AFL Round 2 - Non MFC Games (2017)

[monoccular 17,321]

The deliberate rushed behind rule is absolutely rubbish.  

And the interpretation there was even more rubbish - the guy was in the square AND under extreme pressure.

[Macca 16,625]

These dogs are hungry

[Maldonboy38 6,379]

I do get sick of the constant success of Swans, Hawks etc... but Buddy is seriously a once in a lifetime footballer. Match-winner.

And jake Stringer can be a total [censored] but love his mecurial nature. 

[Chook 14,998]

6 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

 

What's the idea behind the rule? Stop rushing behinds, he had plenty of time and space to make another decision. 

The idea behind the rule is if you’re inside 10 metres away and under pressure, it’s not a free kick. The Sydney player was inside 10 metres and under pressure, so it’s not a free kick.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Chook

[Seraph 1,776]

4 minutes ago, monoccular said:

The deliberate rushed behind rule is absolutely rubbish.  

And the interpretation there was even more rubbish - the guy was in the square AND under extreme pressure.

 How was he under extreme pressure?

Dogs player was 2+ metres away with his arms in the air knowing what the defender was going to do before he did it.

The whole point is to try and keep the ball in play. 

[Moonshadow 17,551]

Great last quarter by both teams. Set the bar very high for other teams to follow

 

[Damo 3,246]

show the free kicks for the last qtr! Dogs again gifted.

[Deestroy All 14,262]

7 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

 

What's the idea behind the rule? Stop rushing behinds, he had plenty of time and space to make another decision. 

The rule is if you're outside the square. He clearly wasn't. That's the rule, shouldn't have been a free. 

Thst said, it's a stupid rule like that. How often does it get rushed from 9m anyway?

Take distance out of it, make the rule simply you cannot rush it unless you're being tackled. 

[Cards13 9,117]

3 minutes ago, Chook said:

The idea behind the rule is if you’re inside 10 metres away and under pressure, it’s not a free kick. The Sydney player was inside 10 metres and under pressure, so it’s not a free kick.

The beauty of life chook, different perception. He wasn't under pressure so free kick. He had space out to his left and Picken was not closing in, but pulling up to look at the umpire. 

[Adam The God 29,381]

23 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

 

What's the idea behind the rule? Stop rushing behinds, he had plenty of time and space to make another decision. 

From how it's been explained by commentators, there is absolutely no way that should have been paid against Mills. If you are in the goal square and under pressure you can rush it. That's the rule and that's exactly what happened, but it cost them a goal. I hope the umpire is flogged this week.

EDIT. Mind you, @Deestroy All you're spot on. It's a stupid rule. So perhaps it's the AFL Commission that should be flogged?

Edited March 31, 2017 by A F

[dees189227 12,145]

What was good was the dogs not wanting to waste time and kick the ball around and sideways. They just kept attacking and running forward. anyway next friday night sydney v pies. The two winless teams. 

[mrtwister 652]

Free kicks 51-26 in Dogs favour against Swans over the last two times they've met.

Would love that kind of service against tough teams.

[Cards13 9,117]

1 minute ago, Deestroy All said:

The rule is if you're outside the square. He clearly wasn't. That's the rule, shouldn't have been a free. 

Thst said, it's a stupid rule like that. How often does it get rushed from 9m anyway?

Take distance out of it, make the rule simply you cannot rush it unless you're being tackled. 

DA as per previous post, not under pressure he he plenty of space out on his left.. Good call. 

[Deestroy All 14,262]

2 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

DA as per previous post, not under pressure he he plenty of space out on his left.. Good call. 

Bad call. Free kick Bulldogs call. GAGF call. 

 

Anyway, [censored] both these teams and the umpires. Is it Sunday arvo yet?

[Cards13 9,117]

2 minutes ago, A F said:

From how it's been explained by commentators, there is absolutely no way that should have been paid against Mills. If you are in the goal square and under pressure you can rush it. That's the rule and that's exactly what happened, but it cost them a goal. I hope the umpire is flogged this week.

