, if you have smart users off the half backline and through the middle of the ground you'd hope those repeat entries would turn into shots on goal.

It's just another area I know we need to improve in.