daisycutter

re ginnivan decision: having re-watched many times and read/considered the comments here..... ....i'm gonna backtrack at little and now believe it was a 50:50 decision

1. yes, but only if it can be seen to be deliberate. a bit hard most times. 2. no 3. yes

well that avoided a few heart attacks now let's bring his bro home

straight swap for gus's bro bring him home

he should read the jeremy howe story coaches decide where someone plays, not players

65,862

i'd imagine because he was young and still a kid your question would be better directed at his management who would be clearly the one holding the reins

and yes that will be a good thing........depending of course on the consistency and skill of the umpires.....and the afl not changing their mind again. btw i don't object to players trying to evade a tackle legitimately by dodging and weaving, as long as the intention is to evade and not milk. I suppose too there will always be grey areas, but that can't be helped in a 360 degree game. so does that mean you agree there was a free kick at time of previous frame?

i don't mind a bit of payback. ginnivan certainly deserves this. but this doesn't alter the issue of whether this particular decision was right or wrong

the free kick was already there in the previous frame.......on the shoulder

did you look at the previous frame? redman's arm is already on his shoulder which is technically high and knees are not dropped. it's not likely to go anywhere else but up at that stage. having an arm around your neck is a sure way to drop someone's knees. the point being he didn't drop his knees before contact. and why did you think the afl (after examination) said the umpire was incorrect in not paying a free?

btw for those interested, here's the next frame. at this point it is a free kick definitely. what happens after is irrelevant.

why did you deliberately change my quote and its meaning? it was - "so he's not allowed to bend his knees whilst running" natural bending of knees whilst running is not the same as ducking or deliberately lowering your body

waist high? lol, macca, you need to go to specsavers

oh come on. his body is actually leaning forward ever so slightly and redmans definitely aiming high redman is much taller and it's his responsibility to take this into account yeah, i do feel dirty defending ginnivan in this single case

so he's not allowed to bend his knees whilst running......lol remember it all happened quickly and the tackler is closing fast from an angle but the one thing i do agree with is he has a lot of false negatives to make up for all the false positives he was gifted

as far as jackson goes......none

point of initial contact no leaning head into opponent no dropping of knees no raising of arm (nor on next 3 frames where arm is around neck) i know ginnivan is a cheat (self confessed) but frees like this one are not the ones to nail him a cheat

c'mon macca. it was just a lousy tackle. and dangerous too i'm fully aware of ginnivans tricks, but this was just a poor tackle and a free every time

incorrect call i've watched it slo-mo frame by frame. essendon player went in too high. no question. there was no arm raised to push it high.i don't think ginnivan went low before first contact which was high to begin with.

i'd really like to believe that.....sadly i'm not convinced

well if the main reason is returning "home" no matter what, then there is no incentive for freo to pay the big money reported. seems to me freo should only have to offer a realistic value and term, say $700k x 5 years. He'd still only be 26 years old and if potential realised could grab another 5 year deal on big money. If he's already committed to returning to WA then no need for freo to over-reach contract-wise

lj took a 1 year extension, the other two took 2 year extensions

training today at gosch's

worst thing is this trade is likely to go down to the wire and with multiple clubs involved this could mean we miss out on trading in a good player from another club because of the timing/uncertainty