"Lapse or Lethal Dees"

[sisso 2,580]

Can't understand why a few posters are writing us off against Hawthorn before the game even starts! They're not that good anymore, apart from Tom Mitchell their midfield is pretty ordinary and they have a slow backline. As long as we don't let them take 100 uncontested marks and play keepings off we will win.

Frawley is still a turnover merchant too.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

32 minutes ago, sisso said:

Can't understand why a few posters are writing us off against Hawthorn before the game even starts! They're not that good anymore, apart from Tom Mitchell their midfield is pretty ordinary and they have a slow backline. As long as we don't let them take 100 uncontested marks and play keepings off we will win.

Frawley is still a turnover merchant too.

The Richmond game was a massive reality check for them.

 

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

6 hours 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.

...and the umpires are trained to know that if the player takes his eye off the ball before contact, he is going to deliberately give away a free kick?????.........WTF!!!..........according to the commentators........hello, large deposit of smelly supposition, me thinks.

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

If Lever had have been wearing an Adelaide Jumper, he would have got a free and 50 for high contact........

[Adam The God 30,422]

I should clarify my post. 

That free kick was always going to be paid. I don't like it, but it's consistently paid.

[jnrmac 20,189]

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The Richmond game was a massive reality check for them.

 

The Toiges for some reason have a pretty good record against the Dorks. Even when they were shiite

[deejammin' 2,373]

3 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

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.

I took another look and I see what you’re talking about but I would still argue it wasn’t sufficient contact to be impeding Goldstein, it’s an ultra soft free if the arm is the issue. 

I’d like to believe I’d be arguing the same if it was the other way round. But I really hate north so I would probably be happy they were annoyed.

happy to agree to disagree, go dees, I hope we don’t have a “free kick Hawthorn” game this week.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,306]

1 hour ago, A F said:

I should clarify my post. 

That free kick was always going to be paid. I don't like it, but it's consistently paid.

Not if the defender gets hit in the head with an elbow though. Surely a head high supercedes front-on contact.

[Adam The God 30,422]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Not if the defender gets hit in the head with an elbow though. Surely a head high supercedes front-on contact.

Depends on the order. Historically, anyway.

[dpositive 1,698]

5 hours 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.

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

Isn't the head "sacrosanct" or was that the regime of the previous AFL CEO?

[Moonshadow 17,677]

55 minutes ago, dpositive said:

Isn't the head "sacrosanct" or was that the regime of the previous AFL CEO?

Lever copped a hit to the head because he ran into him front-on as Goldy's arms were up attempting to mark. Only one player was looking at the footy and going for the ball. In this case the umpire will pay a free to protect the ball player every time.

The head is probably sacrosanct when initiated by the opponent (eg. a tackle or bump) but not when accidental (head clash) or when the player likely caused it themself (running into a leading player whilst not playing the ball)

I would've liked a call of 'play on', but understand the free was more than likely correct

[titan_uranus 25,045]

8 hours ago, sisso said:

Can't understand why a few posters are writing us off against Hawthorn before the game even starts! They're not that good anymore, apart from Tom Mitchell their midfield is pretty ordinary and they have a slow backline. As long as we don't let them take 100 uncontested marks and play keepings off we will win.

Frawley is still a turnover merchant too.

Agree.

Hawthorn-Geelong games aren't always accurate measures of either side. Taking that one out, they had a routine win against a terrible Collingwood and then they looked slow and past it against Richmond.

They're certainly better than our last two opponents, but they're not dominant and they're not that much better than us, if at all.

[dpositive 1,698]

6 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Lever copped a hit to the head because he ran into him front-on as Goldy's arms were up attempting to mark. Only one player was looking at the footy and going for the ball. In this case the umpire will pay a free to protect the ball player every time.

The head is probably sacrosanct when initiated by the opponent (eg. a tackle or bump) but not when accidental (head clash) or when the player likely caused it themself (running into a leading player whilst not playing the ball)

I would've liked a call of 'play on', but understand the free was more than likely correct

Thanx MS

[bandicoot 1,395]

Im also concerned about the game style the coaches have adopted. It’s very much dependent on us winning the clearances and manic pressure. If this doesn’t happen we get caught out. 

 When we are on, we are on fire.  If there is a lapse then we let a run of goals happen.

there needs to be a fall back plan when we have a lapse of pressure.

hawks built a dynasty by playing keepings off by foot. This allows them to take the foot off the pedal without it costing them on the scoreboard. 

Our manic pressure football is unsustainable as it can’t be kept up 100% of the time. We need to start implementing hawthorns tempo style keepings off asap otherwise we will continue having inconsistent seasons. 

 

[Delusional demon 82 1,197]

3 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Im also concerned about the game style the coaches have adopted. It’s very much dependent on us winning the clearances and manic pressure. If this doesn’t happen we get caught out. 

 When we are on, we are on fire.  If there is a lapse then we let a run of goals happen.

there needs to be a fall back plan when we have a lapse of pressure.

hawks built a dynasty by playing keepings off by foot. This allows them to take the foot off the pedal without it costing them on the scoreboard. 

Our manic pressure football is unsustainable as it can’t be kept up 100% of the time. We need to start implementing hawthorns tempo style keepings off asap otherwise we will continue having inconsistent seasons. 

 

I did notice in the last quarter against norf once we had the 4 goal lead we were a lot more measured and patient, couple of times Lewis and jones held the ball up and we went laterally and built up our attack (as opposed to a quick press forward) , and each time norf got a goal we were able to respond in kind . I don’t think the game wasnt necessarily iced yet as there was still lots of time, but every time norf tried to pull one back we were composed and immediately responded, and looked comfortable that they weren’t able to get back to back goals and make a run against us 

[sue 9,145]

On 09/04/2018 at 8:53 PM, Nasher said:

Has anyone complaining about lapses actually watched any footy other than Melbourne games this year? Just curious because I've seen a few and haven't seen a single game where teams didn't have fits and spurts. 

