17 minutes ago, Skuit said:

More like a tequila-soaked worm. It would certainly raise the alcohol percentage though.

I might expect a wirm in my Tequila...not my bubbles

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Sorry, that second sentence was my view, Robbo said it was the best performance of the year of any team

I thought it sounded a bit too, er, reflective? for Robbo. It's cliched, but I have wondered about Goodwin and a relation to Total Football philosophy in the past.

13 minutes ago, Skuit said:

His forward pressure was sensational in my opinion. But I felt that he was actually a bit down on touch on the weekend. A lot of near misses with not so clean hands and a couple uncharacteristically poor snaps. Comes with the territory though.

Clarry used up all the miracles for the night with his goal.

5 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Pavlich's one word responses as special comments commentator were indeed special. 

 

How good was that Pav?!

Good.

8 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Pavlich's one word responses as special comments commentator were indeed special. 

 

It's Pavs first year doing special comments, I don't know why they throw these guys in there without giving them smaller roles to get them used to analysing the game first. 

He never struck me as a guy who could pull out great pearls of wisdom on the spot. Give him quarter time, half time, and 3 quarter time analysis bits where he can consider what he can say. It was embarrassing hearing his single word responses. And Ricciuto shouldn't do Adelaide games, it's a joke hearing him literally support the crows on TV. 

Edited May 15, 20178 yr by Pates

Team of the week: http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-16/team-of-the-week-r8-did-we-get-it-right

Hibberd, Petracca, Viney and Oliver. 

Hibberd currently leading the votes for the defenders and Oliver chosen as the people's pick. 

Edited May 15, 20178 yr by Ethan Tremblay

FOUR players in TOW:  Viney, Hibberd, Petracca and of course Oliver with 72% of fans voting him on the bench,

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-16/team-of-the-week-r8-did-we-get-it-right

Our guys are regularly featuring in TOW which is great for them and the club. 

Well done, guys!

9 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Pavlich's one word responses as special comments commentator were indeed special. 

 

If you think Pav was bad have a listen to Dane Swan. He was on AFL Tonight and was totally inarticulate and incoherent. Painful to listen to. Why they give these washed up numb nuts airtime is a mystery to me.

9 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

On another note, he may not have set the World on fire with big bags of four or five goals, but my take is that Jeff Garlett is back to his best this season and has been consistently good in most/all games that I remember (probably our most consistent small forward).  His forward pressure was pretty good (again) on the weekend with six tackles and my perception is that he has got better at distributing the ball/setting up other players inside 50 and certainly his set shot goal kicking has been pretty solid this year, where previously I thought it was a bit of a shortcoming.

He has been important to our team so far this year and I'm looking forward to a day when Jeffy really turns it on and has a day out.

Good call Balls

has gone under the radar, 20 goals 6 behinds which is a massive improvement with kicking.

on track for 55 goals

averages 4.4 tackles. his pressure and manning the mark etc has been great

well done Jeffy! and well done coaching staff for motivating and focusing a man that would not be easy to coach

15 minutes ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Team of the week: http://m.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-16/team-of-the-week-r8-did-we-get-it-right

Hibberd, Petracca, Viney and Oliver. 

And they should have given Luke Parker's spot to Bernie Vince as an abstract shut-down.

14 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

If you think Pav was bad have a listen to Dane Swan. He was on AFL Tonight and was totally inarticulate and incoherent. Painful to listen to. Why they give these washed up numb nuts airtime is a mystery to me.

I actually didn't mind some of Swan's appearances on the Footy Show though, he came across as a pretty good sort of knock about bloke who's a bit alternate and out there, not afraid to be himself, with a sense of humor.  A bit like a poor man's, less extraverted Max Gawn.

Pav on the other hand really does nothing much for me at this point.

15 hours ago, Chris said:

Why shouldn't it have been holding the ball? The Adelaide player ran miles, was tackled, didn't dispose of it and held it across the boundary. If it wasn't holding then it had to be deliberate. 

definitely holding the ball. had plenty of prior. he was obligated to dispose of ball immediately. he didn't. was a free before going out of bounds.

can't believe anyone would query that. as black and white as it gets

12 hours ago, Skuit said:

It's possible then that I don't have a clear understanding of the holding the ball rule. He had prior opportunity but no chance to dispose of it once tackled and the ball was dead across the line.

It contradicts when I think Jetta got a shove in the back toward the fence after the ball was out-of-bounds (my greatest bugbear - and so much more potentially dangerous than the bs frees paid for rolling onto the back in the tackle). Why is general play suspended when the ball goes out in that particular regard? 

The rule is that if you have had prior opportunity then you must dispose of it. I see you point about others being tackled over the line and it not being paid but generally they have very little prior and do dispose of it (or try) as they go over the line. The Adelaide player did nothing, had time once tackled to try and dispose of it before going over the line and didn't. 

On the Jetta one, did he have the ball before crossing the line/ (I cant remember). He was certainly shoved in the back and it should have been a free. I can't remember a clearer push in the back ever!

59 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

I actually didn't mind some of Swan's appearances on the Footy Show though, he came across as a pretty good sort of knock about bloke who's a bit alternate and out there, not afraid to be himself, with a sense of humor.  A bit like a poor man's, less extraverted Max Gawn.

Pav on the other hand really does nothing much for me at this point.

I thought Mark Riccuitto was very balanced in his commentary.

10 minutes ago, Chris said:

The rule is that if you have had prior opportunity then you must dispose of it. I see you point about others being tackled over the line and it not being paid but generally they have very little prior and do dispose of it (or try) as they go over the line. The Adelaide player did nothing, had time once tackled to try and dispose of it before going over the line and didn't. 

On the Jetta one, did he have the ball before crossing the line/ (I cant remember). He was certainly shoved in the back and it should have been a free. I can't remember a clearer push in the back ever!

