POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 14

[titan_uranus 25,014]

27 minutes ago, TheCurseisBroken said:

Does anyone know the rule to where the mark should be placed if the ball is taken in the air whilst the player is on the move? Should it come back to where the ball was grabbed, or should it be from where the person lands, or where they end up if they fall to the ground?

Just wondering as in Q4 Pedersen was made to kick from where he ended up on the ground after he marked the ball against Mitchell in the air with momentum. It made a difference to the angle of the kick and he kicked a behind to make it 93-96. It didn't matter in the end but I noticed it whilst watching the replay

I had the same query when watching.

On the one hand I suppose it makes sense that the mark is where you land but then what happens if you mark it on one side of the boundary line but then fall over (without juggling the ball in the process)?

That latter situation couldn't have the mark set outside the field of play so then maybe it's supposed to be where the mark is originally held.

[Cards13 9,117]

Great to have the rusted on, scarred life longers and any "new" fans. A good Dees member is a good Dees member, glad we all finally get to see some wins.

Far k me McGovern can clunk a mark. 

We absosutely take the game on, risk taking enjoyable footy. It can be turned over but when it works.. such exciting footy.

Darcy.. "Tom Oliver" after Plugger McDonald had just kicked 2 in a row in the 3rd. Maybe study the team sheets in your Mediterranean cruise goose.

[Cards13 9,117]

Nibbler... he does need to improve disposal but gee wiz his ability to get in the end of a chain to score with pure gut running is telling for us.

Buggy and Nibbles, not fashionable but the intensity they bring works.

[MT64 1,144]

23 hours ago, xarronn said:

MT64, you're mixing two games up, - if I recollect correctly.

The game where Garland was moved forward was in 2012. It was against the Bombers alright and we won. In fact I think it was  the first win of Neeld's tenure. Garland only kicked two goals, but he was a match winner in a very low scoring game. This though was well past the so-called tanking years.

The tanking accusations involved a game in 2009 against Carlton. Bails moved Jamar forward and for this move, the club was accused of tanking. Never mind the fact that he kicked 5 goals.

We were really crucified with that tanking rubbish when Demetriou went on leave and whats-his- name? took the opportunity to initiate an investigation against us, but ignored what other clubs had done.

 

I'm sure your right xarronn. By the way the vindictive clown at the AFL was Anderson. Since moved on for good reasons. From my memory Demetriou's hands were tied by the time he returned and had to let the "tanking" issue take it's course. The media were ferral about it but clearly ignored other clubs doing the same. A direction from Anderson to the media????  By golly Demetriou  couldn't get rid of Anderson fast enough after that. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

50 minutes ago, TheCurseisBroken said:

Does anyone know the rule to where the mark should be placed if the ball is taken in the air whilst the player is on the move? Should it come back to where the ball was grabbed, or should it be from where the person lands, or where they end up if they fall to the ground?

Believe it or not, there is nothing in the rules to say where the mark is.

There is this ...

14.3  PLAYER TO BE AWARDED THE MARK
(a)  Where a field Umpire is of the opinion that a Player has taken a Mark,  
the field Umpire shall award the Mark to the Player at the location on  
the Playing Surface where the Mark was taken.

But nowhere does it define where the mark is "taken".

Closest we get is here:

14.2  PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES
(a)  For the avoidance of doubt, a Mark shall be awarded if:
(i)  a Player catches or takes control of the football before it has passed
completely over the Boundary Line, Goal Line or Behind Line; or
(ii)  before the football was caught or controlled by the Player, it was
touched by an Umpire or any other Official.

Which might help when the ball was going to go out but doesn't help in Pedo's situation.

 

21 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I had the same query when watching.

On the one hand I suppose it makes sense that the mark is where you land but then what happens if you mark it on one side of the boundary line but then fall over (without juggling the ball in the process)?

That latter situation couldn't have the mark set outside the field of play so then maybe it's supposed to be where the mark is originally held.

It's where you "catch" it or "take control" but in the boundary line scenario, if you catch it inside the line and land outside the line, it's a mark and therefore inside the playing surface.

Why then for Pedo and all other players, is it where you land? Especially when it's not even defined in the rules.

Just another instance of the umps department working off a version of the rules that exists only in their heads.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

7 hours ago, DeeWiz said:

Confessions of a bandwagoner...

I'm a born and bred Western Australian. I was never a big AFL fan, but obviously growing up in this state you can't help but have some interest or background knowledge of the sport as it dominates the news cycle.

