On 7/22/2018 at 3:39 AM, 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.

This.

But even if their surnames are used, we must follow the only sport in the world where its incumbent on the players to know all of the opposition players by their first and/or last names in order to avoid penalties. And there's 22 of them.

 

On 7/22/2018 at 9:04 AM, sue said:

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.

 

Love it.

But it doesn't meet the AFL requirement of "all new rules must result in additional complexity and confusion in the game".

Sorry Sue.

On 7/22/2018 at 9:22 AM, 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 he said" Paddy & Max".

On 7/22/2018 at 11:33 AM, Moonshadow said:

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'

Bernie will not get a free for the rest of the season and the maggots will be instructed to watch him carefully. Sneeze and it's a free against him. That's how Gill will fix the problem.

AFL says Danger blocking free was correct. Hear no evil, see no evil have spoken.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/dangerfield-ruck-free-was-correct-call-afl-20180724-p4ztbc.html

2 minutes ago, america de cali said:

AFL says Danger blocking free was correct. Hear no evil, see no evil have spoken.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/dangerfield-ruck-free-was-correct-call-afl-20180724-p4ztbc.html

FFS...it may have been "correct" but it was unethical, how about admitting that!

9 minutes ago, america de cali said:

AFL says Danger blocking free was correct. Hear no evil, see no evil have spoken.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/dangerfield-ruck-free-was-correct-call-afl-20180724-p4ztbc.html

Typical head-in-the-sand attitude by AFL.  Yes, legal within the current rules, but no consideration that the AFL needs to make sure that the rules can't be 'played' to the detriment of the game.  And in the rare cases where this may be impossible to prevent, then the umps already have authority to rule on whether a free kick is deserved or staged.   

38 minutes ago, america de cali said:

AFL says Danger blocking free was correct. Hear no evil, see no evil have spoken.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/dangerfield-ruck-free-was-correct-call-afl-20180724-p4ztbc.html

Has the AFL adjudicated on the Harms protected area 50 meter penalty and resultant goal? That was more rediculous than the blocking free. 

8 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Has the AFL adjudicated on the Harms protected area 50 meter penalty and resultant goal? That was more rediculous than the blocking free. 

Agree. I'd like to know this too, this 50m penalty was complete bu!!sh1te

On the Dangerfield free - it was there, plain and simple, commentators were calling it before the umpire's whistle

AND I don't think it was a deliberate ploy by Dangerfield, I think he inadvertently was a smart@ss and won the kick... 

Look at the footage again on AFL App, you can see when camera pans back there was no "real" ruckman anywhere near the contest at least not within 40+ meters - looks like Dangerfield may have just nominated because he there and realised someone needed to go up. If so, Brayshaw was just blocking the ruckman

Which if someone did to Gawn we'd be screaming for a free kick, even without this stupid rule

The real question is, why hasn't anyone cottoned onto this earlier? Pretty good tactic is obvious now for any midfielder being tagged to nominate for a ruck contest and gope for a free.

1 hour ago, america de cali said:

AFL says Danger blocking free was correct. Hear no evil, see no evil have spoken.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/dangerfield-ruck-free-was-correct-call-afl-20180724-p4ztbc.html

Would we be surprised if this "occurrence" was preordained in a prior Umpire/Coach (Scott) get together before the game for acceptance??

1 hour ago, america de cali said:

AFL says Danger blocking free was correct. Hear no evil, see no evil have spoken.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/dangerfield-ruck-free-was-correct-call-afl-20180724-p4ztbc.html

No doubt the Hocking/Dangerfield committee will [censored] themselves laughing about it at their meeting tomorrow.

I said in a different thread, how often do players not hear the 'touched, touched, touched' call when marking a touched ball, and are then tackled without attempting to dispose of the ball. Umpires give benefit of the doubt there suggesting the players didn't hear the call. Where was the benefit of the doubt here?

I can't find video that goes back far enough to hear the umpires call, but someone else also suggested that Ablett put his hand up to ruck as well. The Cats do this quite often to create confusion and slow the game down.

48 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Would we be surprised if this "occurrence" was preordained in a prior Umpire/Coach (Scott) get together before the game for acceptance??

see my cynical remark in the Umpire thread

52 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

I said in a different thread, how often do players not hear the 'touched, touched, touched' call when marking a touched ball, and are then tackled without attempting to dispose of the ball. Umpires give benefit of the doubt there suggesting the players didn't hear the call. Where was the benefit of the doubt here?

I can't find video that goes back far enough to hear the umpires call, but someone else also suggested that Ablett put his hand up to ruck as well. The Cats do this quite often to create confusion and slow the game down.

good call

The real question should have been " was this discussed with Umpire Pannell when he went to meet with Chris Scott last week.