Mazer Rackham

43 minutes ago, layzie said:

Ralph said on Twitter that that replay showed his eyes were off the ball as he approached the contest. I don't know what he was suggesting by that, is that good because he was gauging space or bad because he was 'lining' him up. 

Would help if these guys explained it a bit better. 

Ralph has no idea. I think only a top echelon player could explain where they look, and when, and why, and I would add the caveat that most of them don't actually know because it's so instinctive to them. "Eyes on the ball" is fundamental to any ball sport, but there's so much more to it than that. You often see a good player have a quick glance around them just before the ball comes into proximity, to feed their internal football computer with the necessary information.

4 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

It was actually 9 years ago. It was in 2014 - remember those glorious times? Viney's successful appeal was probably the highlight of the year. 

I was reminded of those glorious days by the North-St Kilda match on the weekend. It was like watching Melbourne play Melbourne.

20 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Sadly, hypotheticals aren’t particularly effective/welcome in a legal defence but you would like to ask them if Chol also gets two weeks had Bowey heard a ‘click’ in his neck and got stretchered off, only to realise there is nothing wrong with him.

I get that but it's not a court hearing. It's a sporting tribunal hearing. The AFL have allowed it to become a quasi-legal hearing and the Cripps thing was the pinnacle revealing the folly of so doing.

47 minutes ago, The Jackson FIX said:

If the ‘football action’ argument is unsuccessful, are we then allowed to argue against the ‘level of impact’ rating’?

 

Feels like the arrival of the stretcher heavily  influenced that grading but we’ve since found out he is actually fine and, arguably, calling for the stretcher may have been an action influenced by the fact he had already had a head knock that night (whether that be him being sensitive to another hit and over-imagining the ‘crack’ he heard or the medicos panicking that they sent a bloke back out onto the field who had already had a knock).

 

Not saying they shouldn’t have sent a stretcher out, just suggesting that there is an angle to argue that has unfairly influenced the grading of the impact.

We should argue this, and the Chol incident, and the Lynch incident, concussion protocols, the Cripps incident. Anything and everything, amounting to an avalanche of verbiage and video footage. The tribunal have shown they can be bamboozled by quantity over quality and if our reps blather on for long enough, the tribunal will let JvR off just so they can go home at last.

At the least I would like to see a video compilation of cited incidents and their wildly varying outcomes, even if it doesn't ultimately help JvR, just to highlight the bewildering inconsistency of the match review process.

8 minutes ago, Gawndy the Great said:

I like it in theory...but go and then explain the over-the-top love infatuation with the Pies or the Cats? Pies i can understand with their exciting brand and (i cringe as i write this), all things Nick Daicos. The Cats for crying out loud have been thereabouts for almost 2 decades and still get the adoration of the commentary teams. 

The brave Tigers, invincible in the years 2017-2020, also get this treatment. They're still practically unbeatable and Martin, Riewoldt & Cotchin are still in career best form. It takes a lot to beat the brave, fighting Tigers. Without checking, I'd say they are probably on top of the ladder.

1 hour ago, Katrina Dee Fan said:

It should have been a red flag to MRO that Ballard held the back of his head, even though contact was on his forehead.  I mean, derrrr

Why would the MRO need to watch the incident? Dunstall declared JvR guilty on the spot.

1 hour ago, Wodjathefirst said:

I may be a little off topic here but in past years I generally used to think the umpiring in the first five or six rounds of each season ‘frustrating’.  Then as the season rolled along it ‘stabilised’.

Not so this year. It has not improved one iota to date.  I’m guessing the contributors are the added pressure on interpreting what constitutes a dangerous tackle.  Also having the fourth umpire (I liked the concept) has certainly diminished the talent pool which increases the number of inconsistent / poor decisions being made.

I think they make it harder for themselves by largely ignoring some of the basic rules of the game. The first ones you learn as a youngster. "In the back" happens in nearly every congested pack where players are scrambling for the ball. Wham! A player's full weight lands on the back of another player. Play on ...

Throwing. I hear ex-umps on the radio saying, but we CAN'T give a free if there's the slightest chance that it was a legal handball!" Oh yeah? That doesn't stop you awarding a free for "insufficient intent" when there's the slightest chance -- often a good chance -- that the player in question didn't really mean for the ball to go out.

One of these (insufficient intent) requires you to read minds, the other (throwing) doesn't. So which one if the easier to crack down on? It's selective application of the rules. If they cracked down on throwing the way they have done with "insufficient intent", the players would clean up their act within a round.