My wife is a proud Victorian, a lifelong supporter of the Melbourne Football Club. The year was 2014 and after a couple beers with a mate, I took it upon myself to adopt a club and try get a bit more interested in the sport of AFL. I had just heard that Paul Roos had become coach of the MFC and given the natural link through my wife, I decided that I would adopt the Dees as my club and jokingly at the time call myself a Dees bandwagon supporter.

........

Not bad for the first live MFC game. Fair to say, this bandwagoner is now a MFC fan for life.

 

[Earl Hood 6,086]

46 minutes ago, titan_uranus said:

I had the same query when watching.

On the one hand I suppose it makes sense that the mark is where you land but then what happens if you mark it on one side of the boundary line but then fall over (without juggling the ball in the process)?

That latter situation couldn't have the mark set outside the field of play so then maybe it's supposed to be where the mark is originally held.

It should be where you are first deemed to take control of the ball not where you land in the process of taking the mark unless you have juggled it all the way. This is what I proclaimed in the 1987 preliminary final when Simon Eishold took a lunging chest mark in our goal square but then slide off to the pocket and was asked to kick from near the boundary line and shanked it, instead of being able to line up dead in front. Harry Beitsel at the time said you would pay the mark where the player ends up but that is [censored] because if I take a lunging mark running back toward the goal line with the flight of the ball and slide past the goal line, do I then line up on the boundary fence and then kick back thru the goals for six points? 

Its OK I have had theraputic help over this issue and have since made a full recovery over the 87 final loss to The Dorks! Well sort of. 

Edited June 26, 2017 by Earl Hood

[Cards13 9,117]

Bernie did some nice things.

Will Nev go down as the most underrated 200 gamer we've ever had? 

Hibbs... steal of the century, will go close to winning us a flag.

[sue 9,102]

 

3 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

It should be where you are first deemed to take control of the ball not where you land in the process of taking the mark unless you have juggled it all the way. This is what I proclaimed in the 1987 preliminary final when Simon Eishold took a lunging chest mark in our goal square but then slide off to the pocket and was asked to kick from near the boundary line and shanked it, instead of being able to line up dead in front. Harry Beitsel at the time said you would pay the mark where the player ends up but that is [censored] because if I take a lunging mark running back toward the goal line with the flight of the ball and slide past the goal line, do I then line up on the boundary fence and then kick back thru the goals for six points? 

Its OK I have had theraputic help over this issue and have since made a full recovery over the 87 final loss to The Dorks! Well sort of. 

Well put.  I play a sport where the rules look like they were written by a bunch of nit-picking lawyers.  They are dense to read but they cut out the sort of ambiguity that allows an umpire like Harry B making such patently silly calls.  The AFL should try writing the rules properly to eliminate both misinterpretations and interpretations.

[Deestroy All 14,265]

45 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Nibbler... he does need to improve disposal but gee wiz his ability to get in the end of a chain to score with pure gut running is telling for us.

Buggy and Nibbles, not fashionable but the intensity they bring works.

His running has really won me over. He never stops. I've always thought him way too vanilla. But if he can improve his skills he'll be a very handy player, he's quite handy already. 

[Cards13 9,117]

1 hour ago, Deestroy All said:

His running has really won me over. He never stops. I've always thought him way too vanilla. But if he can improve his skills he'll be a very handy player, he's quite handy already. 

We have bemoaned players like Morts, Gys, Tappy, Sylvia etc who gave half of what Nibbles does. The slight skills/decision making improvement will see him become another long term lock in piece. 

[Beetle 4,653]

2 hours ago, Cards13 said:

Nibbler... he does need to improve disposal but gee wiz his ability to get in the end of a chain to score with pure gut running is telling for us.

Buggy and Nibbles, not fashionable but the intensity they bring works.

These players are the exact type of players that win you finals.

[nomed 113]

Could not post Saturday night.

Lived in Perth since 2000, haven't seen Melbourne win since 2004 in the rain against Freo.

Sat at Subiaco in the rain, when it was cold, when it was hot, at the City end with the sun in your eyes and couldn't see the far end of the ground.

Put up with drunks and moronic West Coast and Fremantle supporters. One drunk wanted to fight Mrs Nomed a few years ago because she cheered a Dee's goal (we left the ground).

Watched year after year of massive disparities in free kick counts, head duckers and thugs roughing up weak Melbourne teams. Lost carton after carton of beers and packets of TIm Tams.

And then this game......

• We beat the crowd!
• We beat the umpires!
• We beat the Eagles!

