18 hours ago, layzie said:

Anyone had Pepperjack Mid-Strength Shiraz? 

No...and I dont employ diluted Soy Cause when cooking...   ;)

That said..... Ive had some 0 Beers when it's my turn to drive...and didnt find them overly abominable...lol

Pepperjack doing its darndest to kill its brand.....shame...was good once...

15 hours ago, Longsufferingnomore said:

Can someone who knows the rules better than me clear this up for me. What is allowable blocking??

I don't know the rules well. It seems a really arbitrary rule. It is incongruent to the sheparding rule of being able to effect the player within 5 meters of the ball. Although players are constantly "picked", away from the ball and before the ball is in play.

"Under the Laws of Australian Football, a player can shepherd an opposition player when the ball is within five metres, with the exception of contests where players contest the ball in the air, i.e. marking contests and ruck contests, or when the ball is not in play. Players cannot shepherd in marking and ruck contests."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_(Australian_rules_football)

"inconsistently applied, and free kicks are paid only against blatant shepherds by a player whose eyes are not on the ball."

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/7152925#google_vignette

I've seen them train to get between their own player and opponent, in order to give protection.

There seems a fine line of holding your space and taking the others space. 

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by kev martin

5 hours ago, beelzebub said:

I still dont quite understand ( in my own thinkings ) how Salo [censored] that up.

It was a daisy kick..   mear and 3 veg all day any day....except righr then it seemed.

Bizarre really

I dont apportion our loss to that ...just find it rather odd....esp for a normally very good kick.

 

The next time I hear Salem labelled an elite kick I will ... SPEW UP!
20m lollipops don't make an elite kick.

1 hour ago, pitmaster said:

It's amazing two days later and I keep being told by neutrals and Blues supporters that it was a goal.

At the time I copped it sweet but the problem is with the first call. If the ball is kicked and passes through the goal posts the default call should have been "Goal" with the umpire then requesting a check to see if it had been touched. With no definitive video it's a goal.

Fact is, the goal umpire stuffed up. Should have called goal with a request to check touched. End of story, except it isn't.

 

 

Because that was  NOT at all, what was said between both of the Field and the Goal Umpires. And that is why all the film of that time has been deleted.

I couldn’t watch the game on the night and wondering if it’s worth watching the replay — I gather it was an intense contest but not sure I can muster the enthusiasm to watch it, knowing the result…

19 hours ago, Gawndy the Great said:

Unless they can detect deviations in the order of millimetres, it will only be marginally better than the ARC as we can pick up finger flicks where there is no real ball deviation. 

I think they should partner with a university to develop something that is able to detect the faintest of touches. Perhaps it’s not possible.

The easiest thing is to allow a goal and then overrule if there is sufficient evidence and not the other way around. Give the attacking the the benefit of doubt. 

I noticed the goal umps gave the benefit of the doubt on Sunday and soft called goals rather than touched. I think this is the way it should be 

Just a shout out to all our players. I will never single out one of our players as having been responsible for us losing a game.

That's what we leave to all the other Clubs to do. We are not like that and that is why i support our Club.

Any player in any team can kick to the left or right of a goal post but not many of them can kick through the middle and still have it called a minor score.

This game was not lost by our Team and i squarely put the loss on the Umpires involved and the AFL.

It's a shame and a disgrace. I have had this feeling all through the year, and the more exposure our players give to a rag tag bunch of purported Media Experts, the more they twist what was said into lying Head Lines.

Do not get hung up on Red Herrings of points that should have been goals and stay with the point that WAS a Goal.

26 minutes ago, kev martin said:

I don't know the rules well. It seems a really arbitrary rule. It is incongruent to the sheparding rule of being able to effect the player within 5 meters of the ball. Although players are constantly "picked", away from the ball and before the ball is in play.

"Under the Laws of Australian Football, a player can shepherd an opposition player when the ball is within five metres, with the exception of contests where players contest the ball in the air, i.e. marking contests and ruck contests, or when the ball is not in play. Players cannot shepherd in marking and ruck contests."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherding_(Australian_rules_football)

"inconsistently applied, and free kicks are paid only against blatant shepherds by a player whose eyes are not on the ball."

https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/7152925#google_vignette

I've seen them train to get between their own player and opponent, in order to give protection.

