dworship

He has been a leader down there for longer than that and more importantly I think the other backs love and respect him. I suspect he gets that from all the team. A man comfortable in his skin and his role as a leader.

Love watching the effort of both Spargo and Fritsch. Particularly Spargo as he goes from contest to contest.

I live in Ballarat and I think you're soft

Vince - too many turnovers Please back this up with a Qtr and approx times. I did break the seal but I only saw the JL momentum killer that ended in a Dogs goal.

Yes and he did motor through a few

From Saty post #20 - DJ had a bit of a calf issue at training, assume they are not risking it

Yes and "push" is not defined either which is how/why I started in on this thread. I listened closely to the Tiges, Crows game tonight and heard an Ump at one stage call "hands in the back" which is not a free kick. Later I heard an Ump call "push in the back" (which it was) and then that muppet Bruce McAvaney commented "free kick for hands in the back". Amateur, Amateur, Amateur. If you proport to be an umpire or a football expert commentator at least know the rules and the language required to call our great game.

I know I will probably cop it for this comment but I'm almost; emphasis on "almost", starting to feel sorry for the Umps. What moron/s decided that in a ruck contest you can " push, bump, hold or block" the opposition as long as you don't do it "unduly". WTF

One more comment about the rules; no wonder ruckmen get confused, below is an extract from the ruck contest section: (b) unduly pushes, bumps, holds or blocks an opposition Player who is the Ruck contesting a bounce or throw up by a field Umpire or throw in by a boundary Umpire; I wonder what training/instruction the Umps get in determining unduly. Was this a word used in the original Rules? When and what was the reasoning behind the introduction of this word?

To follow on from this I thought it would be great to know things like which individual umpire awards the most frees/where they are awarded/how often certain umpires are represented in loses/wins. Champion data captures a lot of things. Why aren't the 3rd team anaylised to the same extent. Would help with tipping and betting and would have the added benefit they would become more accountable if the truth were known.

Yes Earl the (b) words are taken directly from the rules (link below). I didn't include the Law number or heading but it is the Law that relates to tackling. When you refer to holding VS pushing it is the point I was trying to make. If a player flies in to the back of an almost or stationary player and that player is propelled forward and away from the tackler, then it would meet the definition of a push. If a player catches up to a moving player and wraps the arms around, holding the player to them, and then the tackled player drops to their knees or falls or dives forward (think Selwood) then this is not a push. As to your second point, I agree completely (k) engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable; Falling into an opponents back is not "unreasonable", diving onto a players back is (imo). http://aflvic.com.au/umpiring/umpiring-resources/afl-laws-of-the-game-2018/

(b) For the avoidance of doubt, a Correct Tackle may be executed by holding (either by the body or playing uniform) a Player from the front, side or behind, provided that a Player held from behind is not pushed in the back. Yes there is some question in this one however the guide should still be was it a "push". If an umpire says "you fell on his back" then that should not be paid. Mind you the one where Bull got hit in the back so hard it gave him whiplash (while he wasn't in possession of the ball I might add) was not given as a free but perhaps the umpire was unsighted. Actually I wonder how often they're required to have an eye test.

a definition of push gives us; 1. exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself. Again by a simple understanding of English a hand resting on the back of a player is not a push unless it exerts force. The addition to the rules (in the definition section) of this clear statement would give umpires something to measure their decisions against rather than all this inconsistent adjudication. It's also not a free if the player in front strongly moves backward and the player behind uses his hands to maintain his position.

That's the point Earl, all those great forwards were masters at doing it legally. If you couldn't hold your ground as a defender you were pushed out of the way. The problem today is this interpretation carp and it's inconsistent implementation. The rules are still there and actually are very simple. It is the carp around them and a lack of professionalism in implementation that is causing such inconsistency. I keep hearing the apologists going on about how difficult our game is to adjudicate. The rules are simple, they should go back to a simple approach. If I wanted to effect change in this space then it is necessary for the AFL to want to take action. I propose a campaign where everyone uses the term amateur. "What an amateur performance by the umpires today" Spread it far and wide anytime there is a comment on this and every other forum the term gets used. Anybody that knows a Journo get the word inserted somewhere "amateurish" is the best adjective to use. Fill out the annual fan survey use the word. Forget about Facebook pages devoted to pointing ot how bad umpiring is, we need a hook that the AFL will not like. Get everyone speaking the same way and the AFL will not like it. Ring up the radio stations and want to have your say "gee I thought the Umpiring was amateur today" If the commentators want to persue that that's fine. Stay unemotional (hard I know) but the AFL is all about "Image" and "Brand" we need to make them sit up and take notice and what better way than to attack the key profeesionalism (or lackof) of the adjudicators.

It has always annoyed me that the Umpires are now instructed to or take it on themselves to interpret. I will have to go back and read the rules again however I believe it still says "push in the back" a definition of push gives us; 1. exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself. I find it difficult to reconcile the definition with a "tackle" where the intent is to hold the player as close as possible. Statements from the umpires such as; "you carried him forward in the tackle" or "you fell into his back" are not "push's" by definition. These are the simple facts that may be brought out if umpires were full time and instead of some [censored] talking about the rule of the week they might actually study the rules and what they say and devote more than a handful of hours a week to the pursuit. Likewise pushing a player in the shoulder or side is not in the "back". This is a constant incorrect call and you can hear the whistle followed by the call "push" every week when a player has been moved off their line by hands in the side often up under the armpit and is simply good technique.

Pretty sure he was at the Casey game limping around

I think you miss my point, I think you are a premature.......... poster

Deafening silence, how long will it continue?

Well then, dig out the Nev and Oscar data and give us a look. While your at it, tell us how the data is compiled.

Plays well and stays fit then I think the pressure mounts on Tyson. They will both get an opportunity to impress at Casey, which one continues as depth will be determined head to head at Casey.

The two Ambassadors get to drive around in their personal models as part of the promotion of the "brand" as I understand it. Some of the other players might be green with envy. I know I am.

Do yourselves a favour and head over to the MFC website and check out Demon Drivers, apparently there is more to come. All I can say is those two are having waaay to much fun as Infiniti Ambassadors

That is the first time I've ever seen decorum used in relation to Demonland

Doesn't mind putting the knee in in the air either. Pretty sure it was Prance that broke Bulls ribs last year when he was uncovered and I've seen him do it plenty of other times as well. He is the player I detest the most in the AFL, nothing worse than a God botherer that's a hypocrite.