POSTGAME: Rd 17 vs GWS

[NeveroddoreveN 1,034]

3 minutes ago, Kent said:

I was told this by the coach involved why would he say it if it wasnt the case

Nice to get bit of inside information on these type things.  Curious did he elaborate much? Did he also have good things to say?

Was not questioning the original post on this at all, just have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to remembering names.

[KLV 1,663]

Loved how Oskar Baker took control of his destiny. Hard to delist after that performance 

[KLV 1,663]

1 hour ago, sue said:

Was pleased to see that Max whacked the ball forward a couple of times at bounces.

McClure and Matt Clinch we’re talking about this on the abc sat afternoon? How the tap out by ruckmen is ineffective and does not result in a clearance. Why don’t they occasionally just bash the ball towards F50?

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

57 minutes ago, deanox said:

There was also a bizarre call against GWS early "you can't handball to a player who is crossing the mark", and I am 99.9% sure than is not a real rule (unless it's been added in recent seasons).

Just had a squizz at the 2020 rules and could not find any such thing. Nothing whatsoever about "crossing the mark" or anything like it.

 

Closest I could see was this:

20.1.2  Protected Area
(b)  No Player shall enter and remain in the Protected Area unless the field Umpire calls ‘Play On’ or the Player from the Opposing Team is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent.

Note that it says "no Player", which (apart from the exception regarding following your opponent) means even teammates of the player with the ball. Which is typical of the very sloppy wording of the rules, and if it really does mean "no Player" from either team, then the rule is breached about 1,000 times each match.

Nonetheless it doesn't seem to fit the incident last night, which was very strange and would indicate (yet again) that the umps don't officiate to the rule book, but to an imaginary version of the game which exists only in someone's head.

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

11 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

Something interesting to note. Rivers post-game said the senior players were helping the kids defend. Then this from May:

Maybe, finally, some proper leadership?

It's nice to learn who our backline coach is

[Bitter but optimistic 21,329]

25 minutes ago, Mickey said:

Was good to see Tracc have a go at Mumford after he smacked Clarry. He was clearly brought in to play the man, which he did often and without the umps pulling him up for it.

I commented on this during the game. It was yet another example of appalling umpiring.

[dazzledavey36 48,912]

32 minutes ago, Mickey said:

Was good to see Tracc have a go at Mumford after he smacked Clarry. He was clearly brought in to play the man, which he did often and without the umps pulling him up for it.

Yes i was very proud of Trac for doing this.

[NeveroddoreveN 1,034]

4 minutes ago, KLV said:

Loved how Oskar Baker took control of his destiny. Hard to delist after that performance 

He has another year to run anyway :)

I reckon we are harsh on some of the players trying to make the step up from reserves grade football to the Seniors.  It takes time to feel at home amongst a bunch of idols and peers that have bigger bodies and more preseasons.  Oskar had played 3 really good games in the Covid affected 12 or 14 a side scratch matches.  I am glad he did not get dropped after one week in horrible conditions for anyone to really show their skills.  I feel Bedford is another who deserves more than 5 minutes in the team, will surprise many when he gets going.

It took Max quite a while before he had a breakout game.  Seasons in fact.  I think we need to give younger players a bit more leeway when it comes to judging them so quickly.  Too many are labeled spuds or cop unwarranted criticism imo.

Senior players should be much more accountable and consistent.  The only players i got annoyed with last night overly was Melksham and Lever.  Lever i can forgive because he really played great in the last quarter particularly, and made up for some of his earlier screw ups.  Melksham played different role in last 2 weeks but i know he can give more, and expect him to give it.

Spargo/Kozzie/Rivers were all great at times too.  Young leaders that i hope continue to grow/develop!

[sue 8,451]

15 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Just had a squizz at the 2020 rules and could not find any such thing. Nothing whatsoever about "crossing the mark" or anything like it.

 

Closest I could see was this:

20.1.2  Protected Area
(b)  No Player shall enter and remain in the Protected Area unless the field Umpire calls ‘Play On’ or the Player from the Opposing Team is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent.