[monoccular 17,427]

3 hours ago, TheCurseisBroken said:

Does anyone know the rule to where the mark should be placed if the ball is taken in the air whilst the player is on the move? Should it come back to where the ball was grabbed, or should it be from where the person lands, or where they end up if they fall to the ground?

Just wondering as in Q4 Pedersen was made to kick from where he ended up on the ground after he marked the ball against Mitchell in the air with momentum. It made a difference to the angle of the kick and he kicked a behind to make it 93-96. It didn't matter in the end but I noticed it whilst watching the replay

Do the umpires know?

Does their advisor / coach know?

Does Gil know?  He could set up a survey to try to find out.  

 

[Deestroy All 14,265]

Over at Punt (typo) Road End someone reckons ASADA should investigate us because we "never stop running."

Well Richmond, that's just what you have to do to run out close games. 

Secondly, how refreshing. I remember when we didn't even spread in the first quarter not so long ago. 

[Gorgoroth 12,947]

Saw a tweet that a supporter dislocated his shoulder celebrating tmacs goal ?

 

 

Edited June 26, 2017 by Gorgoroth
Added link

[FarNorthernD 5,861]

If you haven't read enough about our glorious victory in the West here is a snippet from the Demonblog and his excellent Every Day Is Sunday blog

For the full extensive write up ...... http://mfcdemonblog.blogspot.com.au

"After multiple six day breaks, on that ground, against that team, to build a fort inside the eight, without Hogan, Watts, Jones, Salem on the bench with frozen peas strapped to his hammy, Garlett struggling to move, Viney playing through injury, Gawn in his first game in three months, with a full-back who didn't kick a goal in his first 64 games leading the attack, and a three goal deficit deep into the last quarter. There weren't many more obscure angles available other than aliens landing in the middle of the ground and ushering Basil Zempilas back onto the spaceship".

[pineapple dee 2,892]

My favourite bit of this game is the bit where Oliver gathers the ball from the last boundary throw in and gives off to Hibberd who puts it to the goal square. For both of those possessions, Luke Shuey was flapping around but not able to have any impact on either possession though he was close. 

Shuey's one of their best players no doubt, so to get one over Shuey is so sweet. 

[Little Richard 6,262]

Tom McDonald in the team of the week as a forward... who'd have predicted that before Saturday!?

[Kumamoto_Ken 1,531]

On ‎25‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 8:50 PM, leucopogon said:

Ken, love the kegarator, but it's the wrong shade of red ?

I blame Masters hardware...no wonder they went belly-up!

[jnrmac 20,060]

Still annoyed at the ridiculous free kick count 27 - 16. There really needs to be an investigation into umpiring at interstate venues. It is appalling.

After watching the replay multiple times there are some astounding decisions. The free that got Petrie one of his goals was a shocker. He simply dropped his knees and fell to the ground. Even the Viney one where he flattened Hurn was arguably not a free. Both players with eyes for the ball and Viney attempting to mark - if Jeremy Howe knees someone in the head while attempting a speccy that is not a free so why should the Viney one be a free?

The Oscar Mac free for front on contact was another bad decision gifting a goal to WCE as was the Lewis 50m penalty on Hutchings.

West Coast are not that good and would be happy to meet them in a final at the G any day. 

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by jnrmac

[Fat Tony 5,228]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Still annoyed at the ridiculous free kick count 27 - 16. There really needs to be an investigation into umpiring at interstate venues. It is appalling.

After watching the replay multiple times there are some astounding decisions. The free that got Petrie one of his goals was a shocker. He simply dropped his knees and fell to the ground. Even the Viney one where he flattened Hurn was arguably not a free. Both players with eyes for the ball and Viney attempting to mark - if Jeremy Howe knees someone in the head while attempting a speccy that is not a free so why should the Viney one be a free?

The Oscar Mac free for front on contact was another bad decision gifting a goal to WCE as was the Lewis 50m penalty on Hutchings.

West Coast are not that good and would be happy to meet them in a final at the G any day. 

 

And the free against Garlett after the WCE kick in that should have gone the other way for a certain goal.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

One more time...

Edited June 27, 2017 by Wadda We Sing

[daisycutter 29,613]

14 minutes ago, Fat Tony said:

And the free against Garlett after the WCE kick in that should have gone the other way for a certain goal.

And even worse was frost being tripped resulting in a weagle goal. not one commentator picked up on it, during or after the game. watch the replay, as clear as anything 

[pikeout 41]

The one where Frost got tripped breaking away. Grabbed by the ankle. .