There seems a fine line of holding your space and taking the others space. 

It is a pretty vaguely defined sub-clause 18.5.2(a):

Last week Lever got done for blocking when Eddie Ford tried to jump over him in what I would define as 18.5.2(e), but then this week Tom De Konig discovered that jumping on Gawn from behind while not touching the ball is a valid way to stop Gawn from taking a mark (did it at least twice from memory).

What is or isn’t a block depends mostly on 1) the vibe, and 2) what side of the bed the umpire got up that morning.

7 hours ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

I actually never get past the first winery.

 

53 minutes ago, McQueen said:

That’s moderation right there. 

I blame the tour guide! (SWYL) ... 

1 hour ago, slimecat said:

I couldn’t watch the game on the night and wondering if it’s worth watching the replay — I gather it was an intense contest but not sure I can muster the enthusiasm to watch it, knowing the result…

I wouldn't

Unless you like sleepless nights and you're into nightmares then knock yourself out!

1 hour ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

 What is or isn’t a block depends mostly on 1) the vibe, and 2) what side of the bed the umpire got up that morning.

Do you have the same run down for a ruck contest?

There is a lot of body work on each other, prior to the ball being put into play.

"18.3.3 Permitted Contact

A Player may use their hip, shoulder, chest, arms or open hands provided that the football

is no more than five metres away"

https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/laws-of-the-game

So my interpretation, you cannot instigate any contact unless within 5 meters of the ball.

Clarry should ask the umps, why do they block me though the ball hasn't been brought into play.

Tomlinson got freed against, in a shocker when playing for Casey. He tracked the ball back and spoilt, but got a feather on the hand of an opponent who had a good position on the ball to be marked.

His sole intention was to spoil.

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by kev martin

My twitter thread is filled with Carlton fans posting videos of their best plays, Viney 'flopping' when hit by TDK (mate, he would eat any Carlton player for breakfast including Cripps, get in a ring and find out) and Trac 'throwing it' in the lead up to the ANB goal. After getting berated on my way out of the ground and being told to move for apparently occupying an empty row some 18 year Olds reserved for their legs, they are absolutely a special breed this mob, rapidly becoming my most disliked team despite my begrudging respect for their style of play. Their supporters don't deserve the team they've got.

Haven't seen a single one of them win with any semblance of grace or even acknowledge the quality of the game or opposition. 

Someone make it stop

6 minutes ago, kev martin said:

Do you have the same run down for a ruck contest?

Tomlinson got freed against, in a shocker when playing for Casey. He tracked the ball back and spoilt, but got a feather on the hand of an opponent who had a good position on the ball to be marked.

His sole intention was to spoil.

Free kicks in a ruck contest: 

The full laws of the game can be found here: https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/laws-of-the-game

Ignore all the 2017 videos, 2023 rules are at the first link. For some reason despite changing the rules every week they don’t want to update the example vids from 6 years ago.

1 hour ago, BDA said:

I noticed the goal umps gave the benefit of the doubt on Sunday and soft called goals rather than touched. I think this is the way it should be 

Depends on whether the correct or desired outcome is sought. Saturday night it was the desired.

43 minutes ago, kev martin said:

Tomlinson got freed against, in a shocker when playing for Casey. He tracked the ball back and spoilt, but got a feather on the hand of an opponent who had a good position on the ball to be marked.

His sole intention was to spoil.

That was a perfect spoil with Tomo bunting 95% ball and possibly a feather touch on his hand.  Apparently we are now playing basketball depending on the ump in question.

It also resulted in a goal.

There was no chopping of arms or any front on contact.  It was and always should be a play on call.

The 2nd worst call i've witnessed at Casey this season.

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by Demon Dynasty

38 minutes ago, fr_ap said:

My twitter thread is filled with Carlton fans posting videos of their best plays, Viney 'flopping' when hit by TDK (mate, he would eat any Carlton player for breakfast including Cripps, get in a ring and find out) and Trac 'throwing it' in the lead up to the ANB goal. After getting berated on my way out of the ground and being told to move for apparently occupying an empty row some 18 year Olds reserved for their legs, they are absolutely a special breed this mob, rapidly becoming my most disliked team despite my begrudging respect for their style of play. Their supporters don't deserve the team they've got.