Note that it says "no Player", which (apart from the exception regarding following your opponent) means even teammates of the player with the ball. Which is typical of the very sloppy wording of the rules, and if it really does mean "no Player" from either team, then the rule is breached about 1,000 times each match.

Nonetheless it doesn't seem to fit the incident last night, which was very strange and would indicate (yet again) that the umps don't officiate to the rule book, but to an imaginary version of the game which exists only in someone's head.

I didn't know that "the Opposing Team is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent."  As little as that!   Must be broken at almost every mark or free.    And the rule doesn't seem to mention that is OK as long as you run at some unspecified angle away from the area with your hands in the air.

Once again a poorly worded and poorly enforced rule trying to achieve a reasonable objective.  How about leaving it to the umps to decide if the player running through is any real threat to the player or his options in taking the kick?   Most of the time the 50m is paid they are no threat at all.  And the penalty is enormous.

Similarly for paying 50m for tackling when a player clearly plays on but the ump hasn't got around to shouting play on in time.  By all means shout as it makes things clear to the player with the ball.  Occasionally they do this, but it is rare.  Use discretion rather than a wooly rule.

Edited September 13, 2020 by sue

[Skuit 9,263]

2 hours ago, Cards13 said:

When I saw that I couldn’t believe it was allowed, isn’t the free supposed to go to the player who won the free ie Trac should have been called back to take his free? Or was it an advantage play on? Even then I thought it had to be Trac to take the ball to take the advantage.

I had thought Trac had just assessed we would be awarded the advantage. Maybe it was more illegal than smart and that's why it stood out so much. Unfortunately I can't check the replay as I've run out of non-football-following friends with credit cards and so my golden run of free Kayo trials has come to an end.   

[Wells 11 4,818]

2 hours ago, Biffen said:

I'm glad everyone enjoyed the win but I'm not that enthused.

It was a club with no Brains beating a club with no heart and soul.

If we lost I wouldn't have been surprised in the slightest.

 

I get it’s been a  tough year to be a dee ... on top of Covid . But gotta give some credit where it’s due Biffen. I thought that GWS team last night was really good and playing with an intensity they’ve been missing. Commentators saying it was one of the best games of the year. 
 

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

7 minutes ago, sue said:

Once again a poorly worded and poorly enforced rule trying to achieve a reasonable objective.  How about leaving it to the umps to decide if the player running through is any real threat to the player or his options in taking the kick?   Most of the time the 50m is paid they are no threat at all.  And the penalty is enormous.

It's an AFL classic. Player with the ball is interfered with by oppo player lurking nearby (I think it was Hawks who specialised in this) ... introduce "protected area" rule ... introduce annual revisions fixing up loopholes ... now the rule is so technical, and we see so many 50s awarded for players in the "protected zone" who aren't having any influence whatsoever ...

They should revisit the purpose of the rule and prevent oppo players interfering with the player with the ball. I recognise that "interfering" is subjective, but I think anyone can watch a game and identify what's fair and what's not, and the rule should have wording based on that.

[old dee 22,930]

39 minutes ago, KLV said:

Loved how Oskar Baker took control of his destiny. Hard to delist after that performance 

He was never going to be delisted this year. 

[Docs Demons 1,665]

Talk about Jekyll & Hyde. This mob jut do your head in but I suppose we should be used to it by now. Which team will turn up next week?. Need Hawks to pull one out today. Go Hawks.

[old dee 22,930]

11 minutes ago, Wells 11 said:

I get it’s been a  tough year to be a dee ... on top of Covid . But gotta give some credit where it’s due Biffen. I thought that GWS team last night was really good and playing with an intensity they’ve been missing. Commentators saying it was one of the best games of the year. 
 

Sorry to be negative but that does not say a lot considering the crap that has been delivered most games. Not sure why but the average level of games has been way down on last year which was not exactly great. 

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

17 minutes ago, sue said:

I didn't know that "the Opposing Team is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent."  As little as that!   Must be broken at almost every mark or free.    And the rule doesn't seem to mention that is OK as long as you run at some unspecified angle away from the area with your hands in the air.

