I watched Scott's free conference. No mention of Melbourne and none of the journos (who sounded like they came from the Geelong Addy) had the wit to ask if Dangerfield's ruck ploy was a tactic worked out before the game for a forward pocket contest, or something he came up with spontaneously.

It would be interesting to know if Scott, who goes off like a two bob watch at umpire's decisions he does not like, is a rule bender like his cheats J Selwood and now Dangerfield.

What I do know is J Selwood cheats and Dangerfield cheats and both congratulate themselves when their con succeeds. I'd love to think we get another chance at them in the finals at a real football ground but I fear that moment has passed.

I wouldn't call it cheating, I would just call it taking advantage of a very stupid rule.

This is why footy fans have no faith in these clowns in charge of this "state of the game" rubbish. They bring in rules half cocked, and don't foresee any of the ridiculous side effects.

They don’t anticipate that some coaches will exploit new rules in a way that is not in the spirit of the game and that some will stubbornly not exploit them. If everybody either exploits them or does not exploit them, then it’s a level playing field. It’s when some do and some don’t that a problem exists.

Dangerflop did everything he could to make the ump see it, not to mention starting from 10m away. He acted like a five year old who started a fight and then tried to get his mums attention when his 3 year old brother retaliated. 

I would say danger ran into Brayshaw and one of the four umpires should have seen what was going on.

It was changed to stop the third man up and teams were starting to apply blocks to the opposition Ruck’s, definitely required and won’t be changing.

Never normally an issue except in this case where unfortunately our bloke apparently has ears that are painted on.

59 minutes ago, Big Demon said:

It was changed to stop the third man up and teams were starting to apply blocks to the opposition Ruck’s, definitely required and won’t be changing.

Never normally an issue except in this case where unfortunately our bloke apparently has ears that are painted on.

What a load of absolute crap. 

I can see it now. Players whispers to umpire he is going up, moves 10 metres away and then runs into an oppo player who was too far away to hear who nominated.  Painted ears! What a troll.

 There is a far more sensible way of avoiding third man up.  Pay a free if more than one person from a team goes up.  If 2 from each team do so, pay a free to the first one you see making contact/blocking, like many other frees are paid.   And of course, if you didn't happen to have the best ruckman, you might even ask what's wrong with third man up - it often reduces congestion as well.

That little Gollum Scott pulled a swiftly, I reckon.  Used his most watched umpires-fanboy to pull it off.  The way he was overacting made me think he was taking lessons from Selwood.  Angus doing his job, on the assumption a real ruck contest- not some tricksey bs- was about to occur.  Cost us 6 points.  Fair play to bend the rules to your favour.

the maggots could have managed it much better, though.  Like they could have managed a Harmes clearing the protected area, or Ablett’s throw but free kick, better.  It is the kitty litter tray.  Only shyte for visitors.

1 hour ago, Wiseblood said:

Dangerflop did everything he could to make the ump see it, not to mention starting from 10m away. He acted like a five year old who started a fight and then tried to get his mums attention when his 3 year old brother retaliated. 

I will go with Richos comment last night, that it is a disgraceful rule and what happened was shameful and it could affect the result. It did.

The other commentators agreed.

Listen also to Kane Cornes on AFL site who claimed that free and Harmes 50 cost us the game.

BTW how can Danger go up for the ruck when he is standing 20 metres away. It was blatant cheating. He was never going up merely conning a free goal. Umpire is an absolute idiot. Where was his feel for the game?

I actually dont have an issue with it, it didnt cost us the game. Danger does ruck quite often in the forward line and on this occasion nominated early and the umpire did say Danger and Gawn (for the ruck).

There's an "R" where the "F" should be in the thread title ?

42 minutes ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

I actually dont have an issue with it, it didnt cost us the game. Danger does ruck quite often in the forward line and on this occasion nominated early and the umpire did say Danger and Gawn (for the ruck).

So you'd be happy if an oppo player nominates, runs 40 metres away and then runs into a MFC player 30 metres away and claims a ruck infringement?

Loved bernie Vince’s comments on it

 

I felt like he ran towards Brayshaw, he flops around a bit, Danger, sometimes," Vince told AFL.com.au with a grin. 

"It's in the rules, you're not allowed to do it, so the umpire called it. 

"I felt he (Dangerfield) contributed to that free kick. 

"I feel like the umpires look after the stars. The free was probably there because you're not allowed to infringe in the ruck.  

"Whenever it's one of the stars they always look after them, I feel, that's my opinion."

The AFL should keep it simple. No nomination. Only two players to contest and if a third goes in then it’s a free. Clubs should figure it out on their own. 

The rule was bought in too stop the third man up, so it's really stupid this nominating crap, and more time wasting, throw the ball up and penalise if a third player goes up, pretty simple really you Fwit rule maker upper's. 

