26 minutes ago, A F said:

Lever took his eyes off the ball before he got the elbow in the face. That free kick was there for mine.

Where in the rule book does it say you can't take your eyes off the ball as you're trying to position yourself ?

In fact, where do eyes get mentioned in the rule book ?

2 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Where in the rule book does it say you can't take your eyes off the ball as you're trying to position yourself ?

In fact, where do eyes get mentioned in the rule book ?

As soon as you look at your opponent, which is what he did, and take your eyes off the ball, a free kick is paid. This has been happening for years.

2 minutes ago, A F said:

As soon as you look at your opponent, which is what he did, and take your eyes off the ball, a free kick is paid. This has been happening for years.

I know.  

I don't agree with the interpretation.  If you illegally infringe it should be a free kick.  Where you're looking should have zero to do with it.

20 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

They kicked 5.3 in the first quarter and the first 4 un-answered.

So it was close to a six goal run in a quarter.

You are dodging the real issue though. Which you did earlier in the year and so do many other supporters on here.

The next two games are going to be a massive slap in the face for many on here who only choose to look at positives in our game. 

Hawthorn and Richmond will punish us if we have any sort of lapse. Absolutely punish us.

i totally agree. all of these supporters who said like 'a wins a win', 'we steadied and won', 'we broke the hoodoo' etc. are missing out on the fact that our poor form is going to expose us very soon against good opposition. 

the hawthorn game will be over at quarter time if we dish up the same nonsense we did against north. 

5 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I know.  

I don't agree with the interpretation.  If you illegally infringe it should be a free kick.  Where you're looking should have zero to do with it.

I agree with you.

The taking the legs rule has also become farcical.

But the players know this will be paid, so it was a silly one to give away. This IMO was an inexperienced free kick.

2 minutes ago, A F said:

I agree with you.

The taking the legs rule has also become farcical.

I agree with that too.

It was a knee-jerk reaction by the AFL over the Lindsay Thomas/Garry Rohan incident.

Now there's a disincentive to attack the contest and attack the footy.  I hate it.

1 hour ago, A F said:

Lever took his eyes off the ball before he got the elbow in the face. That free kick was there for mine.

No way! Even taking your eye off the ball you can't hit someone in the head. Free kick should have been Lever's not Goldstein's.

"One kick away from 3-0" is deceiving. Geelong are a dubious prospect, while Brisbane and North are also-rans.

We use the ball like we did against North and the good sides will slaughter us.

We are spluttering along.

Viney is our most important player (with Max) and TMac is a key piece of our puzzle.

I don't expect to beat Hawthorn. Feel free to slap me around if we win. I won't feel it.

But I am really looking forward to Richmond.

1 hour ago, A F said:

Lever took his eyes off the ball before he got the elbow in the face. That free kick was there for mine.

Are you mates with umpire 26?

https://www.theroar.tv/lever-concedes-a-free-kick-despite-copping-an-elbow-to-the-head/?utm_source=aflmemes&utm_medium=facebooklink&utm_campaign=affiliates

Laughable.

1 hour ago, A F said:

Lever took his eyes off the ball before he got the elbow in the face. That free kick was there for mine.

You are allowed to take your eyes off the ball, as long as you don't interfere with your opponent. (Sometimes the umpires preempt this and make mistakes.)

Lever looked away, then copped an elbow/forearm to the bonce. Free to Lever, for me.

1 hour ago, A F said:

As soon as you look at your opponent, which is what he did, and take your eyes off the ball, a free kick is paid. This has been happening for years.

If it says in the rulebook that you are not allowed to look at your opponent, even if you don't touch your opponent, the rulebook is a farce.

1 hour ago, A F said:

I agree with you.

The taking the legs rule has also become farcical.

But the players know this will be paid, so it was a silly one to give away. This IMO was an inexperienced free kick.

Its actually quite dangerous if you tell players they are not allowed to look back at where they're going when backing into a pack. Players should be allowed to have a quick look to ensure they won't cop a knee or something to the head or cause a head clash as long as they don't interfere with another player going for a mark.

He hasn’t made any bold statements, it’s more more of a no sh— Sherlock statement. 

Some people seem to think he’s biased against us but I actually feel like he likes what we’re building. 

25 minutes ago, Tony Tea said:

You are allowed to take your eyes off the ball, as long as you don't interfere with your opponent. (Sometimes the umpires preempt this and make mistakes.)