Then they create grey areas for themselves. Hands in the back when marking is okay provided no actual pushing but you're allowed to hold your ground. Jesus Christ, talk about creating an impossible rule to police. But there they go.

360 in a tackle. It's holding the ball. Except they let it go, play on. Then they decided it was a free. Then overnight it wasn't again.

The pace the game is played at, I understand that it's difficult to umpire. But some of these things things happen right in front of the umps. Maybe they really are blind?

(I have not even mentioned the "i" word in this diatribe.)

TL;DR: they make it harder on themselves by picking and choosing which rules they will enforce.

15 minutes ago, BDA said:

The match day commentators insinuating JVR has a case to answer, the media following suit yesterday. Today all the commentariat saying MFC should appeal and JVR will get off. Weird.

BAAAAA!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

On 5/7/2023 at 11:41 AM, dl4e said:

At the end of the day people who gives a flying [censored] what commentators like Dunstall and dermie think. 

Michael Christian gives a flying [censored]!

"Let's see ... Jase reckons this guy is gone for all money. Easy decision for me then. High, deliberate, severe. Done and done. Now, what's Dermie have to say? Oh hell. He reckons the guy has to get off! Now what am I supposed to do? Jesus Christ this job is difficult sometimes. Except for when the commentators all agree. I mean, it was easy back when it was Ablett very week. Nothing-to-see-here on autopilot. But this von Ron Bon guy isn't a big name player. Wait. Not a big name player ... I think I can see a way through this hellish dilemma ... let me consult my notes ... under B for Bugg ... yes, here it is ... no-name player, throw the book. Oh thank God. Christ this job is difficult sometimes."

15 hours ago, Glorious Day said:

David King just moaning on First Crack that the Suns were robbed. Of course, cherry picking a few situations which went against them, selectively ignoring each of the incidents that went against us in the 3rd quarter that led to three Suns goals.

Robbed? I seem to recall watching one of their blokes take a straightforward shot on goal to level the scores, and spray it out to the right. If they were robbed, they did it to themselves.

5 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

Reckons Christian is being directed by higher powers to suspend players based on outcomes, 

Kane Cornes?

3 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

How often do you hear commentators say of other big Vic Club or interstate players "nothing in that, move on" or "he'll get off that's incidental contact" yet if it's an MFC player "oh boy likely to be in trouble there", "looks bad", "will probably get looked at", "at least 1 or 2 weeks maybe worse"? Etc.

It's not that it always seems to us like it's MFC players getting the rough end of the pineapple.

It's that the TV commentators seem to be doing a semi-officlal "first cut" assessment of these incidents. Christian then seems to follow their lead. I can't recall a "nothing in that" incident getting charged by the MRO, and all the "gee, that'll be looked at" incidents get looked at.

Is the MRO allowing himself to be prejudiced by the open slather trial by jury conducted by the TV shows? Is he doing his job and watching each match in isolation, without commentary (and without watching the Sunday star chamber panel shows)? Or does he take the lazy way out and let the media inquisitors make the decisions for him?

24 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Open your bloody eyes Christian. 

Before Christian became the MRO, he had a summer radio show with Mick McGaune, filling in the long slow hours between seasons, and they were both of the mind that the public want to see the best players playing, and that it's some kind of outrage against the game to do anything to prevent them playing. Right out of the box, the wrong man for the job.

6 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

This is not about Michael Christian or any other individual,

I think it partly is about Christian.

8 minutes ago, Queanbeyan Demon said:

the AFL judicial system has acquired both a power and personality of its own, operating in a closed system, accountable only to itself.

Yes, and the AFL has lost control of it. Or ceded control, to be more accurate.

1 minute ago, DeeZee said:

Ralph just said on Fox that the Demons will most likely have to argue him down from a 3 week suspension.

He hasn’t even been reported or cited yet?

FFS Fox footy!

The Match Review Panel (the TV commentators) have assessed the incident and found the player guilty. The incident will now be referred to the Match Review Officer for sentencing.

Having lost control of the tribunal, as evidenced by the Cripps farce last year, the AFL have now lost control of their match review process. Evidently they have outsourced it to the TV channels. All Christian has to do is rock up on a Monday morning and have a gander at who's been condemned by the review shows. All incidents pre-highlighted and assessed for him. Ten minutes later, off for an early lunch, leaving the rest of the week free for golf. Easier job ever. 

How can the AFL allow it to be hijacked and polluted in this way?

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

Sunday morning and we won a game last night against a quality team. My father used to tell me good teams find a way to win when they are not playing well.