True.  In fact if everything was 50:50 you might still get a run on. After a team scores a goal there is a 1 in 8 chance they will score the next 3 if it's like tossing a coin.  And since it isn't, the  chances are doubtless higher.

[Little Goffy 14,645]

King's ability to see what other can't and provide insight that is ahead of the moment is amazing.

Or not.

I guess sometimes he does see things other people don't, in so far as he sees things which aren't there!

[Dr. Gonzo 24,306]

7 hours ago, bandicoot said:

Im also concerned about the game style the coaches have adopted. It’s very much dependent on us winning the clearances and manic pressure. If this doesn’t happen we get caught out. 

 When we are on, we are on fire.  If there is a lapse then we let a run of goals happen.

there needs to be a fall back plan when we have a lapse of pressure.

hawks built a dynasty by playing keepings off by foot. This allows them to take the foot off the pedal without it costing them on the scoreboard. 

Our manic pressure football is unsustainable as it can’t be kept up 100% of the time. We need to start implementing hawthorns tempo style keepings off asap otherwise we will continue having inconsistent seasons. 

 

We did do this to some extent in the last quarter vs North. Jones and Lewis in particular looked for chip passes to take some time off the clock and sting from the game. We seem hesitant to control the ball going backwards though, we need to learn our opponent is not just the other team but also the clock.

@Delusional demon 82 beat me to it!

Edited April 11, 2018 by Dr. Gonzo

[What 18,810]

2 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

King's ability to see what other can't and provide insight that is ahead of the moment is amazing.

Or not.

I guess sometimes he does see things other people don't, in so far as he sees things which aren't there!

 

He called for Neeld to be sacked in his first season.  It was a bold call but he was 100% right, and every Demon supporter blindly defended Neeld and shouted King down.

[Deemania since 56 6,719]

On 09/04/2018 at 4:27 PM, ProDee said:

While I left the ground having had a bit of a reality check, I'm confident we'll be playing better footy in 5-6 weeks.

No teams are playing their best right now.  None.

Geelong, Port, Sydney, West Coast, GWS have all had "lapses".

If we hadn't had a single lapse it would have been pretty extraordinary.

The lapses aren't a massive issue for me, as I'm confident they'll go or be diminished when we're playing better footy.  It's more our defensive structures and ball movement that I'm  concerned about.

I'll let Steve worry about the odd "lapse".

Speaking of ProDee's post and, posting to someone who exposes his belief of living in a world full of injustice wherein criticisms are inately meant as a form of commentary (ie: a world where even the the essential motives of a chicken crossing the road cannot remain unquestioned), it is interesting to note that 'lapses' are in fact poor football experienced by all teams; if these reduce, a team is playing improved football and sadly, if these stay at the same frequency, a team loses the match. We cannot interfere with the clock of time by breathing; change must occur, now.

[Deemania since 56 6,719]

On 10/04/2018 at 8:32 AM, 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.

Lever saw the elbow coming without remorse or withdrawal and surely was entitled to turn his head and eyes away from that deliberate and sustained intent of contact - and to so do without penalty for self-preservation. This is an example of the naivety of umpires.

[BigFez 1,462]

16 hours ago, Moonshadow said:

Lever copped a hit to the head because he ran into him front-on as Goldy's arms were up attempting to mark. Only one player was looking at the footy and going for the ball. In this case the umpire will pay a free to protect the ball player every time.

The head is probably sacrosanct when initiated by the opponent (eg. a tackle or bump) but not when accidental (head clash) or when the player likely caused it themself (running into a leading player whilst not playing the ball)

I would've liked a call of 'play on', but understand the free was more than likely correct

Looked to me like two actions, one to elbow Lever in the head, and one to put his arms up.  Not sure this changes anything in terms of you analysis, which I completely agree with, apart from I think Goldy tried to engage Lever as he was running in, perhaps to draw a free.

Don't two wrongs make a right?  Play on for mine.

[Deemania since 56 6,719]

1 minute ago, BigFez said:

Looked to me like two actions, one to elbow Lever in the head, and one to put his arms up.  Not sure this changes anything in terms of you analysis, which I completely agree with, apart from I think Goldy tried to engage Lever as he was running in, perhaps to draw a free.

Don't two wrongs make a right?  Play on for mine.

I saw the incident with Brown, who elbowed Lever in the head without the umpire's whistle even raising from the hip to the mouth as he considered if a breach of rules had occurred and then decided that his interference would prevent Brown from obtaining another goal; and, that was the one to which I was commenting. I did see the other, with Goldy but it was relatively legitimate in outcome as Lever was out of position moving into a collision with the big bloke by any means, so to speak. 

[monoccular 17,576]

On 10/04/2018 at 9:33 AM, 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.

Rubbish.  Looking at an opponent then blocking him is, sure, but Lever did not block him (other that head butting Goldstein’s forearm I guess).  

 

19 hours ago, dpositive said:

Isn't the head "sacrosanct" or was that the regime of the previous AFL CEO?

Certain heads it seems are (Selwood, Ablett, in particular) but others are not

[monoccular 17,576]

21 hours ago, willmoy said:

If Lever had have been wearing an Adelaide Jumper, he would have got a free and 50 for high contact........

If Goldstein had been wearing a Melbourne one it would have been a report, and a 50.