Round 22 - Non MFC Games

[titan_uranus 25,013]

As far as I can tell, if we win both games:

1. We finish 7th - to finish any higher requires Port or Richmond to lose both games. Given Port has GC next week and Richmond has Fremantle this week, that is extremely unlikely.
2. If we finish 7th, our opponent almost entirely depends on the WB-Port game - if Port lose it, they'll likely finish 6th, but if they win, then they could pass Sydney on percentage and finish 5th, pushing Sydney to 6th (assuming both then win next week).
3. If Richmond lose one of their two remaining games, then they can finish 6th and host us in the first final.

If we only win one game:

1. We can't finish higher than 8th and our chance of finishing 8th hinges almost entirely on Port-WB - a Port win makes it much more likely we finish 8th.
2. If the Dogs win, though, then we need West Coast to lose both games (GWS/Adelaide) and we need Essendon to either lose one of their last two or, alternatively, we need to beat Essendon's percentage. If Essendon wins both games, though, that becomes unlikely (we'll have to have a massive win and then a tiny loss).
3. If we finish 8th we're likely to get Port (as in all likelihood Port will have beaten the Dogs today). If we get through by beating Essendon on percentage, we can end up with Sydney (i.e. Port lose to the Dogs and slip to 7th).

[BenJamin on Deesy St 805]

11 hours ago, Macca said:

Ok, if we happen to meet the Swans in the finals so be it.

Honestly, after all this time it would be great to just get some September action.

We haven't met the Swans in a final since 1987 when we obliterated them (against all odds)

Bring it.

 

Yes, how good was that!! Especially coming after the annihilation of North the week before. 23 years in the making then (hadn't played finals since 1964). Hopefully, 'only' 11 years out of it this time.

[daisycutter 29,613]

1 hour ago, sue said:

Leaving aside the temptation to say umpires and commonsense don't mix, it is only extremely rarely that they don't pay a 50 if the player tackles etc before they shout play on.  Making a decision after the fact seems better than simultaneously shouting " 2 metres back Fred , move it on, play on" simultaneously.   How often do we see the player play on well before the umpire calls play on. (Rhetorical question)

 

you'r right about commonsense, sue. however you are misinformed about the rule book. 90% of umpire rulings you won't find in the rule book. the afl are very averse to documenting rules in their little book

[jnrmac 20,059]

11 hours ago, deanox said:

Actually that's not correct.  Mills never went back behind his mark, which means Betts had every right to tackle him. You can't even claim Betts came from behind because Betts was actually standing on the mark adder Mills wandered forward.  

There were only two justifiable decisions, play on (thus holding the ball) or stopping play and bringing Mills back behind his own mark. 

The idea that a player can mark the ball, keep walking forward but it not be play on until the umpire calls play on is not represented in the rules. IF Mills went back behind his mark first then no problems with the umpire having to call play on before the tackle could be laid. But that isnt what happened.  

You do see it all the time where a player marks and starts to move sideways - particularly in the back half of the ground. The ump is often slow to call play on but if the player on the mark runs at him he will get pinged for 50.

[jnrmac 20,059]

Won't it be fun for Port and the Bulldogs playing in Ballarat today. Currently 8 deg and raining.

[brendan 3,437]

19 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Won't it be fun for Port and the Bulldogs playing in Ballarat today. Currently 8 deg and raining.

It's absolutely freezing here, evens chance for snow the players won't know what hit them, the ground at nth ballarat has always been freezing cops a bit of wind not sure if new grandstand stops any 

[hardtack 10,537]

1 hour ago, JV7 said:

There's 2 spots in the 8... I'm predicting we finish 7th & essendon scrap into 8th on %

Edit: if we lost 1 of the next 2 and results went as I stated above we'd finish 8th & Essendon 7th....

I hope you're right

[deanox 9,913]

31 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You do see it all the time where a player marks and starts to move sideways - particularly in the back half of the ground. The ump is often slow to call play on but if the player on the mark runs at him he will get pinged for 50.

Its actually a different situation. In that case, the player has complied wth law 16.2 which requires first that "A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall dispose of the football 
from directly behind The Mark."

 

Because Mills never went back behind the mark there is only one correct decision: blow the whistle, stop play and ask Mills to return behind the mark.

