22 minutes ago, In Harmes Way said:

Where do you draw the line?

Shouldn't this be in the Jack Crisp thread?

8 minutes ago, sue said:

I'm more than happy to move on about this particular goal (though I'm not sure how happy I'd be if we lost a GF that way).  But it will take me a while to move on from the fact our game the AFL runs appears to be run by a bunch of money-focussed suits who can't manage to write clear rules covering such basic issues.

As an example:

1.1 DEFINITIONS
...
Attacking Team: the Team where the football is in their forward half of the Playing Surface.

Apart from being dreadful English, nowhere is it defined what "forward half" means, or "forward" or even "half". Okay, we all know what it means but that's organically acquired knowledge. If you're setting up a league in Denmark or Japan, what are you supposed to make of these sloppily-worded rules? The official laws of the game are jam packed with such instances.

They have in fact tightened up considerably in certain areas, and always because of controversy, eg. the "Buddy natural arc", that game in Sydney where Rampe (I think) climbed on the goal post. One game between Richmond and GWS ... did Dusty play on or didn't he? The rules seem to be written by or people who "know" from schoolyard or community footy what the rule "is", but a lawyer could drive a truck through it.

53 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i said there were probs either way

i think they just take the padding essentially as high as someone's jumping hands could reach, so no-one could touch the ball above the padding.

there's no doubt that if the game was played without padding that it would have been a goal, but that's going back in a time machine.

just accept that it's a compromise rule and not perfect and move on

Personally, given that it is a mess any which way you cut it, I would say if the ball hits the padding it has hit the post, but the actual goal line is the vertical plane extending directly upwards from the line marked on the grass. So the line for touching adjudication for the Fritta non-goal would be closer to the centre of the ground than the back of the padding (just the width of the post becomes an issue for hitting the post, but not otherwise).

Even better -- it is only a goal if it is clearly a goal. Otherwise, if there is even the slightest doubt, it is a point. In this case, much though we wouldn't like it, Fritta's kick was touched as it was not clearly a goal.

7 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

The rules seem to be written by or people who "know" from schoolyard or community footy what the rule "is", but a lawyer could drive a truck through it.

And that's why Cripps got a Brownlow.

I thought TMc was playing on a teenager until thy said it was Barass.  EmBarass more likely.

12 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

community footy what the rule "is", but a lawyer could drive a truck through it.

you mean like carlton's lawyer did at the tribunal for cripps and mckay?

was more a b-double than just a truck

3 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

you mean like carlton's lawyer did at the tribunal for cripps and mckay?

was more a b-double than just a truck

Yes I do. Although that wasn't a "laws of the game" issue so much as a tribunal panel that allowed the proceedings to get out of control and permitted themselves to be browbeaten and bamboozled for literally hours by a [censored] QC, and forgot that they were running a sporting tribunal and not a frigging criminal law case where someone's freedom is at stake.

Point remains though.

1 hour ago, Jontee said:

I thought TMc was playing on a teenager until thy said it was Barass.  EmBarass more likely.

There's only so many words for a bad haircut.

Just now, In Harmes Way said:

There's only so many words for a bad haircut.

Fugly covers most.

5 hours ago, daisycutter said:

you mean like carlton's lawyer did at the tribunal for cripps and mckay?

was more a b-double than just a truck

Why go thru when you can go around?

Edited April 12, 20232 yr by AzzKikA

On 4/11/2023 at 8:55 PM, Neil Crompton said:

BDA, if the standard of the 2 games Kossie has played are a result of him being “distracted”, then I hope he doesn’t make a decision till after our grand final!

I love Kossie, not taking a pot shot here, but so far this year he’s got himself suspended for 2 games for a very reckless bump (would have been for a lot longer if Bailey Smith had been hurt) and he kicked 5 behinds v the Eagles which were quite gettable. We are setting the bar low for him if that is our expected standard.

22 hours ago, rpfc said:

I really hate the ethos of this post. You say he is distracted - he seems pretty effing tracted to me and his direct opponents. You intimate he has made his mind up already and that is tantamount to saying he has decide to leave - that mindset is self fulfilling for the club. 