It’s rules like this and the protected zone that Hames was pinged for last night that truly make me despise this game at times.

I hope the coaches have managed to get this across to Dill at his annual circle-jerk dinner party.

It’s just so amateurish and sucks the momentum and moments out of a game.

Dangerfield as president of the players association should be disgusted with himself by screwing over his peers in such pathetic circumstances.

1 hour ago, sue said:

So you'd be happy if an oppo player nominates, runs 40 metres away and then runs into a MFC player 30 metres away and claims a ruck infringement?

No and thats not what happened in this incident. Watch it and then see how silly your comment is

1 hour ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

I actually dont have an issue with it, it didnt cost us the game. Danger does ruck quite often in the forward line and on this occasion nominated early and the umpire did say Danger and Gawn (for the ruck).

I believe the umpire called “Max and Paddy”, not with great volume or clarity given “Paddy” is not typically a ruckman.

Danger overplayed for the free. Unlucky but equally unfair.

These blocking rules are meant to protect the stars. To boost their performance for a more exciting spectacle. Even the Tv commentators are directed to excite the viewer by waxing lyrical about the stars.

It’s not working for the game. Sport is best when most emotional, the fact that’s it’s impossible to adjudicate is one of the most unique AFL traits, instead of embracing this, they’re making it more technical, to define the rules better.

It should be the opposite, the umpires need to make calls about ‘intent’. Harmes wasn’t impeding the player, so play-on. Danger was playing for the free, play-on.

The spectacle is the narrative of the game, instead of asking if it was “front on contact” we see a player with “courage” running with the flight. The stars don’t get a soft free in front of goal, they “overcome” with their power and class.

The crowd are calling for frees, the players are waving their hands like Danger and the commentators are talking about the technicalities of the rules.

It’s a mess, their answer: add more rules.

The biggest danger is if our ruck is injured. We currently have NO viable alternative to Max Gawn. This situation needs to be remedied in the off season: 1. To give Gawn a rest during games and 2. To mitigate the risk of a Gawn injury.

1 hour ago, brendan said:

Loved bernie Vince’s comments on it

 

I felt like he ran towards Brayshaw, he flops around a bit, Danger, sometimes," Vince told AFL.com.au with a grin. 

"It's in the rules, you're not allowed to do it, so the umpire called it. 

"I felt he (Dangerfield) contributed to that free kick. 

"I feel like the umpires look after the stars. The free was probably there because you're not allowed to infringe in the ruck.  

"Whenever it's one of the stars they always look after them, I feel, that's my opinion."

Great to hear a player say it like it is. Common knowledge, we all think it.

Gil won't like it though. Probably serve him with a limp 'please explain'

A non ruckman nominates and his nickname is used. Why dont umpires call gawn and dangerfield. You also have to be at the contest to be involved in it. Otherwise gawn could be standing there and oliver nominates from 15 meters awsy. Any player that is in his path would be paid against. Joke.

1 hour ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

No and thats not what happened in this incident. Watch it and then see how silly your comment is

I did watch it, originals and replay, and the only thing silly is your response.   Of course I was not saying Dangerfield was 40 metres away etc.  I was illustrating the point that the rule was being 'played' by asking where you'd draw the line.  40 metres, 30, 20 10, 5? 

Will be fun in a close grand final when no one can hear anything even if all payers are within a few metres.  Gil will probably suggest stopping play so the nominated ruckmen can don jerseys....  (Yes, that is silly).

 

2 hours ago, scarlett said:

A non ruckman nominates and his nickname is used. Why dont umpires call gawn and dangerfield. You also have to be at the contest to be involved in it. Otherwise gawn could be standing there and oliver nominates from 15 meters awsy. Any player that is in his path would be paid against. Joke.

Exactly what he should do at the next opportunity. Lets test it and see what the response is. 

6 hours ago, pitmaster said:

I watched Scott's free conference. No mention of Melbourne and none of the journos (who sounded like they came from the Geelong Addy) had the wit to ask if Dangerfield's ruck ploy was a tactic worked out before the game for a forward pocket contest, or something he came up with spontaneously.

It would be interesting to know if Scott, who goes off like a two bob watch at umpire's decisions he does not like, is a rule bender like his cheats J Selwood and now Dangerfield.

What I do know is J Selwood cheats and Dangerfield cheats and both congratulate themselves when their con succeeds. I'd love to think we get another chance at them in the finals at a real football ground but I fear that moment has passed.

Wasn’t he seen having coffee with an umpire prior to the game?

Dangerfield he is a smart footballer but one day in his playing career he will be definitely outsmarted by some crafty fellow and it will stay with him for the rest of his life. 

It will cost the Cats big time .      KARMA !

Edited July 22, 20186 yr by nosoupforme
?????