There could be a case for the umpire to decide that Mills was not claiming the mark as her kept moving forward, which would allow a holding the ball decision, but this would be a strange interpretation. 

Only when a player is correctly attempting to dispose "from behind the mark" would the rest of law 16.2 apply and a 50m apply. 

[GCDee 3,199]

Go port!

 

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Port will get creamed today

Dogs last stand

we must win tomorrow

[SaberFang 7,151]

My dream scenario is Dogs, Bombers and Eagles losing this weekend. It would virtually lock us into the 8, assuming we can get over the Lions tomorrow (after the North, Dockers and Hawks losses, I'm not so naive as to assume any wins this year).

Dogs or Bombers losing is essentially a nail in the coffin to their finals chances, barring us or the Eagles losing all our matches from here.

If the Dogs win their last 2 matches, 12 wins won't be enough for us to make it. We'd need both the Eagles & Bombers to lose a game and for the Eagles to get smashed in the process (as their percentage is comparable to ours).

Edited August 19, 2017 by SaberFang

[Return to Glory 8,435]

3 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Port will get creamed today

Dogs last stand

we must win tomorrow

I think the dam wall will bust for the Doggies today SWYL. And they haven't been helped by the contrasting decisions of Redpath getting 3 weeks for a push and Wines escaping the high hit (that was staggering)

[DubDee 25,847]

Stringer has done his hammy. No redpath. And they have the wind this Q. 

Port should get it done. Dogs can't score

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

3 minutes ago, Return to Glory said:

I think the dam wall will bust for the Doggies today SWYL. And they haven't been helped by the contrasting decisions of Redpath getting 3 weeks for a push and Wines escaping the high hit (that was staggering)

You could well be right RTG

i forgot about the disgraceful MRP decisions last week

[SaberFang 7,151]

Other than beating the Lions, the Dogs losing is probably the single most important result for us this weekend.

Though the Eagles getting their percentage smashed by GWS and the Bombers dropping another gimme-win would be icing on the cake for our chances.

[Jibroni 5,003]

That was the worst 50metre against Westhoff I've seen this year. Port doing ok considering the breeze is worth at least 3 goals.

[SaberFang 7,151]

[censored], even Cloke's kicking goals now.

How embarrassing.

Edited August 19, 2017 by SaberFang

[Jibroni 5,003]

6 minutes ago, SaberFang said:

Other than beating the Lions, the Dogs losing is probably the single most important result for us this weekend.

Though the Eagles getting their percentage smashed by GWS and the Bombers dropping another gimme-win would be icing on the cake for our chances.

Agree would be great to have a top 8 spot sewn up by this weekend. In addition Richmond losing would make the prefect icing!

[david_neitz_is_my_dad 4,083]

Stingers done his string

[SaberFang 7,151]

Did Port have the wind as an advantage then? They're down by a goal at half-time.

Hopefully being down on rotations will hurt the Dogs by Q4, especially if the wind is a factor (tiring conditions to play footy in).

[dl4e 5,851]

50 minutes ago, Jibroni said:

That was the worst 50metre against Westhoff I've seen this year. Port doing ok considering the breeze is worth at least 3 goals.

Just a disgraceful decision. The umpires are ruining the game along with MRP and rule makers. It is like watching people play fairy floss with a ball.

[danielE288 779]

1 minute ago, SaberFang said:

Did Port have the wind as an advantage then? They're down by a goal at half-time.

Hopefully being down on rotations will hurt the Dogs by Q4, especially if the wind is a factor (tiring conditions to play footy in).

They did. Outplayed by Dogs. Hopefully you are right. On that quarter Dogs will win unfortunately. 

[GCDee 3,199]

I enjoyed watching razor get decked a little too much.

[Deemented Are Go! 3,677]

Just now, GCDee said:

I enjoyed watching razor get decked a little too much.

HAHAHAHA! For real?? What happened?

Please someone make a gif immediately

[GCDee 3,199]

1 minute ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

HAHAHAHA! For real?? What happened?

Please someone make a gif immediately

I'm sure there will be vision of it on the AFL website soon. 

Hartlett ran straight through him trying to get to a marking contest... it was pretty great.