The times they choose not to enforce it ... "oh well, 5 metres is close enough to 2 metres" ... versus the times they do ... "that guy is only 9.5 metres away even though he clearly has no intention of assaulting the player with the ball"

The rule as it stands is a joke, as is the deliberate out of bounds (again open season for poorly disguised wayward handpasses). Meanwhile, throwing, dropping it, going to ground when tackled to force a ballup ... carry on, lads.

[Mickey 4,179]

30 minutes ago, Skuit said:

I had thought Trac had just assessed we would be awarded the advantage. Maybe it was more illegal than smart and that's why it stood out so much. Unfortunately I can't check the replay as I've run out of non-football-following friends with credit cards and so my golden run of free Kayo trials has come to an end.   

Lace out on YouTube does a good highlights package. Includes all frees, goals and behinds. Gets put up very quickly too

[John Crow Batty 8,266]

19 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

It's an AFL classic. Player with the ball is interfered with by oppo player lurking nearby (I think it was Hawks who specialised in this) ... introduce "protected area" rule ... introduce annual revisions fixing up loopholes ... now the rule is so technical, and we see so many 50s awarded for players in the "protected zone" who aren't having any influence whatsoever ...

They should revisit the purpose of the rule and prevent oppo players interfering with the player with the ball. I recognise that "interfering" is subjective, but I think anyone can watch a game and identify what's fair and what's not, and the rule should have wording based on that.

As Confucius said. Broadly worded laws are more workable than specific laws. Then again the umpires seem to have free reign to interpret all laws as they wish anyway.

[Scipio 5,868]

Just watched the highlights for the third time.

Rivers last couple of minutes were huge - the goal, then the spoil and then splitting a pack of four players apart to knock the ball back to our advantage was so great to see. He has a lot of go and is exactly the sort of player we needed out of last years draft.

[pinkshark 935]

Probably too little too late.  Typical.

Great effort though.  We played from the first bounce with the intensity required the previous two weeks.  Frustrating to say the least.  We also had  a smarter team picked.  We just seemed to do things more simply.  More common sense footy.  More common sense selections.  

ANB should be docked a match fee for his golf swing celebration with the accompanying statement ' you are not good enough and never will be good enough to be doing that sort of shid'.  Get rid of him.  

Viney was really bad for first 3 quarters.  He is not nearly as evasive or as strong as he thinks he is.  Costs us throughout games with this misbelief many times. Sort of came good in the last.  

Umpires hardly helped us at any point.  Robbed so many times.  We should have won by more.  They kicked a few out their arses GWS.

Nev, love him.  Simply need his experienced head out there.

The weid strugggling to mark a ball.  Doesn't help.

Yeah great to win, but not as bad as it was to lose those Cairns games.  The pain and anger is still there for me.

 

 

 

 

[Scipio 5,868]

1 minute ago, pinkshark said:

Probably too little too late.  Typical.

Great effort though.  We played from the first bounce with the intensity required the previous two weeks.  Frustrating to say the least.  We also had  a smarter team picked.  We just seemed to do things more simply.  More common sense footy.  More common sense selections.  

ANB should be docked a match fee for his golf swing celebration with the accompanying statement ' you are not good enough and never will be good enough to be doing that sort of shid'.  Get rid of him.  

Viney was really bad for first 3 quarters.  He is not nearly as evasive or as strong as he thinks he is.  Costs us throughout games with this misbelief many times. Sort of came good in the last.  

Umpires hardly helped us at any point.  Robbed so many times.  We should have won by more.  They kicked a few out their arses GWS.

Nev, love him.  Simply need his experienced head out there.

The weid strugggling to mark a ball.  Doesn't help.

Yeah great to win, but not as bad as it was to lose those Cairns games.  The pain and anger is still there for me.

 

 

 

 

Bit rough, it was just a tribute to his injured mate Gus.

