Wow, you can clearly see the boundary ump's head between the ball and the post in that shot. 

4 minutes ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Wow, you can clearly see the boundary ump's head between the ball and the post in that shot. 

As the commentators said very quick decision must of been late for his Sunday roast dinner.

On 4/9/2023 at 8:10 PM, layzie said:

Trent Rivers has gone beast mode

So has Tom Sparrow..... Oh and have I mentioned Judd Mc Veee??9

Judd Mc Vee is the coolest half back flanker we have had since Brett Lovett!

Is that shot real or has someone shooped it?

57 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The last kick of the day looked a goal to me. Whoever was in charge of the score review must have decided to check out and go to an early dinner.

early bong more like

1 hour ago, Whispering_Jack said:

The last kick of the day looked a goal to me. Whoever was in charge of the score review must have decided to check out and go to an early dinner.

As someone who raised this early on, I feel we have to acknowledge there is a similar shot, presumably one frame earlier which shows the hand near the ball forward of the padding(*).

So in my view it comes down to what the rules actually say and if the back of the padding really aligns with the back of the line. From looking at a few stills of other games, I don't think the AFL enforces the latter carefully.  Nor does it appear to be a stated policy.  It is not stated in the rules as it should be if it is a policy. (I note the rules do have a section on padding but it does not mention this issue.) So we have the AFL's usual not thought through mess.

(*) but of course no way of telling if it has yet touched the ball, such is the state of the technology.   

There is something to be said for just going by what the umpire thinks unless it is clear they could not make a decision (e.g. they have been bowled over by a player just as the ball goes though).  They'll get it wrong ocasionally and even affect the outcome of a match, but so will the field umpire giving or missing a free within 10 metres of the goal.  No one is asking for their decisions to be reviewed.

13 hours ago, demon3165 said:

You call what I say about Viney a rugby player and lack of footy IQ Vitriol, you really have led a sheltered life.

But why does he have to display the best footy IQ around? Can't he just do what he does well (e.g the hardness and leadership) and play his role as part of a great team?

Edited April 10, 20232 yr by layzie

15 hours ago, A F said:

I love our recruiting, but our absolute elite players aside from Max were top 5 picks in their draft year (Clarry and Trac) or in trade form (Lever and May).

Take Clarry and Trac out of our midfield and we're not a top 8 team.

This is usually how it works and why eventually the fork in the road comes. Do you keep topping up with FAs or do you bottom out and go back for the elite top end talent?

Richmond/Geelong approach or Hawthorn approach? Geelong in a slightly more favourable position as they are able to attract players from Geelong/Surf Coast/Western Vic wanting to come home (Dangerfield/Cameron).

I think Richmond will regret going after Hopper/Taranto but I'm not sure what they paid for it in draft capital.

23 minutes ago, sue said:

As someone who raised this early on, I feel we have to acknowledge there is a similar shot, presumably one frame earlier which shows the hand near the ball forward of the padding(*).

So in my view it comes down to what the rules actually say and if the back of the padding really aligns with the back of the line. From looking at a few stills of other games, I don't think the AFL enforces the latter carefully.  Nor does it appear to be a stated policy.  It is not stated in the rules as it should be if it is a policy. (I note the rules do have a section on padding but it does not mention this issue.) So we have the AFL's usual not thought through mess.

(*) but of course no way of telling if it has yet touched the ball, such is the state of the technology.   

There is something to be said for just going by what the umpire thinks unless it is clear they could not make a decision (e.g. they have been bowled over by a player just as the ball goes though).  They'll get it wrong ocasionally and even affect the outcome of a match, but so will the field umpire giving or missing a free within 10 metres of the goal.  No one is asking for their decisions to be reviewed.

The other part is that it appeared there was no review. Or if there was it was cursory and rushed. If it was a 1 pt ball game would they have taken more care? Highly likely

Typical AFL with half baked solutions. You either do the job properly or don't do it and leave it to the umpires.

