binman

The pies forward line is pretty uninspiring i reckon. Much more important is that we have the best defence.

I calmed down too, and then I watched a replay of Monday nights 360 and robbo said the umpire heard a clip, 'just like cricket when you hear nick'. Heard something? 70k people going ballistic, the Demon army screaming 2 metres behind him, players colliding at speed? And he heard the sound of a football brushing a players wrist(because if I did hit his right wrist, it could have only brushed it because even those who say it did acknowledge there was no deviation)???????? In cricket, with a quieter crowd 100 metres away, there is frequently confusion from players and umpires as to whether there is a nick, hence the frequent debate about whether to use up a review.

I went to the game and watched him closely. No chance he plays. Miles off being fit enough and as you say basically couldn't leave the ground. Cant see him playing again this season TBH

And on expected score, forget the bulltish you might hear that the blues should have been 5 goals up at the end of the first quarter, on expected score they were only 4 points up - only one more than the actual margin.

Sure. We will struggle to come after that brutal game -as will the blues (just as the Pies and Port did in the week after their brutal epic - both lost as short priced favs) I wont be backing against the dees, but the hawks and the suns to make their line are both good value bets. But the only way we don't finish top 4 is we lose our last two games and the blues win both of theirs (and of course that is the only way the blues can make top 4) Regardless of how you rate the blues or the dees, that is statistically a very unlikely scenario. So, as i wrote, in all likelihood we will have a double chance and the blues wont. So therefore we are a better chance of winning the flag.

You think there is a greater likelihood the blues will have a double chance than us?

Agree with all of the above. If they don't finish top 4 history is against them, but as you say they have the game. As do we. The same one in fact Contest, intense pressure, forward half football has been the template for winning the flag ever since Hardwick's tiger's won the flag in 2017. And one of the truisms of all sport, also holds true in footy - defence wins Grand Finals. And the dees and the blues have the best defensive systems by some margin The game on Saturday night showed how close and how well matched we are. The Blues were brilliant, and deserved the win. But we had the better of the second half and looked fitter and stronger at the end. We were denied the four points by an officiating error, but even leaving that aside the game could have gone either way. As Luke Ball said, the best game of the season - two top teams going head to head and being separated by under a goal. It is only logical that anyone that rates the blues as a good chance of winning the flag rate also rate us a good chance of doing so. In fact if someone thinks the blues are a good chance of winning the flag, the logical extension is we have a greater chance of doing so. Yes they won that game, but I think we are the better team. But that is by the by - the fact remains, in all likelihood, we will have a double chance and they will not. So therefore we have a better chance of winning the flag.

Agree on giving the ARC the soft call, but not with asking the goal umpire any clarifying questions The latter just adds another variable and process that would have to be followed. Just one example - how would the ARC speak to the goal umpire? Do the goal umpires currently wear a mic? If no, that is just more tech issues and costs - and the AFL are already woeful in that space. If they do have mic, then how are they 'questioned? What's appropriate to ask? What if it the ARC reviewer asks a leading questions? But most of all, for every second that passes from the incident the umpires memory of the incident morph and changes - it is human nature. The brain is constantly reinterpreting what has occurred in the past. Much easier - and more importantly much more black and white - would be for there to be blanket rule. No soft call. The goal umpire just tells the truth - i don't know if it was touched or not (which is no different to 'i think it was touched' or "i think it's a goal'). It is then up to the ARC reviewer to review the video and make the call. If they cant tell if it has been touched or not becuase the video is not clear, than it is a variation on the old cricket umpiring rule - the batter gets the benefit of the doubt - the kicker get the benefit of the doubt and it is given a goal. It could also be given point but that makes less sense to me. Either way it is a clear rule that everyone understands and is uniformly applied. Simple. The thing that does my head in is this scenario was just so utterly predictable and preventable. In fact there was a similar scenario last year with Lynch, with the lions being being the beneficiary. Which is why i cant get away from the thought the AFL are deliberately not addressing obvious issues like this. And why i could see them bringing in a ham fisted response that just created further dramas, and unintended consequences, like Whatley's idea re the ARC conferring with the goal umpire. They conflate controversy with it being good for the game becuase it dominates sport air time. It's been their strategy for 20 years - crowd out every other sport for media attention. Grow footy by starving other sports and codes of attention. It's a joke - and so mid numbingly short sighted and harmful to the sport.

