19 hours ago, It's Time said:

As a Junior coach I always followed the AFL bred philosophy. Train like you play. In this case this would clearly be a free against Petty. Don't see the point of this other than a good philosophical exercise for Nietschke  in practicing body contact. 

Doesn't look like a free under the rule change (which is really a return to a previous rule) where player can use their hands to hold an opponent under the ball. As long as they dont push them forward.

And even if, in that shot  petty did push it would be sideways, which would likely be ok.

Will be a very tricky free to call I would have thought. Great for tmac, who uses his hands a lot to grapple and push in marking contests. 

10 minutes ago, binman said:

Doesn't look like a free under the rule change (which is really a return to a previous rule) where player can use their hands to hold an opponent under the ball. As long as they dont push them forward.

And even if, in that shot  petty did push it would be sideways, which would likely be ok.

Will be a very tricky free to call I would have thought. Great for tmac, who uses his hands a lot to grapple and push in marking contests. 

Under the new rule are they allowed to restrict arm movement?

19 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Under the new rule are they allowed to restrict arm movement?

Is that what he is doin? If so defenders get away with that all the time

Edited December 18, 20187 yr by binman

1 minute ago, binman said:

Is that what he is doin? If so defenders get away with that all the time

Against us they do. Jesse never seemed to get the same treatment but I could be seeing the games through one eye. 

5 hours ago, binman said:

Doesn't look like a free under the rule change (which is really a return to a previous rule) where player can use their hands to hold an opponent under the ball. As long as they dont push them forward.

And even if, in that shot  petty did push it would be sideways, which would likely be ok.

Will be a very tricky free to call I would have thought. Great for tmac, who uses his hands a lot to grapple and push in marking contests. 

 

5 hours ago, Demonland said:

Under the new rule are they allowed to restrict arm movement?

 

4 hours ago, binman said:

Is that what he is doin? If so defenders get away with that all the time

Interesting binman. What a minefield that decision is going to be next season. Petty clearly is holding his arm. It's one thing to push someone but surely it's another to actually grab hold of their arm and hold onto it to twist their body away from the contest. I thought the only change to the rules was that you can put hands on the back now as long as it isn't a push. Good luck to the poor umpires deciding when hands in the back are or aren't a push. If I was a forward I'd just lung forward just a bit when I feel the hands on my back. How could an umpire tell if it is a  push or a dive. I can hear the supporters howls from here. Including mine. And it's probably not the umpires fault. 

Talking about rule changes. I can't believe they didn't do away with the ruckman having to nominate and just give a free if two players from the same team go up in the ruck contest. That rule very nearly cost us a finals spot thanks to Dangerfield's antics. 

The other is the protected area. I guess that can be fixed by interpretation rather than changing the rule itself. But this season this rule was completely inconsistent and potentially disastrous in several games. 

19 hours ago, Demonland said:

 

Perhaps taken from the Gold Coast website which no longer has him on the Players list.

GC were trying to cut him down to size.

On 12/18/2018 at 1:22 PM, tiers said:

I like "Bruiser" as a nickname for Preuss so I will use it.

Game plans for forward lines are often based on trying to create "imbalances" between direct opponents to obtain clear positional or team advantage for one team, even if only for short periods until the opposition responds.

206 cm tall Bruiser playing on anyone is going to be an imbalance. Will he demand the attention of the biggest/strongest defender thus relieving pressure on TMac and Weid or will he be manned by the second/third defender in the hope that he does not create havoc by his size and strength?

Will he act as a decoy for TMac and Weid or will he play as a backstop in the goal square where his height and strength could be decisive in marking contests? How does the coach prevent all three contesting and spoiling each other?

Given that he would ordinarily be one of three talls all requiring attention, it would be hard for defences to multi team him, or his teammates,  in contests as used to happen to Jesse when he was one out.

And from all accounts, he is a genuine ruckman/follower who might allow Maxie the time and space to be even more influential.

Nice problem to have for us. 

I post this again in support of George On The Outer's (GOTO) incisive observation in the match review that we were a tall short and need an urgent rethink.

If we recruited Bruiser to be a back stop only for when Maxie is not available, then we wasted a pick. If we recruited him to create an imbalance or mismatch, then it is time to invest in the choice.

And for once, can we see a well thought out game plan that allows the forwards to have a real chance to be effective both as forwards and as the first line of defence.

It's up to you Goody.

On 12/17/2018 at 11:22 AM, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Please sir, I want some more.

You're easily pleased LDC!  I prefer toast

21 minutes ago, tiers said:

I post this again in support of George On The Outer's (GOTO) incisive observation in the match review that we were a tall short and need an urgent rethink.

If we recruited Bruiser to be a back stop only for when Maxie is not available, then we wasted a pick. If we recruited him to create an imbalance or mismatch, then it is time to invest in the choice.

And for once, can we see a well thought out game plan that allows the forwards to have a real chance to be effective both as forwards and as the first line of defence.

It's up to you Goody.

We probably recruited him to play him when he is 100% fit, and ready to make a significant contribution to the team.

Clearly the FD don't think that will happen at the moment.

I believe that he was selected to play for Casey. If he is fit enough to play for Casey then he is fit enough for AFL.

Need a better reason for not being played.

1 hour ago, tiers said:

I believe that he was selected to play for Casey. If he is fit enough to play for Casey then he is fit enough for AFL.

Need a better reason for not being played.

Really? Not sure I agree with this statement. Actually, I am sure...I definitely don't agree with it. There is a world of difference between the fitness levels of VFL and AFL.