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Richmond/Geelong approach or Hawthorn approach? Geelong in a slightly more favourable position as they are able to attract players from Geelong/Surf Coast/Western Vic wanting to come home (Dangerfield/Cameron).

I think Richmond will regret going after Hopper/Taranto but I'm not sure what they paid for it in draft capital.

Pretty sure 12 and 19 went to GWS for Taranto alone. Both contracted till 2029 as well. 

3 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Richmond/Geelong approach or Hawthorn approach? Geelong in a slightly more favourable position as they are able to attract players from Geelong/Surf Coast/Western Vic wanting to come home (Dangerfield/Cameron).

I think Richmond will regret going after Hopper/Taranto but I'm not sure what they paid for it in draft capital.

The Tigers hardly gave anything up.......🤣

 

Richmond’s raid on the Giants’ midfield is complete.

Eight days after Tim Taranto joined the Tigers in exchange for picks 12 and 19, his ex-GWS teammate Jacob Hopper is joining him at Punt Road. They both accepted seven-year deals.

The Giants traded Hopper and picks 53 and 63 for Richmond’s future first-round selection and the No.31 pick this year.

Assuming we hold onto Kossie.

You look at picking up Grundy and Hunter both first round pick capability selections the way they are playing, and if Freo have a down year and we get a top ten pick, means we have been able to renew our list, with top end picks a few years after Clarrie & Trac!

Our recruiting team have done a terrific job from my view!

13 hours ago, demon3165 said:

You call what I say about Viney a rugby player and lack of footy IQ Vitriol, you really have led a sheltered life.

You obviously don't rate JV's contribution to the team.

Without wanting to argue the point because it seems your mind is already made up.

However, I think it would be good for you watch again some of our finals victories in recent years and pay close attention to Viney's role. When our team plays its best football, it is usually when Viney sets the standard for uncompromising attack at the football and opposition players. 

Not sure how much footy you have played yourself, but I'd be amazed if our entire squad was not inspired by Jack's courage. He is not silky like Fritta, he is not lightening quick like Kozzy, he doesn't run like Langdon - BUT I am confident what he does offer would ensure that he is one of the first names picked particularly when it's a big stage and a game we have to win.

Again, I'm not wanting to debate the point but encourage you to revisit some of those big games. 

1 hour ago, sue said:

As someone who raised this early on, I feel we have to acknowledge there is a similar shot, presumably one frame earlier which shows the hand near the ball forward of the padding(*).

So in my view it comes down to what the rules actually say and if the back of the padding really aligns with the back of the line. From looking at a few stills of other games, I don't think the AFL enforces the latter carefully.  Nor does it appear to be a stated policy.  It is not stated in the rules as it should be if it is a policy. (I note the rules do have a section on padding but it does not mention this issue.) So we have the AFL's usual not thought through mess.

(*) but of course no way of telling if it has yet touched the ball, such is the state of the technology.   

There is something to be said for just going by what the umpire thinks unless it is clear they could not make a decision (e.g. they have been bowled over by a player just as the ball goes though).  They'll get it wrong ocasionally and even affect the outcome of a match, but so will the field umpire giving or missing a free within 10 metres of the goal.  No one is asking for their decisions to be reviewed.

That's right, this one.

 

The other one looks a frame or two later.

 

I'm done with it now though, just hope this doesn't cost anyone a premiership. 

Edited April 11, 20232 yr by layzie

11 hours ago, layzie said:

If you smell what the Trac is cookin!

He will layeth the smack down on all the AFL's candy asses!!

10 hours ago, David-Demon said:

 

I don’t care if they throw it up, as long as it’s done so the rucks both have a fair crack at it.

I think she is as competent as any other ump there.

As for the comment on her body, that’s not required, nor wanted. Do yourself a fav and keep that crud to yourself.

