.

Edited Friday at 12:003 days by Demon Dynasty

7 hours ago, Anti-Saint said:

unsure if this has been posted, but, is there somewhere us Deees get together to watch interstate games (once it was the Bentleigh Club - gee - I'm going back!).

Go Dees

and I can't stand Saints!

Some of the DA will be watching the match at Brewmanity (Neita’s pub), but not many of them. Idk if there’s any other ‘watch parties’ organised.

I’m worried about Jack, but I’m glad that this is the direction the game has gone. In the bad old days, he’d have been playing, probably getting abused by fans because he’s forgotten how to play, and doing goodness knows what permanent damage to his brain. I despair at the thought of a 55 year old Jack Viney going the way of someone like Danny Frawley.

Get well soon Jack.

25 minutes ago, Nasher said:

I’m worried about Jack, but I’m glad that this is the direction the game has gone. In the bad old says, he’d have been playing, probably getting abused by fans because he’s forgotten how to play, and doing goodness knows what permanent damage to his brain. I despair at the thought of a 55 year old Jack Viney going the way of someone like Danny Frawley.

Get well soon Jack.

I tell myself that he has excellent technique in going in with his shoulder and hips to pick the ball up but it is always a risk in our 360 degree game that a late hit in a marking contest from a boy out of his depth is what he cannot avoid.

All we can do is hope for the best and if the worst comes - accept it with grace.

11 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Yet again the filth's play being governed completely diff to the opponent.

The Filth- Kick off the ground on right angles to the boundary, no one near it. Throw in.

The Hawks - kick of the ground in congested loose ball contest goes forward 25 meters perpendicular to the boundary line, bounces about 4 or 5 times before finally rolling over the line .... deliberate.

I'm not getting into the specific umpiring of last night, but the 'insufficient intent' interpretations are driving me mad. If a forward kicks it under pressure in a pack trying to gain territory and it goes out, no worries. Heaven help a back man who does so. May as well toss a coin. I can't see what is wrong with the simpler old deliberate rule.

15 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

.

????

4 hours ago, sue said:

I'm not getting into the specific umpiring of last night, but the 'insufficient intent' interpretations are driving me mad. If a forward kicks it under pressure in a pack trying to gain territory and it goes out, no worries. Heaven help a back man who does so. May as well toss a coin. I can't see what is wrong with the simpler old deliberate rule.

its a load of bollocks

an example last night where the hawks player (midfielder i think) soccer's it along the wing. ball skirts the line as he chases and trickles out.

4 hours ago, sue said:

I'm not getting into the specific umpiring of last night, but the 'insufficient intent' interpretations are driving me mad. If a forward kicks it under pressure in a pack trying to gain territory and it goes out, no worries. Heaven help a back man who does so. May as well toss a coin. I can't see what is wrong with the simpler old deliberate rule.

Razor has clearly explained this on numerous occasions. Basically if you kick it up the line (regardless of the type of kick and where it's being kicked from / to) and it bounces roughly parallel with the line (doesn't have to be perfectly straight ie; it can move around left right or whatever...it's a general rule not judged on a ruler's edge as such) then it's not deliberate. So if you kick it from near the line and it runs / bounces a few times and happens to roll over the line, it's not deliberate.

You have to be kicking it in board (starting well away from the line eg; 20 - 30 meters or more inside) and angling it towards the boundary line for it to be any chance of deliberate. It's the angle you kick it on that matters.

However, there's also the situation where players may intend to kick up the line or even in board but are swung around or impacted in the tackle off balance and it just happens to to go out. The umps need to use their common sense and understanding of the nuances of the game in these situations. Trouble is their understanding is often hit and miss or poor here as well!

Unfortunately umps adjudicate it very diff between themselves and depending on which team's doing the kicking.

There's also the situation that the ball can start off bounces parallel to the line but then the line curves inwards because it's an oval and the ball can't help but go out. That shouldn't be deliberate either.

19 minutes ago, monoccular said:

????

me posting to the wrong thread mono

Edited Saturday at 04:122 days by Demon Dynasty

25 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Razor has clearly explained this on numerous occasions. Basically if you kick it up the line (regardless of the type of kick and where it's being kicked from / to) and it bounces roughly parallel with the line (doesn't have to be perfectly straight ie; it can move around left right or whatever...it's a general rule not judged on a ruler's edge as such) then it's not deliberate. So if you kick it from near the line and it runs / bounces a few times and happens to roll over the line, it's not deliberate.