True dat.

What the? I had to go back and make sure i didn't quote the wrong post. But i didn't. You wrote the dees, and i quote, 'were garbage for the first quarter and a half' I barely referenced the umpires. My post (that you have quoted) was all about rebutting your opinion the dees 'were garbage for the first quarter and a half' In all seriousness, how on earth do you arrive at 'I have no idea what your post has to do with mine'?

I could not agree more rjay. It's on the AFL, pure and simple.

Yes, i hadn't considered that. That makes perfect sense. An elegant solution that like all such solutions is simple, logical and makes sense.

Give me a spell. We were not 'garbage' for the first quarter and half. The blues were brilliant. Their intensity was off the charts. And we stood up amazingly well. You've managed to insult both the Dees AND the blues (if we were garbage for a quarter and a half any decent team, let alone a tem of the Blues caliber, would have gone into half time with a 6 goal lead) Such rot. On ABC radio after the game, whcih i srted listing to on my way home, Brendan Goddard said the 'demons lost no admirers, they were awesome' (he also went on to say that ARC decision was clearly an error and questioned how they could have made the decision so quickly). Without a word of a lie, i immediately thought to myself, yes they will - but not from any objective person, but rather it will be dees fans who can't see the woods for the trees. This was the pressure rating for the match (note 200 is consider elite, finals like pressure - we finished with an average across the game of 200. That is unbelievable). Team pressure Quarter For Against 1 196 224 2 185 201 3 207 197 4 214 202 Match 200 206 The fact that the blues had an average of 206 is credit to them. Amazing pressure - i would be very surprised if they have had a higher rating in any other game this season. No other team has come close to that sort of sustained pressure in a game against us this season. By way of comparison in our previous encounter both team averaged 170 for the game. And IIRC the Pies Port game, which many have said is the best, most intense game of the season, was aprox the same as the blues dees game. Most finals don't get to those levels. Our GF win didn't. And nor did the Pies Cats game on Friday night for that matter. And before you dismiss the stat, clubs put huge stock in it. It was designed by Champion Data for clubs, not TV. If you don't believe me listen to McRae's post match presser - he promised they would lift their pressure rating ahead of the game and in the presser references their pressure being back to it's very best - 'at 2' (note: the data the clubs get, which Brendan Sanderson has said is shown to players on the bench thru the match, is expressed as say 1.8 for 180 - fox and the herald sun just adds a zero to make it sexier and easier for fans to grasp).

That's a really great idea. A brilliant idea. Make them full time professionals. Reward them properly. Every game has one. Rotate them so they also do the other non 'conductor' roles. Have them essentially coach the other umpires at the breaks and half time Assess their performance on how well the overall game is officiated. Offer considerable performance bonuses for when KPIs are exceeded. Put them in front of the media after games, or on the Monday morning. Allow tough questions to be asked. Allow them to admits errors and take on board conductive feedback. But also to push back on silly narratives. Give them some say in how the rules are written and interpreted. Allow them to become trusted voice, an authoritative voice, fabric of the game and part of the conversation the way Glenn James and harry Bietzel were. The pros act as mentors and there is a clear pathway for excellence and promotion. Have only the pros do prelims and GFs. Which is essentially what happens anyway - the best umpires umpiring the biggest games. They can also do the Brownlow votes. Announce the four pros to officiate the GF at the Brownlow (and and pay them a really good bonus). Award a best umpire of the year - the Bietzel - and that person is the head umpire for the GF.

