1 hour ago, Gunna’s said:

Can’t believe Kane Cornes tonight when he was saying Merrett shouldn’t have been suspended as he’ll miss ANZAC Day. 
The issue I have with this one is that his dumping of Sparrow was to hold up play, he knew he’d already given away a free for high contact so to hold him up he took him to ground. Sparrow probably made the incident look worse as he knew he’d already won the free. But overall Merrett was rightly suspended for his dangerous tackle, big game or not the action needs to be penalized. 
 

However why was the potential to cause harm not added to this suspension? If he dumped him, then Sparrow could’ve been concussed. Why the inconsistency?

Only tonight? I advise to never believe him. Wot a !@#$%^&*.

Love how Oliver gets dragged into this on his tackle on Parker and yet Merrett shouldn’t have been suspended. 

We should adopt the rugby league rule of the referee calling out 'held' as soon as the ball is pinned to the player in the tackle

If the tackler then continues the tackle then a free kick is awarded against

That would alleviate many or most of the sling tackles and/or the double movements with the tackles

And the umpire should just grab the ball back once he/she has called 'held' and throw it up in the air straight away without waiting for the ruckmen

Back in the day that's what happened and it worked well and there were very few complaints

Anyone notice the number of times  both Teams players in Melb game against TWSNBN ran in the wrong directions after decisions. Now when does that happen??

15 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Love how Oliver gets dragged into this on his tackle on Parker and yet Merrett shouldn’t have been suspended. 

Age just now.  https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/why-brownlow-medal-fancy-clayton-oliver-wasn-t-cited-for-viral-tackle-20230419-p5d1ry.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR01T0WiP1tX7BGKED7ZSt1LS76fgaX4uEuAqy2MzuNGpKGoGSQ7za4-vAw#Echobox=1681945207

48 minutes ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Age just now.  https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/why-brownlow-medal-fancy-clayton-oliver-wasn-t-cited-for-viral-tackle-20230419-p5d1ry.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR01T0WiP1tX7BGKED7ZSt1LS76fgaX4uEuAqy2MzuNGpKGoGSQ7za4-vAw#Echobox=1681945207

Interesting story. I'm not sure, though, that I don't prefer the conspiracy theory of AFL HQ wanting Oliver to win the Brownlow.

While we're analysing Oliver and the Sydney game, can anyone explain to me why Oliver's "steal" of Ladham's attempted handpass wasn't a 50 metre penalty against Oliver?

I assume that by attempting to handball, Ladhams was deemed to have played on.  Correct decision IMO.

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Interesting story. I'm not sure, though, that I don't prefer the conspiracy theory of AFL HQ wanting Oliver to win the Brownlow.

While we're analysing Oliver and the Sydney game, can anyone explain to me why Oliver's "steal" of Ladham's attempted handpass wasn't a 50 metre penalty against Oliver?

i think because

1. his feet stayed on the mark i.e. he wasn't over the mark

2. umpire thought sydney player went to play on a split second before clarrie reacted

players have also been warned to not try and trick player on the mark to deliberately draw a 50m penalty. in this case though i thought the swans player was trying to play on. umpires are much quicker now to call play on either to slight movements off the line or deceptive play on actions.

4 minutes ago, Demonstone said:

I assume that by attempting to handball, Ladhams was deemed to have played on.  Correct decision IMO.

Spot on.  A 50m penalty will no longer be paid if a player fakes a handball while behind the mark, drawing their opponent off their position.

1 hour ago, YearOfTheDees said:

Spot on.  A 50m penalty will no longer be paid if a player fakes a handball while behind the mark, drawing their opponent off their position.

But it wasn't a fake handball. It was a genuine one. (Not sure that makes any difference, though.)

The game is a hard watch these days and not because we're not winning everything by 100+ points.

Bloke gets ball, senses a tackle coming, throws himself sideways to the ground to force a stoppage. Stacks on the mill and guess what? Umps call for a ball up.

Like ducking the head, throwing yourself to the ground should be considered prior opportunity and HTB if tackled correctly.

