45 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

 

100% that Nev was trying to kick the ball sideways to Langdon. There is no other possible explanation.

The maggots cost us a goal.

He definitely was trying to pass it to Langdon, but in that instance the umpire has no choice because the interpretation of the rule is tighter. They would look at it that Nev had not done enough to keep it in, they would also have probably imagined that even if that was his intention, in the moment he was keener to get the ball out. 

Nev had the ability to pick the ball up and handball or paddle it to Langdon. 

2 minutes ago, Pates said:

He definitely was trying to pass it to Langdon, but in that instance the umpire has no choice because the interpretation of the rule is tighter. They would look at it that Nev had not done enough to keep it in, they would also have probably imagined that even if that was his intention, in the moment he was keener to get the ball out. 

Nev had the ability to pick the ball up and handball or paddle it to Langdon. 

I don't think picking it up was an option with how hot they are with htb now.

Risked a free dead in front of goal. I think he made the right choice, just kicked it too hard.

Nev knows he's not getting any faster too. Was it Cameron on his hammer?

11 minutes ago, Pates said:

He definitely was trying to pass it to Langdon, but in that instance the umpire has no choice because the interpretation of the rule is tighter. They would look at it that Nev had not done enough to keep it in, they would also have probably imagined that even if that was his intention, in the moment he was keener to get the ball out. 

Nev had the ability to pick the ball up and handball or paddle it to Langdon. 

I don't see how that 'rule' applies when it is argued he was trying to kick it to Langdon's advantage.

23 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Being there at the ground, it was clear that they were putting a lot of work into him off the ball.  Not overly dirty stuff, but constantly bumping into him and shepherding him from running into position a mile off the play.  I watched Charlie Cameron do this to him numerous times, blocking Max from getting into a good marking position outside 50 for kick-ins. Max seemed to try to make it obvious to the umps what was going on, without giving away free kicks to them in their forward 50.  Didn't notice too much of our blokes flying the flag to an extent for big Max.

a) I think that we need to be better as a team and recognize when this is going on and a put on better physical pressure the other way to let their blokes know we won't tolerate it and

It will be interesting to see what happens this week against Port who had the same and maybe more aggressive tactic round 1?? last year and if we do anything about it unlike against Port.

47 minutes ago, Pates said:

He definitely was trying to pass it to Langdon, but in that instance the umpire has no choice because the interpretation of the rule is tighter. They would look at it that Nev had not done enough to keep it in, they would also have probably imagined that even if that was his intention, in the moment he was keener to get the ball out. 

Nev had the ability to pick the ball up and handball or paddle it to Langdon. 

Yes but the umpires communicate with each other as to whether it was a skill error or deliberate. This was clearly skill error

22 hours ago, P-man said:

McStay getting two weeks for the bump on Jetta is a joke tbh. I’d be filthy if it was a Melbourne player

What exactly is McStay meant to do im that situation when Jetta puts his head down and charges into him? Jump out of the way? Even Goodwin in the presser acknowledged that players need to be better at turning their body before contact.

It really seems like the match review process and basic common sense are an ill fit.

To say Jets charged at him is BS. Yes he lowered his head back down slightly but it was all for half a step to a step. McStay needed to tackle but he choose to bump hit him in the head. end of story. If he tackled its holding the ball. simple.

1 hour ago, Pates said:

He definitely was trying to pass it to Langdon, but in that instance the umpire has no choice because the interpretation of the rule is tighter. They would look at it that Nev had not done enough to keep it in, they would also have probably imagined that even if that was his intention, in the moment he was keener to get the ball out. 

 

1 hour ago, sue said:

I don't see how that 'rule' applies when it is argued he was trying to kick it to Langdon's advantage.

 

The crazy part is, they are rigorous in their application of that one rule, yet allow rampant throwing, holding, dropping, short kicks, etc.

Which is the biggest blight on the game? But OOB is what they clamp down on.

Not to mention they have to read a player's mind to make the right call in a contentious moment like that.

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Yes but the umpires communicate with each other as to whether it was a skill error or deliberate. This was clearly skill error

 

7 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

The crazy part is, they are rigorous in their application of that one rule, yet allow rampant throwing, holding, dropping, short kicks, etc.

