POST MATCH DISCUSSION - Round 16

[Pates 9,660]

4 minutes ago, Skuit said:

If ANB had taken the full-allotment and turned around and kicked 15m laterally toward the boundary or slightly backwards to a player within say a fifty-sixty meter range (Tmac for example, who would be more of a bet from that position than ANB from 40m), there would be serious media/public fall-out this week and a working committee assembled to come up with some adjustment in the rules. It demonstrates there's an issue. And that the AFL doesn't generally conduct thought experiments when implementing new rules.

I disagree that there's an issue, I've always known there to be a lengthy amount of time for players being able to line up for goal. It's been made an even 30 seconds now and it gets utilised in tight contests. Good luck to those doing it, too bad for the opposing team. Next time man up. 

[Skuit 10,031]

Just now, Pates said:

I disagree that there's an issue, I've always known there to be a lengthy amount of time for players being able to line up for goal. It's been made an even 30 seconds now and it gets utilised in tight contests. Good luck to those doing it, too bad for the opposing team. Next time man up. 

I'm not saying I personally think it's an issue. But if a slight alteration in the events on the w/e would have likely led to a serious public outcry followed by ad hoc AFLHQ tinkering, then they haven't thought it through or they have a contingency without a plan.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

8 hours ago, Vagg said:

Jason Dunstall had a little rant last night about this.  Reckoned that, as ANB had taken his 30 seconds before dishing off to Lewis, that Lewis should not have been allowed another 30 seconds.  Was moaning that it was blatant abuse of the rules to run down the clock

 

7 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

While players have 30 seconds, if umpires think they are running down the clock they can call play on before the 30 seconds is up.

 

6 hours ago, Bay Riffin said:

there was no gamble. it was safe as houses, unless an umpire wants to not follow the rules of the game.

 

4 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

To answer your question:  They also reinforced the umpires right to call play on before the 30 secs expires: "AFL football operations manager Simon Lethlean confirmed umpires will have the power to call 'play on' if a player is clearly seeking to delay the resumption of play by running the clock down". http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-06-29/afl-backflip-on-the-shot-clock

 

What rule.

None of this is in the AFL rules. It's not written anywhere. It's all in Lethlean's head.

Nothing that says when the 30 seconds starts.

Nothing that says when the ump can call play on.

Nothing that says what happens if the player doesn't take a shot on goal.

They are literally making it up on the fly.

Only an incompetent organisation would do that. Or one that is corrupt. Or one that simply doesn't GAF. Take your pick.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

6 hours ago, Bay Riffin said:

An easy change to stop this would be to allow one shot on goal, and if passed to a marking player, they are deemed marks in general play and you get the standard 7 seconds, meaning you can compose yourself a little bit, but you have to move it on.

Nothing about 7 seconds either. Exists only in someone's head. But no one knows whose. No wonder the umps are so rooted this year. They're umpiring to rules that are figments of someone's imagination.

 

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

There are plenty of "rules" that are not actually rules.

Example. The "east west" thing in the "defensive third" of the ground. It was about the man on the mark earlier in the year. Controversial GWS/Richmond finish when Patton or was it Cameron did/didn't go over the mark when Martin did/didn't run off the line of the mark.

No mention of defensive third or attacking third in the rules. No mention of east west or even where the line of the mark is at all, except when shooting at goal. In which case it is defined. But if you're Buddy Franklin, you're allowed to run off it no problem. It's your "natural arc" which also is not in the rules.

Any other major comps in the world that have such casual disregard for their own rules?

The AFL don't GAF unless there are $$$$$ attached.

[chook fowler 19,519]

Boof  head Dunstan is on his own. Everybody else thought it was a clever strategy and showed the value of an experienced leader in a tight situation. If ANB had missed and the ball somehow  got to the other end to score and lose the game there would have been hell to pay. 

[monoccular 17,571]

9 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

 

 

 

 

.....

Only an incompetent organisation would do that. Or one that is corrupt. Or one that simply doesn't GAF. Take your pick.

Your use of the word "or" implies only one of those descriptions are appropriate for our AFL.

How about all three?

[Dees_In_October 3,493]

Even if the player decides to kick laterally or backwards, I still see it as being up to the defending team: either they choose to go one-on-one and eliminate any possibility of the opposition running down the clock, or they choose to flood the forward line in an attempt to stop the goal and to keep their players free to capitalise if there's a point or turnover. The team that has the ball, won it and possessing it is the advantage they get for doing so. It might look ugly, but it's a skill. Carlton would have done the same thing if 1) they had the ball and 2) we let them. But they didn't. Too bad, so sad.

[DEE fence 5,039]

On 10/07/2017 at 4:08 AM, Dees_In_October said:

'cos this is so good. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,271]

15 hours ago, DEMON DAVID said:

but apart from Kent who else do you drop.. surely not No 21  he is needed in the Team...

Stretch

[Dr. Gonzo 24,271]

12 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

I can't believe all this shot clock talk. It's seriously just whinging for the sake of it. 

"Get rid of the shot clock" why? Players are taking a set length of time, often shorter than they would back in the day. CB mentioned Lloyd, he'd take 45 seconds. If there was no shot clock Ben Brown would take 60 seconds. The 30 seconds is nothing new apart from being a set timeline. Players been milking set shot time since fire was invented. 

And as others have mentioned, clock management is a part of almost every single major sport in the world. 

These guys must lose their [censored] when the QB takes a knee in the NFL.

[Nasher 33,617]

12 hours ago, Deestroy All said:

I can't believe all this shot clock talk. It's seriously just whinging for the sake of it. 