Or ... bloke gets tackled, gets taken to ground. Or maybe he's already on the ground trying to win the ball. BLAM! Tackler slams his full weight on bloke with ball, flattening him into the turf, where a player-shaped mud depression is formed. Not in the back?  No, play on. There are players in the league who will sue in future, not from concussion, but because they are paper-thin from all the in the backs. Joke rule not enforced except in marking contests and then usually incorrectly.

Or ... the slightest indication of "insufficient intent" and it's a free kick. What about the slightest indication of "throwing the ball"? Not scorched earth on enforcing that? No? It's a bigger affront to the spirit of the game. Some players have perfected the technique of diving on the ball and scooping it out two handed in one smooth balletic motion. Why would a league with integrity permit rampant throwing but then choose to crack down like Stalin on "insufficient intent" which by far is the lesser crime against humanity.

Generally, the game is back to the "seagulls fighting over a chip" aesthetic which is ugly and borderline unwatchable in games not featuring the Mighty Demons.

Then we see a player in defence, wins the ball, whisks it out to a teammate, who passes to another player on the wing, who ........ stops. Because there is no player from either side, in the forward half of the ground. Wait. Wait. Wait while every other player on the ground streams from one end to other. Right! Now there is someone to kick to. Take your pick from 35 of them, because they're all now in front of him. Ugly and boring. Too much interchange. The interchange rule fundamentally changed the game for the worse. More than any other rules change in 40 years.

The grounds DONT need to be as hard as they are. We dont need mud heaps like Moorabbin but neither do we need really hard grounds. They never used to be. 

1 hour ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

But it wasn't a fake handball. It was a genuine one. (Not sure that makes any difference, though.)

My view is that it happened before he was called to stand. Potentially a loophole - but in that time between mark and the umps call to stand is still open for the player to move within reason as long as your not interfering with the opponent. 
 

I think Oliver was still on the mark at the time as well.

5 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

My view is that it happened before he was called to stand. Potentially a loophole - but in that time between mark and the umps call to stand is still open for the player to move within reason as long as your not interfering with the opponent. 
 

I think Oliver was still on the mark at the time as well.

If Oliver is on the mark then he can smother the handball, the same as he would another a kick.

If he stepped over the mark to smother then it should be 50 unless he played on first.

If Oliver knocked it out of his hand before he could handball that would be a 50 too.

On 4/19/2023 at 12:44 PM, daisycutter said:

i think the umpires could help a little by blowing the whistle quicker in stoppage srcimmages. they seem to let some of them go on for ages, you can only hold someone still standing in a tackle for so long.  apart from sling tackles these scimmages get more dangerous for other injuries the longer they are allowed to continue

This 100%.

When a tackle happens call ball up or holding the ball. Don't let them wrestle against each other. Don't wait for the rucks and no inate, just run in and throw it up, it'll solve lots of problems.

Similarly, if someone is being tackled and one of their teammates jumps in, and effectively tackles the tackler, creating congestion, then call holding the man against the third man in. It is a tactic designed to stop the holding the ball decision (by wrapping up the tackler and the player with the ball, the ball is now stuck in there so it's a ball up).

It's really simple the AFL just have no idea.

11 hours ago, deanox said:

When a tackle happens call ball up or holding the ball. Don't let them wrestle against each other. Don't wait for the rucks and no inate, just run in and throw it up, it'll solve lots of problems.

I don't understand when the ball goes out of bounds and there's a throw-in, it takes ages for the throw-in to occur. It seems like the field ump is taking a roll call of all present and making sure they understand their obligation not to bring the game into disrepute before permitting the throw-in. Then the boundary ump goes through his warm up exercises and rehearsals before winding up like a clock spring and hurling the thing in as hard as he can.

Why the wait? The boundary ump should check to see that a field ump is on hand, then throw it in. It doesn't need to be a theatrical production, nor does it need to be consistent. A bit higher, a bit shorter .... these professional footballers are presumed to have the skills to adapt. Who gives a flip if the players are or aren't mentally refreshed and fully psyched up for the throw-in? Just thrown the bloody thing in!