Which is the biggest blight on the game? But OOB is what they clamp down on.

Not to mention they have to read a player's mind to make the right call in a contentious moment like that.

 

1 hour ago, sue said:

I don't see how that 'rule' applies when it is argued he was trying to kick it to Langdon's advantage.

I wouldn't disagree with any of these assessments, being a defender has got increasingly harder with rule adjustments over the years. Since I first started watching AFL in the mid-late 90s I've seen (this is from memory) these rule changes:

- tighter ruling on push in the back 
- tighter ruling on holding the man/blocking
- harder on chopping arms/spoiling the player not the ball
- tighter deliberate out of bounds both with "walking the ball over" and the rushed kick out of defence
- deliberate rushed behind (which players even now are confused about the rule)
- and now a tighter (and inconsistent) ruling on HTB

Seriously who would want to be a defender when they seem to be constantly making your job harder?

I just thought I'd add a little about the Jetta/McStay incident because I'm watching 360 and Robbo is joining the chorus blaming Jetta for it. 

What I will say is that Jetta plays a part in the IMPACT of the bump, it looks (and is) heavy because Jetta when he collects the ball does lead forcefully with his head. I 100% think this is something the medico should be chatting to Nev about because he can't keep doing this otherwise he could really get hurt. So that is one side of it.

BUT every commentator is IGNORING the fact that McStay chose to bump as Jetta collected the ball. He tucked his arm in to collect him high rather than open his arms up to tackle. He was also running in on him so of course this is all happening quick but his made the decision to bump rather than tackle. The way the media seems to be collectively ignoring this very simple fact is infuriating.

EDIT Also just wanted to say that McStay actually immediately put his hands towards Jetta to say sorry so it clearly wasn't an intentional "I'm going to take your head off" bump.

Edited July 28, 20205 yr by Pates

50 minutes ago, Pates said:

I just thought I'd add a little about the Jetta/McStay incident because I'm watching 360 and Robbo is joining the chorus blaming Jetta for it. 

What I will say is that Jetta plays a part in the IMPACT of the bump, it looks (and is) heavy because Jetta when he collects the ball does lead forcefully with his head. I 100% think this is something the medico should be chatting to Nev about because he can't keep doing this otherwise he could really get hurt. So that is one side of it.

BUT every commentator is IGNORING the fact that McStay chose to bump as Jetta collected the ball. He tucked his arm in to collect him high rather than open his arms up to tackle. He was also running in on him so of course this is all happening quick but his made the decision to bump rather than tackle. The way the media seems to be collectively ignoring this very simple fact is infuriating.

EDIT Also just wanted to say that McStay actually immediately put his hands towards Jetta to say sorry so it clearly wasn't an intentional "I'm going to take your head off" bump.

I woudn't rule out Jetta being slightly concussed given his earlier knee to the head..he looks pretty slow and dazed most of the night..

Nonetheless its very rough blaming Jetta who was going directly for the ball. If it was Selwood they would all be lauding his bravery. (cue spew)

On 7/26/2020 at 8:53 PM, No Plan B said:

Melts aside I’m starting to see why we sold the farm for May and Lever. May is probably in the AA squad of 40 at present. Love his arrogance. 

Completely agree.

His kicking is excellent and he's a proper leader down back. I'm a total convert.

21 hours ago, Pates said:

I just thought I'd add a little about the Jetta/McStay incident because I'm watching 360 and Robbo is joining the chorus blaming Jetta for it. 

What I will say is that Jetta plays a part in the IMPACT of the bump, it looks (and is) heavy because Jetta when he collects the ball does lead forcefully with his head. I 100% think this is something the medico should be chatting to Nev about because he can't keep doing this otherwise he could really get hurt. So that is one side of it.

BUT every commentator is IGNORING the fact that McStay chose to bump as Jetta collected the ball. He tucked his arm in to collect him high rather than open his arms up to tackle. He was also running in on him so of course this is all happening quick but his made the decision to bump rather than tackle. The way the media seems to be collectively ignoring this very simple fact is infuriating.

EDIT Also just wanted to say that McStay actually immediately put his hands towards Jetta to say sorry so it clearly wasn't an intentional "I'm going to take your head off" bump.

If Jetta had stood up he would've been poleaxed. McStay is a foot bigger than him.