titan_uranus

We didn't lose because of the umpires. If we miss the finals by 1 game, it will be our fault. We should have won this game regardless of the two non-allowed goals and the pink umpires. We should also have won the Collingwood game (not just because Petterd should have held the mark, but like the Dogs game we should have held our lead).

Agree with all this. You seem to know what you're talking about too. It's the last point that is worrying for the AFL. Field umpires coming in an disputing 50-50 decisions undermines the goal umpire's power. The goal umpire should be the one to make the decision if he and the field umpire have contradictory views (and neither is 100% sure). In this case the goal umpire believed it was a goal. The decision should not have been overturned just because the field umpire wasn't sure.

We did this in the last quarter. Johnson was the target. He didn't even get off the ground. Our kick ins this year have been fine, other than the occasional screw up. But every team has them. At least now the majority of the time we can feel confident that the ball will get out of the 50. Over the past few years that hasn't been the case.

Frawley will take LeCras I think. He did that last year at the G and owned him, and I'm pretty sure he did it again at Casey in the pre-season. Bartram, though, should stay as he tagged Cooney well last week. He's doing his role. No. Not yet. One game is not enough. Consistency at Casey is needed before we rush him into the AFL. I'd find it harsh on Cheney and McNamara if Watts got in on the back of one game when these two have been stringing together good games all year, and much of last year too.

I think it's also important for Casey to play Watts at CHF from now on. IIRC he spent a lot of last year up on the wing, which wouldn't really be helping him much.

This is where I'm at at the moment. If the goal umpire says he saw the ball come off Green's boot, then the doubt has been brought by the field umpire, who think he saw it come off Hargraves' fist. IMO the goal umpire's decision should have remained. The other one seems to have been dealt with correctly, as the goal umpire said he didn't know if Lake touched it or not.

So having seen none of the game, and basing these comments on those that are written here, it seems that out of Wonaeamirri, Jetta and Maric, Maric is a long way back, and Jetta looks good. Mind you, Bennell played well enough on Friday to keep his spot, but the pressure is on for forward pocket positions. And Cheney (and, to a lesser extent, McNamara) plays yet another good game for Casey, but I doubt there's an opening for him in the Melbourne side. Which is kind of sad when you consider that Johnson and Dunn are in there. Cheney's best bet might be Bartram's spot, but Bartram tagged Cooney and did a good job there, so I think he's continuing to play his role.

Look how far down Davey is. We're already playing well without him dominating. Imagine if he could lift to the levels he was at last year.

Not sure if one performance at Casey is enough to warrant selection. It was a good performance, yes, but so far that's the only game he's really looked comfortable at VFL level. Let's also not forget the match was against Coburg, who suck. I'm thinking we need to see him do it again, preferably next week, before we bring him in to the side. On the other hand, Watts in for Dunn does sound nice...

I'm bored, so here's a semi-transcript of DB's interview on SEN this morning: Asked about the positives: we came back, we hung in, we were a chance to win despite the conditions, good effort. After the game DB re-inforced that we are on a journey, this is another step, the players were upset/angry/disappointed but DB tried to prop them up by keeping it in perspective. We've come a long way since Round 1. Consistent performances North Melbourne aside. Forcefully denied that he had any doubt about his spot as coach when the rumours/innuendo were flying about after the Hawthorn game. Didn't like that question I don't think. But said it was fair enough that the blowtorch was on us. Dermott asked if Bailey had improved since Round 1 or if our opponents since then had been more suited to our gameplan. DB said we had no pressure in the Hawthorn game, couldn't get the ball back and didn't pressure them enough. From there it was an emphasis to having 22 players put in an effort. That's where the improvement has come from. Brereton asked the question again as DB avoided it. DB said it was for others to say, not for him. Robinson said standards were obviously higher, then said when does the focus shift from the 'journey' to the 'now. DB said the two can't be separated, we're competing now and young clubs climbing the ladder get great experience from close games and big games like last night and the Collingwood game. Other than QBW those games are few and far between. Said our start was slow, not good enough, put us behind the 8 ball straight away, so that needs improving. Malthouse apparently likened Scully to Judd. Robinson asked DB what he thought of Scully. DB said it was 'very good'. Scully's been building from game to game. Along with Trengove and McKenzie (and someone added in Hughes), they will get better as a group. Said it was 'nice' for people to put Scully and Judd in the same sentence. Asked about Hughes. Robinson liked the way he attacked the ball and his courage. DB agreed. Completely different journey to AFL compared to Scully. Great attitude, worked hard, got his opportunity. Should improve from here. Likened him to Petterd. Great hands, great leap which we didn't see. Lloyd talked about our defence and midfield now showing good signs, but the forward line is struggling. Asked about Watts, if he'd be a power forward or a half forward lead up player. DB said his lateral movement and speed are good. As are his hands. He'll end up as a mobile target in the 50. You can call him a 'power forward' but it's more about the unit not the individual. No timeline for his return: he'll be selected when his form warrants it. DB disagreed that this is different to last year, where we played him in QBW. DB said he was picked for QBW because of his form. The form he was showing last year is the same as what he's shown so far this year. That's why he was picked last year and why he's not been picked this year. Huddo mentioned the bit where DB swore in the interview with Leigh Matthews. Wasn't intentional. Realised this morning apparently. His kids reckon he's up for Tool of the Week. Sounds a bit ashamed despite the joking around. Lloyd asked about Bennell. DB said Bennell's an 'interesting' player. Mentioned the mark and goal as being signs of his ability. He has 'real qualities' about him. Trains hard. Pleased to see him play well, handled the ball well in the wet.