Lever looked away, then copped an elbow/forearm to the bonce. Free to Lever, for me.

Totally agree, he looked back and then turned his head to look back at the ball and copped an elbow before any possible interference took place. Absolutely high contact free. 

2 hours ago, A F said:

As soon as you look at your opponent, which is what he did, and take your eyes off the ball, a free kick is paid. This has been happening for years.

No it hasn’t, if you take your eyes off the ball, and THEN make body contact blocking an opponent from the marking contest then it’s a free for blocking. 

The only part of Lever’s body to make contact with his opponent is his head, with his opponents elbow. It has to be a high free to Lever, high contact is not allowed in marking contests, if the umpire missed the contact between Lever’s head and Goldstein’s elbow then it is play on as there is no other contact to constitute blocking. The only option it can’t be is free kick North, which of course the pathetic excuse for an umpire payed.

You are implying you can’t look at your opponent in a marking contest, that is totally wrong, you can look at them as long as you then go for the ball. If you look at your opponent and then mark the ball, or punch the ball away it’s totally fine, if you look at your opponent and then both miss the ball and don’t make contact with each other, play on. The only way it’s a free is if you take your eyes off the ball then impede your opponents ability to contest the mark.

The replay shows Lever made some front contact with Goldy as he was pushing into the contest. I thought that's what the free was for. It's clear that Lever was not going for the ball but interfering with the man who was, hence his eyes weren't on the ball. The elbow to the head was a free only if Lever didn't make any front contact.

7 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

The replay shows Lever made some front contact with Goldy as he was pushing into the contest. I thought that's what the free was for. It's clear that Lever was not going for the ball but interfering with the man who was, hence his eyes weren't on the ball. The elbow to the head was a free only if Lever didn't make any front contact.

It doesn't work that way.

That's like saying a player had prior opportunity, was tackled around the neck and therefore it is holding the ball.

Genuinely excited for the Richmond game! We would have had them last year if we weren’t playing 1 on the bench and no rucks. 

23 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

It doesn't work that way.

That's like saying a player had prior opportunity, was tackled around the neck and therefore it is holding the ball.

Isn't the rule about making front-on contact when not playing the ball (as exampled by not looking at the ball)?

Also if you look at the last vision of that clip you linked (side on shot) it's pretty clear that Lever was making front contact to stop Goldy's run at the mark and let Oscar become the intercept. To my mind that's blocking.

In that situation the umpire will always reward the player going for the ball

At very best it was play on, but in all likely hood it was correctly paid

6 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Isn't the rule about making front-on contact when not playing the ball (as exampled by not looking at the ball)?

Also if you look at the last vision of that clip you linked (side on shot) it's pretty clear that Lever was making front contact to stop Goldy's run at the mark and let Oscar become the intercept. To my mind that's blocking.

At very best it was play on, but in all likely hood it was correctly paid

I have now watched that replay multiple times, freeze framed several shots and I see nothing that consitutes front on contact from Lever, his arm is out across Goldstein, but isn’t touching him, you are allowed to do this, it’s called framing, Defenders are coached to do it, it doesn’t constitute contact unless they hit them with the arm or hold them.

The only part of Lever that contacts Goldstein is his head and shoulders when Goldstein pushes his elbow into them, that does not constitute front on contact and would likely be deemed insufficient contact in Basketball let alone footy. Goldstein also drives his knee into Lever, but again it is minimal and the contact is initiated by Goldstein, after he has elbowed Lever in the head. The major contact is Goldstein’s elbow to the head, that’s it.

For it to have been a block Lever would’ve needed to actually have his arm, chest, side, leg etc actually bump into Goldstein. It’s a high free kick or play on. That’s it.

Also the front on contact rule would only apply if Lever hit Goldstein’s front, Lever’s head/shoulders hit Goldstein’s side, his arm, that is not front on contact.

3 hours ago, A F said:

As soon as you look at your opponent, which is what he did, and take your eyes off the ball, a free kick is paid. This has been happening for years.

No - it's been a free kick *if* the glance at the opponent is followed by a block. That's the first time I reckon I've ever seen a free kick paid for looking at your opponent. It was an utterly ridiculous decision both in the context of the rules, *and* in the context of previous decisions paid.

29 minutes ago, deejammin' said:

I have now watched that replay multiple times, freeze framed several shots and I see nothing that consitutes front on contact from Lever, his arm is out across Goldstein, but isn’t touching him, you are allowed to do this, it’s called framing, Defenders are coached to do it, it doesn’t constitute contact unless they hit them with the arm or hold them.