Edited April 11, 20232 yr by george_on_the_outer

1 hour ago, sue said:

As someone who raised this early on, I feel we have to acknowledge there is a similar shot, presumably one frame earlier which shows the hand near the ball forward of the padding(*).

So in my view it comes down to what the rules actually say and if the back of the padding really aligns with the back of the line. From looking at a few stills of other games, I don't think the AFL enforces the latter carefully.  Nor does it appear to be a stated policy.  It is not stated in the rules as it should be if it is a policy. (I note the rules do have a section on padding but it does not mention this issue.) So we have the AFL's usual not thought through mess.

(*) but of course no way of telling if it has yet touched the ball, such is the state of the technology.   

There is something to be said for just going by what the umpire thinks unless it is clear they could not make a decision (e.g. they have been bowled over by a player just as the ball goes though).  They'll get it wrong ocasionally and even affect the outcome of a match, but so will the field umpire giving or missing a free within 10 metres of the goal.  No one is asking for their decisions to be reviewed.

If the ball clips the back of the post (ie the padding) then it is a point. Ergo if the ball is touched before the entire ball clears the line between the back of the padding on both posts it is a point.

2 hours ago, sue said:

As someone who raised this early on, I feel we have to acknowledge there is a similar shot, presumably one frame earlier which shows the hand near the ball forward of the padding(*).

So in my view it comes down to what the rules actually say and if the back of the padding really aligns with the back of the line. From looking at a few stills of other games, I don't think the AFL enforces the latter carefully.  Nor does it appear to be a stated policy.  It is not stated in the rules as it should be if it is a policy. (I note the rules do have a section on padding but it does not mention this issue.) So we have the AFL's usual not thought through mess.

(*) but of course no way of telling if it has yet touched the ball, such is the state of the technology.   

There is something to be said for just going by what the umpire thinks unless it is clear they could not make a decision (e.g. they have been bowled over by a player just as the ball goes though).  They'll get it wrong ocasionally and even affect the outcome of a match, but so will the field umpire giving or missing a free within 10 metres of the goal.  No one is asking for their decisions to be reviewed.

The back of the post/padding is in line with the back of the goal line it would seem

Edited April 11, 20232 yr by jnrmac

14 hours ago, demon3165 said:

Not worried if people agree with me, they are my opinions and I don't need people to agree with me to be right or wrong that why it's called a forum.

2. He is not a legend

3. Why would I talk to Jack he is not going to agree with me is he?

“Jack is not a Legend of the MFC”, now you are just being silly  

That’s another one you can tell him eyeball to eyeball.. 

 

 

Any chance you two might be able to sort this out behind the shelter sheds at recess?

4 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

 

 

I think both teams were kicking at less than 50% efficiency in the first half. There was a fair bit of heat around the ball which was certainly contributing. Listening to TMac after the game he confirmed as much.

Gus did have one or two moments but overall, I thought he was one of our best players. Surprised if there are people potting him here.

 

Edited April 11, 20232 yr by george_on_the_outer

3 hours ago, jnrmac said:

The other part is that it appeared there was no review. Or if there was it was cursory and rushed. If it was a 1 pt ball game would they have taken more care? Highly likely

Typical AFL with half baked solutions. You either do the job properly or don't do it and leave it to the umpires.

Agreed. You only have to look at the Sydney-Port game to see why reviews need to be conducted thoroughly, if we are to have them at all. This one cleraly wouldn't impact the result, but you never know whether percentage will be important (2017 taught us that!).

11 minutes ago, Sydee said:

I think both teams were kicking at less than 50% efficiency in the first half. There was a fair bit of heat around the ball which was certainly contributing. Listening to TMac after the game he confirmed as much.

Gus did have one or two moments but overall, I thought he was one of our best players. Surprised if there are people potting him here.

 

It’s all in the Game Day Thread 

Just now, Sir Why You Little said:

It’s all in the Game Day Thread 

I don't waste my time with that usually - but thanks

From my limited experience of the game day thread few if any comments tend to age well