Re Jetta, he just continues to get the ball and go head first into traffic which has been a problem all year when he's played. Unfortunately, although he did a few nice things the end is nigh for Nev.

[monoccular 16,187]

2 hours ago, sue said:

Does the AFL have a ban on coaches using megaphones?  Either that or a lot of coaches are getting laryngitis for little effect.  Wouldn't make much sense when there is a crowd but this year, why not?

No ... but absolutely no doubt if Goody tried it next week, and if we had a big win, the AFL would find some way to take away our points on some retroactive rule alteration or introduction.

2 hours ago, sue said:

Was pleased to see that Max whacked the ball forward a couple of times at bounces.

It certainly made us far more unpredictable - I wonder if the midfield and half forwards are given some "secret signal" that he is about to do it?

57 minutes ago, sue said:

I didn't know that "the Opposing Team is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent."  As little as that!   Must be broken at almost every mark or free.    And the rule doesn't seem to mention that is OK as long as you run at some unspecified angle away from the area with your hands in the air.

Once again a poorly worded and poorly enforced rule trying to achieve a reasonable objective.  How about leaving it to the umps to decide if the player running through is any real threat to the player or his options in taking the kick?   Most of the time the 50m is paid they are no threat at all.  And the penalty is enormous.

Similarly for paying 50m for tackling when a player clearly plays on but the ump hasn't got around to shouting play on in time.  By all means shout as it makes things clear to the player with the ball.  Occasionally they do this, but it is rare.  Use discretion rather than a wooly rule.

Agree 100% - common sense needs to be brought in.  Did the "violation" have any effect on the play?

[Skuit 9,263]

34 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

It's an AFL classic. Player with the ball is interfered with by oppo player lurking nearby (I think it was Hawks who specialised in this) ... introduce "protected area" rule ... introduce annual revisions fixing up loopholes ... now the rule is so technical, and we see so many 50s awarded for players in the "protected zone" who aren't having any influence whatsoever ...

They should revisit the purpose of the rule and prevent oppo players interfering with the player with the ball. I recognise that "interfering" is subjective, but I think anyone can watch a game and identify what's fair and what's not, and the rule should have wording based on that.

Football is such an odd sport with a number of subjective rule interpretations requiring umpires to determine player motives (e.g. deliberate out-of-bounds, a 'genuine' attempt to get rid of the ball) but I support this, and think it should also be applied more closely to time-wasting.

It's reasonably clear when players are interfering, even if accidental. So many 50m penalties are awarded where both the viewers and players have no idea what just happened. However, holding the ball is already largely an instinct call, which I don't support at all. If it looks bad, the rules go out the window. 

On another note, I enjoyed watching the tight contest last night, but I think it's also a case-study in how much of an impact umpiring can have on the game - both the calls and non-calls. Momentum is a huge factor in sport. We got hammered in the second and then got the rub in the third - the umpiring in line with the momentum. 

[picket fence 15,299]

13 hours ago, Unleash Hell said:

There will be a few upset on here tonight.

Hats off to Nev Jetta. 

Has Viney dropped his head?

Viney was typically Viney, tried to break tackle after tackle after tackle as iterated a limited footballer. He should have been a Rugby player. Spargo was ok 1 Good goal the other gifted 13 possessions 10 uncontested about as good as he will get. May AA.I thought Brown was creative, Smith OK, Hunt Ditto, Lever whatever we paid for him was overs, Trac very good as was Langdon! Rivers and Kossy Excellent, Kossy could have had 5 goals to his name. Baker also good. One other thing that MONGREL  Mumford should get a couple of weeks for that hit on Clarry!

Edited September 13, 2020 by picket fence

[Skuit 9,263]

Is that the last time we'll see Jetta in the red & blue? I wouldn't be surprised if he was to retire, and realistically he doesn't have much left in him. Spent his whole career getting battered without much protection from the umps (has to have one of the hardest heads in the league). A sad way to bow out if so - but fitting that it was through Nev doing Nev things. The club absolutely has to do everything it can to ensure he sticks around post-playing, even with the reduced soft caps.