The commentary team is either ex players or hangers on. It's down to perception, I thought as an AFL player he had plenty of room, Picken was not chasing hard.. Rule is there to keep the ball in play rather than the constant rush behind. 

It will always be an issue as it is always down to perception.

[dieter 3,325]

What keeps me astounding me is the way the Bulldogs are able to keep attacking and finding a teammate to handball to, the way they keep getting away with blatant throws,and the way no other team has yet to be able to defend against them.

Also, Ah Chee is a very, very good  AFL footballer and perhaps he's one of the chosen few who will become an absolute legend.

Also, that, like Clarkson, a very average footballer can become such a great coach.

Edited March 31, 2017 by dieter

[Moonshadow 17,551]

13 minutes ago, Deestroy All said:

The rule is if you're outside the square. He clearly wasn't. That's the rule, shouldn't have been a free. 

Thst said, it's a stupid rule like that. How often does it get rushed from 9m anyway?

Take distance out of it, make the rule simply you cannot rush it unless you're being tackled. 

Then the player would pull the tackle at last moment knowing he gets a free. I'd rather look at genuine intent to keep play in progress rather that playing for a free or rushing a behind. Actually, I'd put rushing a behind above playing for a free. Picken stopped going for it and had his hands in the air, that's against the spirit of the rule. He had no intent to go for the ball.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Moonshadow

[Macca 16,625]

The Bont is like Pendles with a much bigger highlights reel.

[DubDee 24,397]

It's funny how the best team gets seemingly a good run with the umpires. Was Hawks now dogs. 

Maybe they just get to the ball first more often

[DubDee 24,397]

If not for the 10 goals from buddy and Reid that would have been an easy win for the dogs

Swans midfield is in poor form- when do you see Hannebery, jack and Kennedy be so ineffectual? They really need heeney back

[Deestroy All 14,262]

8 minutes ago, DubDee said:

It's funny how the best team gets seemingly a good run with the umpires. Was Hawks now dogs. 

Maybe they just get to the ball first more often

They do and that's fine. It's just the BS ones in front of goal like the Picken and Aliir Aliir ones that have such a big impact that annoy me. 

[pitmaster 3,446]

Honestly, as happy as I was for the Dogs to break their drought, I am over them.

Has there ever been a greater umpires' favourite? Throw the ball? Sure do what you like...you'll be looked after.

They are cheats. No other word for it.

[deelete my account 1,194]

I'm not a fan of this 'would've won anyway' or 'first to the ball' stuff to explain umpiring discrepancies. Umpires can effect momentum and can effect results. Obviously club officials and players won't make those excuses as they're taboo to mention, but footy fans shouldn't shy away from making those judgements if they think umpires can and do have an effect on a match. 

Another example i would give was the 2015 prelim of WCE vs North. North were steamrolling them and all of a sudden the umpires must've gifted the Eagles about 3 goals in the 2nd and it was back on. In the grand scheme of the final match points, Eagles easily won, but the momentum shift was extremely telling. I think the umpires robbed us of a great victorian aggressive mcg grand final stoush between the Hawks and North that year who had a great rivalry. But always people will fall back on 'Eagles would've won anyway' when that is not certain.

Edited March 31, 2017 by DominatrixTyson

[Cards13 9,117]

Haha what is the chair Bevo is sitting in? Looks like a super villain at the press conference.

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,631]

31 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Then the player would pull the tackle at last moment knowing he gets a free. I'd rather look at genuine intent to keep play in progress rather that playing for a free or rushing a behind. Actually, I'd put rushing a behind above playing for a free. Picken stopped going for it and had his hands in the air, that's against the spirit of the rule. He had no intent to go for the ball.

Should have given the benefit of the doubt to the guy actually playing the ball, rather than the one playing for the BS free kick.