That's for the obvious ones, yes. But when there's doubt, the decision always seems to rest with the field umpire, even if the goal umpire was adamant or was in the better position. That's not how it should be.

That sucks. He was in such good form. Hopefully it's nothing too serious. Thanks for the info. Btw, where's the Hassett Room?

Played a blinder at Manuka last year or the year before. 5 or 6 goals. I'm pretty sure Manuka's smaller than the MCG.

The point of the all clear is to indicate to the goal umpire that the passage of play was OK, that there wasn't a free kick or any reason for the ball not to have crossed the goal line, allowing the goal umpire to signal whether the score registered a goal or a behind. This does not, and should not, preclude the goal umpire from making his/her decision as to whether or not the score was a goal or a behind. Having field umpires questioning them, especially when the goal umpire was in a better position, undermines their role and makes them second-guess themselves. Let them make the decisions.

If they won't stop Victorian clubs from going to Skilled (and they won't), then it's time they made it even and sent Collingwood, Carlton and Essendon down there. Yes, there will be fans aplenty locked out, but there are still fans missing out when Melbourne, North Melbourne and Richmond have to go there. It's not a fair situation if only small Victorian/interstate teams are scheduled to play there and the bigger clubs, courtesy of their fans, not their performance, are exempt.

No I don't think that's the case sue. If you're not in control of the ball as it goes over the line it's a throw in. Since he hadn't marked the ball before going over the line, it was rightly called a throw in. I agree on both counts. The defensive goal line should be treated the same as the boundary lines. Why discriminate between the two? All that changes them is which side of the behind post the line is. If you can't take the ball deliberately over the boundary line, you shouldn't be able to take it deliberately over the goal line. If forwards and mids don't get that luxury defenders shouldn't either. And the penalty is ridiculous. Should be the same as for when the defender touches the goalsquare on the kick out: a ball up.

No good. Only Dappa seems to think contrarily. Jamar in his early days was always decent in the ruck. Always. And he at least knew how to use his body. His problem was disposal (still not 100% fixed) and ability to get into the play. Johnson can't ruck anywhere near as well as Jamar, and doesn't use his body like he should. In another thread I cited the example of Grimes' kick out late in the game, where PJ just stood on the ground and expected he could take the mark that way as opposed to leaping up towards the ball. Poor effort, typical Johnson. Unfortunately we're playing West Coast next week, and if they're good at anything it's rucking. So Johnson will stay. But like Jaded, I think we're better off playing Martin, giving him some certainty about his position and just telling him 'you're second ruck, go for it'. Johnson's not going to be the answer.

Initially that's what I thought, and whilst I do agree that goal umpires seem to be a bit subservient and just roll over when someone questions them, I think Lake actually did touch the ball. However it is totally unclear what happened with Hargrave, and if the goal umpire said he saw it come off the boot and was prepared to call it a goal then the decision should have stood, and the field umpire should not have involved himself.

There's already a thread for changes.

It's not so much having home games on FTA. It's having the interstate trips on FTA. None of our interstate games this year are on FTA, so we're forced into listening to SEN (think Tim Gossage, Kevin Bartlett or even the horribly biased Adelaide commentators). Hopefully next year we'll find ourselves playing Saturday night games against Brisbane or Sydney or something that are on Ten rather than Fox.

To make your own minds up, go to http://www.gameanalyser.afl.com.au/ Not a bad initiative this. Let's you go directly to any goal, behind (not rushed ones) contested mark, mark inside 50 or free kick. To see the Green/Hargrave one you can click on the Tom Williams contested mark in the first quarter. It loads directly at the replay. Looks like it came off the boot to me. Also, in that one, the goal umpire says he saw it come off the boot, the two boundary umpires said they didn't know, but since the field umpire thought it was off hands he won the debate.

Yep, there's just too much grey in the rules at the moment. But it's going to be hard to make a lot of them black and white. I mean, how do you say what is or isn't prior opportunity? Measured through time? Or just having your hands free in the tackle? Or having an option, even if you get tackled straight away? Or, as I've wanted, if you drop a basic mark but get tackled immediately after you pick the ball up? I think it would just be too difficult to give every rule a black and white interpretation.

I've never heard of that before. I'm sure there have been plenty of instances where there's been doubt over a goal but it's been paid nonetheless. Goal umpires have no power in the game anymore. They are umpires for a reason. Either turn them into 'goalmen' or let them decide. Like I said in the other thread, if there's doubt on a field umpire's decision you don't get umpires rushing in from everywhere to have their say.

You're right, you have to earn Friday night matches. So long as we don't fall in a heap we should find ourselves with more than 1 next year.

20 hitouts: Jamar did most of the ruckwork against Hudson, which left Johnson to ruck against Everitt. Anyone could get hitouts against him. 2 goal assists is nice, but 0 influence around the ground is not. Example: Lake snaps that point. Grimes takes the kick in. Johnson asks for it 50 out. Grimes kicks to the contest. Johnson decides to stand on the ground and wait for the ball to come to him. He gets spoiled. Should have gone airborne and then he might have touched the ball. He just doesn't know how to use his body or how to take a contested mark.