50 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I'm with you. Here's where he collected the ball to where he disposed of it. The fact that he took an arc to get there is irrelevant - so long as he is never more than 15 metres from where he started. 

I'm not sure that is right. If you ran 10 steps towards goal and 10 steps back to the same spot you would be pinged.

Think of an absurd situation, If you ran in a 14m circle 3 times you would be pinged.

They usually go on the number of steps the player with the ball takes and by my count he only took 12.

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I'm not sure that is right. If you ran 10 steps towards goal and 10 steps back to the same spot you would be pinged.

Think of an absurd situation, If you ran in a 14m circle 3 times you would be pinged.

They usually go on the number of steps the player with the ball takes and by my count he only took 12.

You might be right, but I’ve held my understanding for a lot of years, based on Sam Newman giving a demonstration on it of The Footy Show in the early years of it. His example was almost exactly the one you said - you could run back and forth over the same 5 metre patch of turf and never need a bounce. In hindsight it’s probably a rich assumption to assume Sam knew what he was talking about, but I was only young at the time ?

Probably a moot point as I still think Harmes was clear in both cases. He definitely didn’t run 40 like someone asserted 

23 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I'm not sure that is right. If you ran 10 steps towards goal and 10 steps back to the same spot you would be pinged.

Think of an absurd situation, If you ran in a 14m circle 3 times you would be pinged.

They usually go on the number of steps the player with the ball takes and by my count he only took 12.

12 minutes ago, Nasher said:

You might be right, but I’ve held my understanding for a lot of years, based on Sam Newman giving a demonstration on it of The Footy Show in the early years of it. His example was almost exactly the one you said - you could run back and forth over the same 5 metre patch of turf and never need a bounce. In hindsight it’s probably a rich assumption to assume Sam knew what he was talking about, but I was only young at the time ?

Probably a moot point as I still think Harmes was clear in both cases. He definitely didn’t run 40 like someone asserted 

@jnrmac is right.

The rule is Law 18.13(c):

"A field umpire shall award a free kick against a player who...whilst in possession of the football, does not bounce or touch the football on the ground at least once every 15 metres, irrespective of whether such Player is running in a straight line or otherwise..."

We see this all the time and it's almost never pinged.  I think the umps must have watched Sam Newman for their understanding of the rule. Like most ex-players, he doesn't know the rules and never did.

For further clarification of what is intended by this rule, the 1944 rules say this:

RUNNING WITH THE BALL.
17. (i) The ball, when in play, may be taken in the hand and held for any length of time, but shall not be carried further than is necessary for a kick, unless the player strikes it against the ground at least once in every ten yards, which need not be in a straight line; that is, he may turn and dodge.

2 hours ago, dee-tox said:

Didn't help when he was double teamed all night.

Then again when he did get clear he wasn't his usual clean self.

I reckon the Swans defenders might have done some in-game rehab and tested how well his hand reacts to being punched

19 hours ago, Lord Nev said:

24 of his 31 disposals were handballs, yet he had 6 clangers and 5 turnovers.

His first half was very poor. Off the pace, poor decisions, caught trying to do too much.

He lifted in the second half. I don't need to re-watch it just because I disagree with you.

Well I wish u would look at Q4. Harmes was vital. He played the Viney role, hard at it . Tracc was completely blanketed, Jordon buggered after his super first half . Clary was wonderful but without Harmes I think we might have lost

6 minutes ago, Farmer said:

Well I wish u would look at Q4. Harmes was vital. He played the Viney role, hard at it . Tracc was completely blanketed, Jordon buggered after his super first half . Clary was wonderful but without Harmes I think we might have lost

Don’t you understand Farmer every player has to be perfect 100% of the game and every week!!!!!

21 hours ago, pineapple dee said:

I can't have that !!  Harmes was a genuine contributor and provided more to the team than Brayshaw did tonight. 

Of course he got found out a couple of times but in his first senior game in 7 weeks he did enough to retain his spot. 

Fully agree. Just one step up (just one more week of match readiness after a spell) and he will be a driving force. 

We need more fire power , I would bring in the Weid or Daw ( a bit left field ) , Viney ( if avaiable) . T.Mac has been trained to play the wing. Drop Melks and Gus. Possible include Jetta for Hibberd. The weid and Daw can do some of the ruck work.

8 minutes ago, COOLX said:

We need more fire power , I would bring in the Weid or Daw ( a bit left field ) , Viney ( if avaiable) . T.Mac has been trained to play the wing. Drop Melks and Gus. Possible include Jetta for Hibberd. The weid and Daw can do some of the ruck work.

If we played 22 key forwards then we'd have lots of fire power! We'd never lose.