The push in the back rule is fast becoming obsolete. Every game I see players running and kicking and at the last minute the chaser shoves them in the middle ofthe back. No free. The ball skews off and is turned over or goal missed. It does my head in. 

The other rule currently doing my head in is the oppo player within 10m of a player taking a mark or getting a free kick. Every week now I see players run from behind or the side to stand the mark or simply waltz on by with their arms up in the air ('I am not in the play') yet it stops the player with the ball playing on in that direction. They were over hot on it last year now it has been forgotten

Typical AFL and their rule of the week mentality.

 

 

Edited May 15, 20178 yr by jnrmac

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

The push in the back rule is fast becoming obsolete. Every game I see players running and kicking and at the last minute the chaser shoves them in the middle ofthe back. No free. The ball skews off and is turned over or goal missed. It does my head in. 

The other rule currently doing my head in is the oppo player within 10m of a player taking a mark or getting a free kick. Every week now I see players run from behind or the side to stand the mark or simply waltz on by with their arms up in the air ('I am not in the play') yet it stops the player with the ball playing on in that direction. They were over hot on it last year now it has been forgotten

Typical AFL and their rule of the week mentality.

 

 

The other one I noticed ont eh weekend was players being blocked from contesting marks. The most obvious one was I think Adelaide's first goal (a big man marked just outside the goal square). If you watch it and look at the back you see Tmac Standing side by side with his opponent, as his opponent moves another Adelaide player steps in and puts his arms out to keep TMac from moving. It wasn't just a block it was an active shepard. No free and it wasn't even subtle. TMac remonstrated with the ump but it happened again and again with no free. 

Sensational win and should naturally build some confidence in our young, talented, and emerging team.

Probably the bigger test will be this week when we take on North Melbourne with the expectation we win.

Will the young group tighten up against for fear of expectation or excel in it? I think consistency and maturity is developing slowly but nicely - we just need a few more team defining wins to build that confidence and belief.

We are on our way though !

Anyone see Lewis on afl360 they showed footage of him running straight through a group of Adelaide players and elbowing sloane, when asked why he did that he said needed to show leadership as they planned on targeting hawks players the week before but never did it, he set the tone for that game he is a great pick up 

27 minutes ago, brendan said:

Anyone see Lewis on afl360 they showed footage of him running straight through a group of Adelaide players and elbowing sloane, when asked why he did that he said needed to show leadership as they planned on targeting hawks players the week before but never did it, he set the tone for that game he is a great pick up 

He showed great composure late in the 2nd where he stood tall and shrugged the tackle before giving off the ball to Bugg for his second goal. Pure calmness, didn't panic, kept his feet and shrugged the tackle with ease.

Doesn't the white "away gear" look so much better when you win a few games on it. 

7 hours ago, Dante said:

Doesn't the white "away gear" look so much better when you win a few games on it. 

It's more tolerable, but still offensive to the eye

On 16/05/2017 at 9:44 AM, jnrmac said:

The push in the back rule is fast becoming obsolete. Every game I see players running and kicking and at the last minute the chaser shoves them in the middle ofthe back. No free. The ball skews off and is turned over or goal missed. It does my head in. 

The other rule currently doing my head in is the oppo player within 10m of a player taking a mark or getting a free kick. Every week now I see players run from behind or the side to stand the mark or simply waltz on by with their arms up in the air ('I am not in the play') yet it stops the player with the ball playing on in that direction. They were over hot on it last year now it has been forgotten

Typical AFL and their rule of the week mentality.

 

 

The other one is chopping the arms, absolutely chits me that the AFL over umpire certain rules and yet others slip away. Reduce the rules to help the umps?

21 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

The other one is chopping the arms, absolutely chits me that the AFL over umpire certain rules and yet others slip away. Reduce the rules to help the umps?

The AFL and the umpires directors (several in succession) have bought in to the idea that a factor in "interpreting" the rules is the look of the game as entertainment.

Note AFL! The game managed to be entertaining and crowd pulling for many decades in spite of your meddling ... could it be that you DON'T NEED to meddle?

But just as big an issue is the idea that there needs to be any "interpretation" at all.

The rules of a game need to be "interpreted"? Then they are poorly written.

And even more, last year (I haven't checked this year) the umps sent out to the clubs videos (posted on the AFL site) about how certain situations were going to be "interpreted" ... and there was nothing whatsoever in the rule book about those situations! Literally they were making up new rules!

The open nature of the game with no limitations on player movements makes it impossible to have clear and defined rules unlike other sports. In reality there could be unlimited technical free kicks payed in every pack situation. As long as the umpires interpretation adheres to the spirit of the game and apply duty of care considerations  I don't have much issue. I don't like over technical interpretations or allowing deliberate actions that may be legal but designed to hurt opponents or dangerous play to milk frees.  For example players that duck into tackles or milk high tackle frees like Selwood style should be penalised and not the tackler. A player going for a mark leading with his boot forcefully into a players kidneys should be penalised for dangerous  play. 

 

Edited May 17, 20178 yr by america de cali

36 minutes ago, america de cali said:

The open nature of the game with no limitations on player movements makes it impossible to have clear and defined rules unlike other sports. In reality there could be unlimited technical free kicks payed in every pack situation. As long as the umpires interpretation adheres to the spirit of the game and apply duty of care considerations  I don't have much issue. I don't like over technical interpretations or allowing deliberate actions that may be legal but designed to hurt opponents or dangerous play to milk frees.  For example players that duck into tackles or milk high tackle frees like Selwood style should be penalised and not the tackler. A player going for a mark leading with his boot forcefully into a players kidneys should be penalised for dangerous  play. 

 

The problem with rules that can be interpreted is that you have 3 field umpires who interpret it differently