Haven't seen a single one of them win with any semblance of grace or even acknowledge the quality of the game or opposition. 

Someone make it stop

Yes I copped plenty of gloating from someone I employ. After about half an hour of it, I told her that if she didn’t put a sock in it, her job would be advertised on Seek.com this morning. I didn’t hear another peep from her.

54 minutes ago, kev martin said:

Do you have the same run down for a ruck contest?

There is a lot of body work on each other, prior to the ball being put into play.

45 minutes ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

Free kicks in a ruck contest: 

 

Re:  18.4.3. (c)

This is the one that Max gets pinged for quite a bit.

He puts the arm out to block / fend off.

According to Razor it's ok to come in against your oppo ruckman and jump into them early so they can't get to the drop (not with knee/s raised however)

But... you must be able to get back / reach back to the drop yourself and get your hands on the ball.  If you don't it's considered a free for a block.

I'm not sure if that last part also applies to a straight arm / fend off that we see from Max and some of the other rucks on occasions.

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by Demon Dynasty

Since when did the rule change that when two players are approaching the ball, whether it be marking or ground ball contest, the player behind can grab his opponent and throw him out of the way. FMD 

56 minutes ago, loges said:

Since when did the rule change that when two players are approaching the ball, whether it be marking or ground ball contest, the player behind can grab his opponent and throw him out of the way. FMD 

That’s the thing, the rule never changes - they’re written vaguely enough that they generally stay the same but the “interpretation” changes. 

Marking contests are a perfect example, 18.5.2(b) [it’s a free kick where a player] unduly pushes or bumps an opposition player.

But what does that mean? It used to be hands in the back was a free kick, now hands in the back are ok as long as you’re “protecting your space” and not pushing them forward, but where’s the line? Can they go a little bit forward, or not at all? It’s not in the rule book it’s in the interpretation, which can change at any time.. 

2 hours ago, fr_ap said:

My twitter thread is filled with Carlton fans posting videos of their best plays, Viney 'flopping' when hit by TDK (mate, he would eat any Carlton player for breakfast including Cripps, get in a ring and find out) and Trac 'throwing it' in the lead up to the ANB goal. After getting berated on my way out of the ground and being told to move for apparently occupying an empty row some 18 year Olds reserved for their legs, they are absolutely a special breed this mob, rapidly becoming my most disliked team despite my begrudging respect for their style of play. Their supporters don't deserve the team they've got.

Haven't seen a single one of them win with any semblance of grace or even acknowledge the quality of the game or opposition. 

Someone make it stop

They’ve been like for ever. The most arrogant, insufferable supporters in the afl 

3 hours ago, Fromgotowoewodin said:

It is a pretty vaguely defined sub-clause 18.5.2(a):

Last week Lever got done for blocking when Eddie Ford tried to jump over him in what I would define as 18.5.2(e), but then this week Tom De Konig discovered that jumping on Gawn from behind while not touching the ball is a valid way to stop Gawn from taking a mark (did it at least twice from memory).

What is or isn’t a block depends mostly on 1) the vibe, and 2) what side of the bed the umpire got up that morning.

Carlton players would have been instructed that they were not going to be penalised if their indistinguishable intent gave full attention to the ball., which virtually means don' t get caught looking at the player, just the ball.

28 minutes ago, KLV said:

They’ve been like for ever. The most arrogant, insufferable supporters in the afl 

It’s actually news to me a just how bad they are. I have my theories but I’ll get banned for sharing them. Let them lap it up for now, I know what I’ll be doing the moment they are knocked out of finals. It is now my sole purpose in life. 

Spoke to an ex Blues player and he thinks it was a goal. When I asked him what the chatter was in the rooms he just looked at me and smiled. 

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by Gawndy the Great

12 hours ago, binman said:

That is precisely right.

Look, I've calmed down now.

But that error caused us to not get 4 points - in a game we won expected score (a stat the clubs put a lot of store in) by 2 points.

it's simply not good enough. And i would say the same if it was us that benefited.