Like the saying goes, you only play as well as you're allowed to.  Suns did well but we're more experienced and have more belief.

2 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Agree Spargo should come in. Disagree Chandler should go out. He's been great this year, had a bad one last night but still kicked a magnificent goal on quarter time.

More than any other player in the team (excepting maybe Fritsch), Chandler knows where the goals are. A very useful attribute for a forward.

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

Like the "interpretation" of not paying advantage out of a stoppage free kick. Was that an interpretation or a rule? And when did it change (if at all)? Because last night they seemed pretty happy to pay advantage after play had stopped to figure out where the free kick was going.

Maybe we're back to the "rule of the week" where the players had to watch the Friday night game to find out what was being cracked down on, or not, for the round.

7 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

The commentators know that they are scum, they know what they are doing, and i think it's tied to a couple of issues. 

...

I think it's more like "you've got your flag, now can you just go quietly into the night like good minnows so the traditional big clubs can get back into the limelight."

1 hour ago, Glorious Day said:

I think they changed this rule, are disregarding it or the interpretation of it. A few years ago they paid this 100% of the time when it happened. I haven’t seen it paid at all now for over a year.

46 minutes ago, rpfc said:

They changed the rule.

Its not prior to take the ball from the ruck.

17 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They changed that rule a couple of years back, it's not an automatic free kick anymore.

As far as I can make out, it's not in the official rules and never has been.

It's an "interpretation" layered on top of the actual rules. Just plonked into the game of the whim of someone, then just as easily removed.

"Interpretation" of any game's rules is a joke and an abomination.

22 minutes ago, Singa said:

I wish you could mute the commentary and just listen to the sounds of the game/crowd. Fox commentary is terrible. 

Even now channel 7 pipe in crowd noise for low-attendance matches, like they did during COVID lockdown. Better off making your own noise like when playing backyard footy as kids.

21 minutes ago, Deebauched said:

War drums wont be out yet but Voss better get a move on. He wanted the job.

It's a risk, but often a necessary one, to appoint an unproven coach. It's a leap of faith to appoint a coach proven to have no success.

I can understand recycling Ross Lyon. He took two clubs to grand finals, and but for one bounce of a ball .... whereas Voss, who .... erm ... lemme think ... he, um, well, he .... errrrr ... what's for lunch?

25 minutes ago, Deebauched said:

Pies fans would never leave  before 3qtr time even if 40 points down.

Theyre just getting warmed up.

Let's not let the schadenfreude tempt us into lionising Collingwood. They're still Collingwood no matter the circumstance.

12 hours ago, Demon Dynasty said:

Intensity at, over and around the ball missing.  No run.

When they haven't got the pill it's very much the same.  Pressure is way off.

Blues have regressed so far this season

This is why they need to have some small degree of success. Maybe losing an elimination final. Just enough to keep Voss in the job for years on end. Imagine what a good coach could do with that list.

5 hours ago, DutchDemons said:

My brother is a big Carlton fan. He went to the match today with his 7 year old son. They had the following exchange:

Son: “I think this is the worst game of football I have ever seen”

Father: “It’s definitely the most frustrating”

Son: “Every game I’ve ever watched is frustrating”

Father “It’s the curse of being a Carlton supporter, mate”

I am so glad kids growing up these days watching the Dees don’t need to go through that anymore.

I feel a bit sorry for the kid. Only to a point. Imagine the gloating and rubbing noses in it if they have some success. It's crucial that they waste their talented list and spend another generation in the wilderness.

He's an Essendon thug of old and that's all I need to know.

2 hours ago, david_neitz_is_my_dad said:

The comment made by Sicily a week or so back is 100% correct (the only issue was Tasmania is the clubs major sponsor) Tassie will struggle to get and hold players. Long term it will end up being a team mostly made up of Tasmanians.

The compilers of this wish list would be better off making a list of current players who come from Tassie. If all the radio talkback of the last week has any grounding in reality (yes, I know), such players would be champing at the bit to get back there.

7 minutes ago, ManDee said:

Forgive me if my maths is awry, but in my day 16 plus 4 equalled 20. So if Fritta has kicked 16 goals 4 behinds why is he not on the list?

You will see that the list only weights 6kg. That's enough for 12 players. So Fritta, because his number is 31, won't fit.

An alternative explanation is the the twit doesn't show the entire image until you open the twit and then open the image inside it, but that's a bit of a long shot.

25 minutes ago, spirit of norm smith said:

2 

5 

11 

And your pick for supplementary?