"Get rid of the shot clock" why? Players are taking a set length of time, often shorter than they would back in the day. CB mentioned Lloyd, he'd take 45 seconds. If there was no shot clock Ben Brown would take 60 seconds. The 30 seconds is nothing new apart from being a set timeline. Players been milking set shot time since fire was invented. 

And as others have mentioned, clock management is a part of almost every single major sport in the world. 

There's something wrong with the way we (collectively) look at these things I think.  Pretty much every AFL fan I've ever come across wishes they'd stop farting about with the rules, but then as soon as something happens that upsets us, everyone madly start flipping through the rule book looking through which rule we can change to address it.  Then we wonder why our umpires can't police the game properly.

Like has been said a dozen times, this issue rearing its head is a problem for why Carlton are 16th on the ladder, not a problem for the rules committee.  ANB would have had to kick for goal if we'd been playing against Geelong, would probably have missed, and they'd have had a shot at winning.  But nah, it's the rules fault.

[BAMF 4,385]

On 10/07/2017 at 9:50 AM, jnrmac said:

The one that I am surprised has never been tried is when a player is kicking for goal from around 50m - defenders could allow themselves to be used as a stepladder so that a teamate can get a touch on the ball

Lol! I often think about this.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

Perhaps if the AFL were more willing to accept if an umpire makes a mistake they wouldn't come out on a Monday and make up new interpretations to justify an umpire's actions. It didn't happen in this specific instance, but I think it's part of the problem.

[Dante 2,739]

Umpires are too slow to react when a player plays on from a mark or free, the opposition players see that the player has moved off the line but are powerless to do anything until the nuffie with the whistle allows him. 

How many times do you see a player take a mark near the boundary line then move 15 or more metres in towards the middle so he has a better chance to pass the ball in to the forward line. That gives him options either side of the goals instead of having to kick it across goal or kick it long.

[sue 9,126]

2 hours ago, Dante said:

Umpires are too slow to react when a player plays on from a mark or free, the opposition players see that the player has moved off the line but are powerless to do anything until the nuffie with the whistle allows him. 

How many times do you see a player take a mark near the boundary line then move 15 or more metres in towards the middle so he has a better chance to pass the ball in to the forward line. That gives him options either side of the goals instead of having to kick it across goal or kick it long.

Totally agree with both points.  The solution (sound of poster mounting his hobby-horse) is to not have to wait for the umpire to call play on.  Let the player on the mark make the decision. If he is wrong award a 50m penalty. 

Under the current rule there are two other defects.  First the player on the mark often cannot hear the call - especially in a close final. Second the umpire is often so busy shouting at the player on the mark to 'hold' or step back a millimetre that he cannot simultaneously shout play on, thereby giving further advantage to the player with the ball.

I have never heard any reason to not reverse the onus of proof with this.  Anyone able to provide one?

(I'm still annoyed by the incidident near the start (I think) of the Carlton match where the umpire called the Carlton player to step back a metre. The  player totally ignored him. The ump was staring straight at him, waited a couple of seconds and then called play on.  No 50m penalty when they seemed only too happy to pay dubious ones.)

Edited July 12, 2017 by sue

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

Just a random thought how good was Hibberd's sizzling kick out of defense to split the two Carlton players and hit our player on the [censored].

[Wiseblood 24,637]

11 minutes ago, Devil is in the Detail said:

Just a random thought how good was Hibberd's sizzling kick out of defense to split the two Carlton players and hit our player on the [censored].

On the what? 

[Devil is in the Detail 883]

59 minutes ago, Wiseblood said:

On the what? 

Female's chest

[Adam The God 30,403]

On 7/11/2017 at 2:54 PM, Nasher said:

Wonder what @A F thought of the game? Not like him not to get involved on the argy bargy. No activity since Saturday in fact.

Haha, sorry mate. Have been dealing with a $200k film application. Needed to focus this week.

I went along with a Carlton mate and we both kept saying our teams would lose it at the death.

As soon as the game finished, we shook hands and as I was driving him home, we left straight away. So I missed the celebrations. I hate Carlton and would have lapped it up. 

Anyway, thought the usuals were terrific. Oliver, Jetta, Petracca, Gawn and Hibberd. Thought Kent played one of the worst games of football I can recall though.

I'm too exhausted to post much more in the last few weeks. Struggling to get involved. But loving our competitive edge and Goodwin's coaching.

I don't give us much chance against Adelaide without more midfield reinforcements. I noticed on Instagram that Tyson didn't get up, so it leaves us very thin in the midfield. Having said this, I didn't give us a chance the first time around against the Crows, nor against the Eagles or the Bulldogs, so who knows. One thing I do feel though is that if we beat Adelaide this weekend, we're a massive chance for the top 4 and our top 8 position is close to locked.

[leucopogon 1,519]

Having watched the replay, Hannan had a bloody terrific game. I'd love to see his metres gained stat. He's been a revelation this season.

[rpfc 28,734]

16 hours ago, leucopogon said:

Having watched the replay, Hannan had a bloody terrific game. I'd love to see his metres gained stat. He's been a revelation this season.

He had 291 metres gained, 9th in the team. Top 5 were:

Frost (446), Hibberd (413), Hunt (413), Melksham (355), Vince (349).

[leucopogon 1,519]

Cheers for the stats

[Skuit 10,031]

1 hour ago, rpfc said:

He had 291 metres gained, 9th in the team. Top 5 were:

Frost (446), Hibberd (413), Hunt (413), Melksham (355), Vince (349).

Now, can you explain meters gained for me?

[daisycutter 29,710]

41 minutes ago, Skuit said:

Now, can you explain meters gained for me?

it's what happens when the members stand yell out "just kick the f'n thing" and player no. x obliges