If they use ARC they should invest in the technology. And then have a proper system.

The VAR in the world cup works brilliantly, one because they have the tech. But as importanty it takes the pressure of the referee and linesman. If a difficult , and potentially controversial decision has to be made, it's made by an anonymous person shielded from baying fans. And the on field ref doesn’t cop it.

We essentialy revert to the umpires call when in doubt ' and they have made the call in the moment, under huge pressure  with no option to take their time and calmly review the evidence.

If they don't want to invest in the tech to work and/or have a proper system then scrap the arc.

And make it simple. If the umpire is 100% certain it is touched, it's a point.

If not 100% certain its a goal.

Takes out the grey. A huge amount of stress is avoided - not to mention resources that could be instead poured into improving the decision making skills of theumpireds.

Think about it. The ARC was brought in after hawkins was awarded a goal in a gf when replays (and the naked eye) showed it hit the post to prevent similar 'howlers'

Fifteen years later we are still having howlers. But worse. Because everyone watching sees it over and over.

The law of unintended consequences. A law the AFL consistently, repeatedly fail to respect, let alone heed.

They could have saved a fortune, and a huge amount of angst, if they simply changed the rule and made it like rugby (and soccer, and Hockey and gridiron and ice hockey and Gaelic football) - it hits the inside of the post and goes thru, its a goal

If it hits the post and goes back into the field of play it's a point (or play on, which would be rare, but add an interesting variable).

Instead we now have ridiculous scenarios of amateur "snicko' (i mean please - its not even accurate and nor all grounds has it), points getting paid when it hits oversized, flapping padding and minutes wasted trying to zoom in using sub standard tech on the point of impact - only to end up going with whatever the "soft call"  was (which there is no fixed rule on what it should be ie  they could simply make the rule if its not clear its a goal).

To me it yet another example of the AFL making things ridiculously, and unnecessarily complicated and having grey areas they could take out of the game.

It is hard not think it is a conscious decision by the AFL not to fix all this  rubbish up.

Why might they not take as much grey as they can out of the game?

The AFL is addicted to controversy because controversy sucks up media air time. Creates clicks. Unlimited content.

A good example is a free for insufficient intent to keep the ball in play. What a ridiculous concept. The umpires have to determine the players mindset it in for petes sake. Not to mention factor in things like proximity of teamated, bounce of the ball eyc eyc.

Deliberate made more sense. But was still flawed.

Take out the grey, make it easier for the umpires, and just have the last touch rule between the arcs they have in AFLW. Not a single footy fan would be unhappy with that.

And critically it would reduce errors, take out a variable and most important of all give one less thing for fans to howl at the umpires for.

There are dozens of of rule changes they could make if they were serious about making the job of the umpire easier, reducing the criticism they receive and removing as much grey from how the game is officiated as possible.

Clearing up the holding the ball/insufficient attemp/not disposing schemozzle is just one.

It was a joke on Saturday night.

And that's on the AFL, not the umpires. I watched Casey yesterday. There is CLEARLY a directive not to pay htb. Just like Saturday night, a ridiculous number of clear frees not paid.

And the new one is blocking or holding in marling contests. I watched 10 mins of the saints game and King got the softest free for a hold in the goal square. Bowey gets pinged when he scraps and marks. Yet other clear blocks, scraps and holds get completely ignored - even when there is a 4th umpire right there. And they wonder why people get so upset at umpires. That's on the AFL.

The AFL talk a good game about the importance of not criticising the umpires. Which is fair enough.

But they are the problem, and offer no solutions- not even when the solutions are in their control and simple to implement.

Umpires deserves better.

Players deserve better.

Fans deserve better.

@binman I don't know what your life goals are, but you have zero chance of success as a politician or sports commentator -- you use far too much common sense and clear reasoning. It seems so simple to fix when you put it like that. Any chance of a letter to the AFL?

Edited August 14, 20231 yr by Red and Bluebeard

By the by, Trac also had his legs taken in his kick for goal.  Also should've gotten 50 for player entering protected area before ump called play on.  Still think it was a cracking game.

The Carlton fingertip is nowhere near the ball

We got stitched up so badly by a shoddy AFL System 

just imagine this rubbish in September….