9 minutes ago, COOLX said:

We need more fire power , I would bring in the Weid or Daw ( a bit left field ) , Viney ( if avaiable) . T.Mac has been trained to play the wing. Drop Melks and Gus. Possible include Jetta for Hibberd. The weid and Daw can do some of the ruck work.

Agree.

The best way to improve our team is to [censored] with a formula that has won us 8 games on the trot.

Out

Number seven umpire.

Recon Trac might not back up. Big corkies take a while to come good

No change

unless

viney is passed fit to play or

we decide to “manage” players

it is nice to win 8 games and 9 would be better still, unless we drop of a cliff, we will be playing finals. Now we need to start to plan who wil represent us in those final games.  Get them all fit and importantly rested or not burnt out. 
we have looked a little tired these last couple of games. 
it’s unusual but we are the hunted now, we need to plan for our finals. I guess we need another 5 wins ?    Yes ?   Be nicer to be in the top 4 and get a double chance. Doubt we will go undefeated but did not expect to win the first 8.

thoughts. 

Watched the replay. Trac was suffering. He has a lot of thigh. Could take a week to come good. Lucky it’s a 7 day break, but if he’s not 100% a week off could be good. 

Might have to give Brayshaw a go at trying to solve our clearance issues. After all he is a born and bred inside mid. 

I'm typically a Melksham fan but he did a couple of things which were pretty poor and didn't really encapsulate the 'selfless' vibe they're going for...

Ideally Viney in for Melksham, but would assume no change if Viney isn't right to go. 

5 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Should we rest Hibberd and bring Jetta in to take Eddie Betts? Hibberd did a great job on Papley but he’s definitely in veteran territory. Where as Nev has been an Eddie specialist. 

Also thinking Petracca is going to be 50:50 at best. I’m not convinced that’s a corkie that will settle quickly. 

No way Hibbos our heart & soul player & is as good on talls or smalls

Eddie won’t get near it

3 hours ago, Farmer said:

Well I wish u would look at Q4. Harmes was vital. He played the Viney role, hard at it . Tracc was completely blanketed, Jordon buggered after his super first half . Clary was wonderful but without Harmes I think we might have lost

Not really that interested in 'what ifs'. You could go back to his turnovers and holding the balls in the first half and say they cost us too. As I said, I thought he lifted in the second half and I don't think he'll be dropped.

IMO some people might have been seduced by how much they saw him rather than what he actually did with it.

He'll be better for the run, but the fawning over his game is over the top.

I reckon Harmes flew the flag last night, when it was necessary, and the team visibly warmed to his return.

25 minutes ago, Lord Nev said:

Not really that interested in 'what ifs'. You could go back to his turnovers and holding the balls in the first half and say they cost us too. As I said, I thought he lifted in the second half and I don't think he'll be dropped.

IMO some people might have been seduced by how much they saw him rather than what he actually did with it.

He'll be better for the run, but the fawning over his game is over the top.

 

4 minutes ago, willmoy said:

I reckon Harmes flew the flag last night, when it was necessary, and the team visibly warmed to his return.

Ripper bloke, loved by his teammates, will always try hard.

3 hours ago, COOLX said:

We need more fire power , I would bring in the Weid or Daw ( a bit left field ) , Viney ( if avaiable) . T.Mac has been trained to play the wing. Drop Melks and Gus. Possible include Jetta for Hibberd. The weid and Daw can do some of the ruck work.

McDonald probably hasn't trained for the wing in about 10 weeks now, given he's been killing it as a forward.

3 hours ago, leave it to deever said:

Out

Number seven umpire.

STAND! 

No change. 

even if Petracca is sore, he will just play more forward, which will just cause more headaches for Carlton. 

I'd be sending Harmes to run with Walsh, back Oliver to beat Cripps and May to beat McKay. 

 

9 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Most of the second half was spent trying to defend and get it out of our backline. But one thing I didn’t like about Brown is his defensive game seems to be just dropping really deep rather than staying up and pressuring.

Sydney had the ball on a slow play at their half back and Brown will be on the fat side all the way at the back of the centre square. He even pushed inside d50 when we had Max and the key defenders back. Aerial defending isn’t what we need from him, we need him marking the hacked kicks from the backline, or streaming forward once we counter.

Goodwin countered in the last term by keeping 6 forwards which helped counter Sydney’s deep defensive drop. Brown took some important marks in transition in the last quarter. 

Interesting take. I can see the value of Brown pushing up as you suggest, but also he is so good one out that having him recieve a deep kick in is pretty deadly.

In previous weeks it has been Fritsch playing the last in attack role hasn't it?