And lastly, this hand wringing is less to do with Kozzie and more to do with the fans of a club that is wholly unused to having a great young players. Thank JEBUS Petracca and Oliver signed up until the QLD Olympics with more than a year to go on their contracts. But that does not mean that all have to follow the same trajectory - we need to calm down and not burn our young on the altar of what they ‘might’ do - the club is bigger than that. Isn’t it?

Think you're reading too much into my post but ok.

1 minute ago, BDA said:

I love Kossie, not taking a pot shot here, but so far this year he’s got himself suspended for 2 games for a very reckless bump (would have been for a lot longer if Bailey Smith had been hurt) and he kicked 5 behinds v the Eagles which were quite gettable. We are setting the bar low for him if that is our expected standard.

I'm confident it's just a mulligan. If inaccuracy continues this week and next then it could be a worry, I reckon he'll bounce back. 

20 hours ago, Red and Bluebeard said:

Personally, given that it is a mess any which way you cut it, I would say if the ball hits the padding it has hit the post, but the actual goal line is the vertical plane extending directly upwards from the line marked on the grass. So the line for touching adjudication for the Fritta non-goal would be closer to the centre of the ground than the back of the padding (just the width of the post becomes an issue for hitting the post, but not otherwise).

Even better -- it is only a goal if it is clearly a goal. Otherwise, if there is even the slightest doubt, it is a point. In this case, much though we wouldn't like it, Fritta's kick was touched as it was not clearly a goal.

You have no idea Bluebeard . The line of the goal and then the line of the padding behind the goal are the two lines they determine the real line. Any touch prior to either of these lines  by a player ( either side) results in a point.  
 

I can't remember whether there was a before and after touch of either line. All I know is there was precious little time given to the assessment for a reason I cannot understand. 

The one photo shows it was a goal but others have said there was a touch prior to the padding line indicating a point. Hopefully more care is taken in future. 

Really we are lucky it appears not to be vital at this stage of the season for us. But still scary the way the AFL run things sometime. And for once the Eagles fans couldn't have cared less and couldn't even boo at all during the game. Long May it continue !!!! 

2 hours ago, 58er said:

You have no idea Bluebeard . The line of the goal and then the line of the padding behind the goal are the two lines they determine the real line. Any touch prior to either of these lines  by a player ( either side) results in a point.  
 

I can't remember whether there was a before and after touch of either line. All I know is there was precious little time given to the assessment for a reason I cannot understand. 

The one photo shows it was a goal but others have said there was a touch prior to the padding line indicating a point. Hopefully more care is taken in future. 

Really we are lucky it appears not to be vital at this stage of the season for us. But still scary the way the AFL run things sometime. And for once the Eagles fans couldn't have cared less and couldn't even boo at all during the game. Long May it continue !!!! 

And you say Bluebeard had no idea! 

Have you read the applicable official AFL rules?

I know it has to be no because I have, and Bluebeard is pretty spot on.

22 hours ago, Jontee said:

I thought TMc was playing on a teenager until thy said it was Barass.  EmBarass more likely.

Elliot Yeo played on Tmac for most of the game until he was subbed off, Barrass is a very decent defender and spent most of his time on Fritsch.

Barass is all class

I didn't see the game but is it possible Kossie was "lacking his usual exuberance" because he'd kicked 0.5 at one stage? That can be disexuberating and leave you unexuberated.

Edited April 13, 20232 yr by old55

1 hour ago, FritschyBusiness said:

Elliot Yeo played on Tmac for most of the game until he was subbed off, Barrass is a very decent defender and spent most of his time on Fritsch.

Yep.

I'm pretty sure it was yeo he outmarked after a pass from kossie, setting up one of his goals.

Good mark, but my first thought was it was a hopeless bit of defending. 

6 minutes ago, binman said:

Yep.

I'm pretty sure it was yeo he outmarked after a pass from kossie, setting up one of his goals.

Good mark, but my first thought was it was a hopeless bit of defending. 

There was a play later in the game which was identically opposite. Yeo won showing Yeo had learnt from that embarrassing out-body earlier from Tmac... and then was subbed off

1 hour ago, FritschyBusiness said:

There was a play later in the game which was identically opposite. Yeo won showing Yeo had learnt from that embarrassing out-body earlier from Tmac... and then was subbed off

Im just watching the replay now - it was actually Barass he outmarked!

Sorry yeo - my bad