POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 8

[jnrmac 20,225]

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. 

2 incidents last weekend. Tyson shoving his boot into Atkins to take a mark and Cyril shoving his knee into someone to try and take a mark (Cyril btw is out for 6 weeks which I am happy about). 

The difference is that one was protecting himself as a player was charging him front on. Cyril arguably meant to do damage and jumped from behind/side. The irony is he injured himself. Karma is a biatch as Beemer would say.

[John Crow Batty 8,880]

13 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

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

Yep, arguably the biggest elephant in the room. Should be like Gridiron where umpires work as a team for the whole season and officiate every match together.  Then they might develop a consistent approach.

Edited May 17, 2017 by america de cali

[daisycutter 29,823]

3 hours ago, america de cali said:

Yep, arguably the biggest elephant in the room. Should be like Gridiron where umpires work as a team for the whole season and officiate every match together.  Then they might develop a consistent approach.

well if you want a start-stop game that would be fine. games might take 4 hours to complete

[beelzebub 23,389]

6 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well if you want a start-stop game that would be fine. games might take 4 hours to complete

thats the nature of their game..to start...stop.....wait...wait....wait....think about it....start...oops stop again..

The idea of of umpiring teams has some merit actually imho

[daisycutter 29,823]

19 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

thats the nature of their game..to start...stop.....wait...wait....wait....think about it....start...oops stop again..

The idea of of umpiring teams has some merit actually imho

maybe..... they are already miked up so could certainly talk more. however there is a real reluctance for another umpire to overide or just disagree with the first one who pays a free. i'd like to see a bit more initiative if another umpire sees it differently and is confident. this could either end up a reversal, no change or just a ball-up. better to have a ball up than give a free where 2 umps disagree. of course they would have to be able to resolve this quick smart which would be the major problem.

[beelzebub 23,389]

of course if Gil's Dills just stopped dlcking around with the game we'd be better off straight away

[John Crow Batty 8,880]

47 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

maybe..... they are already miked up so could certainly talk more. however there is a real reluctance for another umpire to overide or just disagree with the first one who pays a free. i'd like to see a bit more initiative if another umpire sees it differently and is confident. this could either end up a reversal, no change or just a ball-up. better to have a ball up than give a free where 2 umps disagree. of course they would have to be able to resolve this quick smart which would be the major problem.

That appears to be like a culture clubby thing. Currently we have the three stooges approach. There could be a separation of powers and an umpires 'umpire'. Two actually making the decisions and an overseer who does not make normal play decisions but has the power to override incorrect decisions, give directions and also enforce desired interpretations during the game.  

But in a team approach and with training and familiarity they should all be mostly on the same page after a few games together anyway.

Edited May 18, 2017 by america de cali

[xarronn 384]

On 5/14/2017 at 3:10 PM, Colin B. Flaubert said:

Well, as you may have anticipated, I don't agree.

Gazza had his finger in the pie prior to 186 (albeit he didn't have an official role). He was good mates with Cuddles, CS, Jimmy and Todd Viney so it would have been naive to think that he wasn't a power broker of some description.

He knew (or he should have known) EXACTLY what he was doing when he got on Triple M and ripped into the club post 186 while he was calling the Dogs vs. Eagles game at Eithad. Being good mates with CS, he would have known that he was getting the a**e and used his platform to change the focus onto the coach. He was one of the key people to talk Jimmy into sacking Bails but keeping CS on (Jimmy said as much in his book). 

He then proceeded (after assuring us that he wouldn't be playing favorites) to keep Schwab in exactly the same role prior to 186. This meant that three people continued to report to him from the football department, instead of the standard one, and that the only recognizable change was that Whiteboard Wednesday was given the old yeller treatment. He then proceeded to 'sack' his other mate Chris Connolly but give him a paid job as a spruiker for the Melbourne/Casey relationship. Shame there was nothing for Bails to fall back on at the club (he wasn't even allowed to wear a club tie or have the club backdrop behind him when he did his part of the presser).

He then proceeded to buddy up with CS and Don and find a coach who conveniently mirrored all of CS's complaints about Bails. One who had not been psychologically profiled and had been knocked back by a few other clubs. 

I agree that Gazza isn't Dastardly Dick (I wonder who his Muttley would be? Purple?) out to hurt the club. In fact, I think a lot of the vitriol launched at certain people has been over the top. I do think however that when Gazza decides to shoot from the hip like he does, it would be more intellectually honest of him to take a step back and remember what it was like when he was in the hot seat. He then might take a step back before branding all and sundry as mentally brittle.

Indeed, his audience isn't solely Melbourne supporters but I think the rest of his audience are being mislead if they laud Gazza as the be all and end all authority on what is wrong with the club.

I don't like getting into these discussions but I think sometimes that the record does need to be set straight.

 

Didn't see your response Colin, until I signed in today and was alerted to it. Like you I don't wish to get into a to and fro, and GL's support for CS was definitely a blind spot for him.

I have only one other response, - as a current commentator if he believes there is mental brittleness amongst the playing group he is entitled to call it. Roosy, referred to it himself often enough, and most of us must wonder if it is a weakness which we will overcome any time soon. 

Every one of us would think we have come a long way to either overcoming it or disproving it with a victory over North tomorrow. 

 

Edited May 20, 2017 by xarronn
correction

[Dr. Gonzo 24,379]

2 hours ago, xarronn said:

Didn't see your response Colin, until I signed in today and was alerted to it. Like you I don't wish to get into a to and fro, and GL's support for CS was definitely a blind spot for him.

I have only one other response, - as a current commentator if he believes there is mental brittleness amongst the playing group he is entitled to call it. Roosy, referred to it himself often enough, and most of us must wonder if it is a weakness which we will overcome any time soon. 

Every one of us would think we have come a long way to either overcoming it or disproving it with a victory over North tomorrow. 

 

Like the form of Watts over the years though, 1, 2 or 3 games does not a season make. It wasn't until a good block of games and then a full season of consistent performances was put together that supporters, his teammates and the coaches started to trust him. The same with the team. Until they show it over a large block of games or a season supporters will still question their mental fortitude.

I'd say they are actually on the way to doing that with their performances this year, the only problem is we haven't got the points on enough occasions and have had lapses during games that cost us (particularly the Hawks and Freo games).