You have to be kicking it in board (starting well away from the line eg; 20 - 30 meters or more inside) and angling it towards the boundary line for it to be any chance of deliberate. It's the angle you kick it on that matters.

However, there's also the situation where players may intend to kick up the line or even in board but are swung around or impacted in the tackle off balance and it just happens to to go out. The umps need to use their common sense and understanding of the nuances of the game in these situations. Trouble is their understanding is often hit and miss or poor here as well!

Unfortunately umps adjudicate it very diff between themselves and depending on which team's doing the kicking.

There's also the situation that the ball can start off bounces parallel to the line but then the line curves inwards because it's an oval and the ball can't help but go out. That shouldn't be deliberate either.

me posting to the wrong thread mono

It's not deliberate.

Its insufficient intent to keep the ball I the field of play.

46 minutes ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Razor has clearly explained this on numerous occasions. Basically if you kick it up the line (regardless of the type of kick and where it's being kicked from / to) and it bounces roughly parallel with the line (doesn't have to be perfectly straight ie; it can move around left right or whatever...it's a general rule not judged on a ruler's edge as such) then it's not deliberate. So if you kick it from near the line and it runs / bounces a few times and happens to roll over the line, it's not deliberate.

You have to be kicking it in board (starting well away from the line eg; 20 - 30 meters or more inside) and angling it towards the boundary line for it to be any chance of deliberate. It's the angle you kick it on that matters.

However, there's also the situation where players may intend to kick up the line or even in board but are swung around or impacted in the tackle off balance and it just happens to to go out. The umps need to use their common sense and understanding of the nuances of the game in these situations. Trouble is their understanding is often hit and miss or poor here as well!

Unfortunately umps adjudicate it very diff between themselves and depending on which team's doing the kicking.

There's also the situation that the ball can start off bounces parallel to the line but then the line curves inwards because it's an oval and the ball can't help but go out. That shouldn't be deliberate either.

me posting to the wrong thread mono

Not much sign of Occam's Razor in all that.

I'm so old fashioned that I think there should be nothing wrong with a defender just booting it up the line and out of bounds deliberately to gain terriroty and relief. But then I don't get money from extra goals providing more ad breaks.

I really hope Laurie takes his chance. This would have to be his last or close to his last chance because imo when he has been selected he hasn’t performed well enough.

Reallly hope he performs well but I have my reservations.

5 hours ago, sue said:

I'm not getting into the specific umpiring of last night, but the 'insufficient intent' interpretations are driving me mad. If a forward kicks it under pressure in a pack trying to gain territory and it goes out, no worries. Heaven help a back man who does so. May as well toss a coin. I can't see what is wrong with the simpler old deliberate rule.

It’s a shocking rule or the inconsistency of the interpretation is. I have said it before but the standard of umpiring since the four umpires came in is dreadful.

53 minutes ago, binman said:

It's not deliberate.

Its insufficient intent to keep the ball I the field of play.

Let's consider whether the rule is needed at all. The alleged purpose of the deliberate/insufficient intent rule is to keep the game moving. This is because (1) there is an expectation that the game is a better spectacle if it is kept moving and (2) a ball going over the boundary line causes play to slow.

I think consensus would likely be that point (1) above is valid - the game is better when it moves quickly and we don't have rolling mauls. I'm not convinced, however, that point (2) necessarily has to follow. As the rules exist now, I suspect a ball going over the boundary line does cause play to slow. But what would happen if we got rid of the inane "ruck nomination" rule and just threw the ball back in immediately instead of waiting for the nominated ruckmen to make it into position? I think the game would continue to move quickly and we remove one of the more difficult rules for field umpires to have to interpret.

23 hours ago, poita said:

He has a history of throwing himself recklessly into packs. That has to catch up with you at some point.

I love the guy, but how's that four year contract looking at the moment?

Won a B&F last year so, yea, pretty good

1 hour ago, binman said:

It's not deliberate.

Its insufficient intent to keep the ball I the field of play.

Sam Ting Bin

Edited Saturday at 06:152 days by Demon Dynasty

I feel for Laurie if he is made the sub again. He should start and if he’a quiet, bring Sharp on!

1 hour ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Sam Ting Bin

No it's not.