The only part of Lever that contacts Goldstein is his head and shoulders when Goldstein pushes his elbow into them, that does not constitute front on contact and would likely be deemed insufficient contact in Basketball let alone footy. Goldstein also drives his knee into Lever, but again it is minimal and the contact is initiated by Goldstein, after he has elbowed Lever in the head. The major contact is Goldstein’s elbow to the head, that’s it.

For it to have been a block Lever would’ve needed to actually have his arm, chest, side, leg etc actually bump into Goldstein. It’s a high free kick or play on. That’s it.

Also the front on contact rule would only apply if Lever hit Goldstein’s front, Lever’s head/shoulders hit Goldstein’s side, his arm, that is not front on contact.

You must've missed the last side-on shot where Lever's right arm contacts his opponent's midriff shortly followed by an elbow to the head from the outstretched arm going for the mark. And it looked like Lever's left arm was also making contact around Goldy's body at the same time.

Put it this way: one player was going towards the ball attempting to mark it. The other was running back into his opponent without his eyes on the ball. At no point was I convinced Lever was going for the ball. His last 4 steps were spent looking in the opposite direction. In that case the umpire always rewards the player going for the ball. Lever was inevitably going to make front contact and did. The elbow to the head looked bad, but was secondary to the interference on the ball player

If the jumpers were reversed I'm certain 99.9% on here would agree with the decision. I disregard Roosy's commentating view as he's clearly biased.

But I'll agree to disagree and move on.

3 hours ago, Tony Tea said:

"One kick away from 3-0" is deceiving. Geelong are a dubious prospect, while Brisbane and North are also-rans.

We use the ball like we did against North and the good sides will slaughter us.

We are spluttering along.

Viney is our most important player (with Max) and TMac is a key piece of our puzzle.

I don't expect to beat Hawthorn. Feel free to slap me around if we win. I won't feel it.

But I am really looking forward to Richmond.

IMO we sit somewhere between spluttering on and dominating.

We are the highest scoring team in the comp, we have a heap of inside 50s, our guys are getting their hands on it regularly, but we're not using the ball as well as we could.

We are in the top 4 as a result of our heavy scoring. So that's handy and points to an improvement. It also points to the fierceness of the entire competition this season. Anyone can beat anyone. Being in the top 4 when we're not playing our best footy, but still statistically dominant in a number of categories means that we've got tremendous room for improvement.

I disagree with the notion that Brisbane or North are also runs. They can potentially beat anyone on their days. But they won't finish anywhere near the top 8. We will, because we're beating them and winning the games we should win (Geelong being the exception).

I agree that Richmond and Hawthorn will make us pay for poor decision making/skills, but neither of those teams are as good as they're made out to be either. Hawthorn aren't as good by foot as they once were and Richmond can still turn it over heavily. So it comes down to ensuring we make them pay for their errors as well.

If we can out tackle the opposition in our forward 50, we will win both games. Our statistical advantage over the entire competition at the moment is our ability to get it in there. A fit Gawn and Oliver will go a long way towards ensuring we achieve those forward 50 thrusts.

I reckon we're building and if our half forwards bring the tackle pressure and we keep our midfield pressure up in both games, the opposition won't have enough inside 50s to hurt us if we take our chances in front of the sticks.

3 hours ago, Tony Tea said:

You are allowed to take your eyes off the ball, as long as you don't interfere with your opponent. (Sometimes the umpires preempt this and make mistakes.)

Lever looked away, then copped an elbow/forearm to the bonce. Free to Lever, for me.

I agree. It's not the correct interpretation, but it is a consistent interpretation from the umpires. When you take your eyes off the ball as it is in flight, coming inside 50 (often in one-on-one situations), the umpire usually pays the free against the defender.

21 hours ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Your'e sharing absolutely nothing new like always, I don't know why you even bother responding. It's seriously pointless.

I respond in an attempt to counter your constant negativity, talk about bringing nothing new

I am not toeing the line, I speak to the players, I actually know some of the areas some players have to work on

I am as disappointed with the fadeouts, if that's the term, I am sure Port wouldn't call their second half against Brisbane a fade out, Brisbane lifted like they did against us

We will eventually get the hang of stopping a team's momentum, against North we managed to do just that, against a 'better' team, maybe not just yet