I posted this in another thread, but it is more relevant in this thread: Look, I've calmed down now. But that error cost us 4 points - in a game we won expected score (a stat the clubs put a lot of store in) by 2 points. it's simply not good enough. And i would say the same if it was us that benefited. If they use ARC they should invest in the technology. And then have a proper system. The VAR in the world cup works brilliantly, one because they have the tech. But as importanty it takes the pressure of the referee and linesman. If a difficult , and potentially controversial decision has to be made, it's made by an anonymous person shielded from baying fans. And the on field ref doesn’t cop it. We essentialy revert to the umpires call when in doubt ' and they have made the call in the moment, under huge pressure with no option to take their time and calmly review the evidence. If they don't want to invest in the tech to work and/or have a proper system then scrap the arc. And make it simple. If the umpire is 100% certain it is touched, it's a point. If not 100% certain its a goal. Takes out the grey. A huge amount of stress is avoided - not to mention resources that could be instead poured into improving the decision making skills of theumpireds. Think about it. The ARC was brought in after hawkins was awarded a goal in a gf when replays (and the naked eye) showed it hit the post to prevent similar 'howlers' Fifteen years later we are still having howlers. But worse. Because everyone watching sees it over and over. The law of unintended consequences. A law the AFL consistently, repeatedly fail to respect, let alone heed. They could have saved a fortune, and a huge amount of angst, if they simply changed the rule and made it like rugby (and soccer, and Hockey and gridiron and ice hockey and Gaelic football) - it hits the inside of the post and goes thru, its a goal If it hits the post and goes back into the field of play it's a point (or play on, which would be rare, but add an interesting variable). Instead we now have ridiculous scenarios of amateur "snicko' (i mean please - its not even accurate and nor all grounds has it), points getting paid when it hits oversized, flapping padding and minutes wasted trying to zoom in using sub standard tech on the point of impact - only to end up going with whatever the "soft call" was (which there is no fixed rule on what it should be ie they could simply make the rule if its not clear its a goal). To me it yet another example of the AFL making things ridiculously, and unnecessarily complicated and having grey areas they could take out of the game. It is hard not think it is a conscious decision by the AFL not to fix all this rubbish up. Why might they not take as much grey as they can out of the game? The AFL is addicted to controversy because controversy sucks up media air time. Creates clicks. Unlimited content. A good example is a free for insufficient intent to keep the ball in play. What a ridiculous concept. The umpires have to determine the players mindset it in for petes sake. Not to mention factor in things like proximity of teamated, bounce of the ball eyc eyc. Deliberate made more sense. But was still flawed. Take out the grey, make it easier for the umpires, and just have the last touch rule between the arcs they have in AFLW. Not a single footy fan would be unhappy with that. And critically it would reduce errors, take out a variable and most important of all give one less thing for fans to howl at the umpires for. There are dozens of of rule changes they could make if they were serious about making the job of the umpire easier, reducing the criticism they receive and removing as much grey from how the game is officiated as possible. Clearing up the holding the ball/insufficient attemp/not disposing schemozzle is just one. It was a joke on Saturday night. And that's on the AFL, not the umpires. I watched Casey yesterday. There is CLEARLY a directive not to pay htb. Just like Saturday night, a ridiculous number of clear frees not paid. And the new one is blocking or holding in marling contests. I watched 10 mins of the saints game and King got the softest free for a hold in the goal square. Bowey gets pinged when he scraps and marks. Yet other clear blocks, scraps and holds get completely ignored - even when there is a 4th umpire right there. And they wonder why people get so upset at umpires. That's on the AFL. The AFL talk a good game about the importance of not criticising the umpires. Which is fair enough. But they are the problem, and offer no solutions- not even when the solutions are in their control and simple to implement. Umpires deserves better. Players deserve better. Fans deserve better.

Agree. But we scored 35 points from turnover. Two almost identical game plans. Stats almost identical. Brilliant game of footy.

That is precisely right. Look, I've calmed down now. But that error caused us to not get 4 points - in a game we won expected score (a stat the clubs put a lot of store in) by 2 points. it's simply not good enough. And i would say the same if it was us that benefited. If they use ARC they should invest in the technology. And then have a proper system. The VAR in the world cup works brilliantly, one because they have the tech. But as importanty it takes the pressure of the referee and linesman. If a difficult , and potentially controversial decision has to be made, it's made by an anonymous person shielded from baying fans. And the on field ref doesn’t cop it. We essentialy revert to the umpires call when in doubt ' and they have made the call in the moment, under huge pressure with no option to take their time and calmly review the evidence. If they don't want to invest in the tech to work and/or have a proper system then scrap the arc. And make it simple. If the umpire is 100% certain it is touched, it's a point. If not 100% certain its a goal. Takes out the grey. A huge amount of stress is avoided - not to mention resources that could be instead poured into improving the decision making skills of theumpireds. Think about it. The ARC was brought in after hawkins was awarded a goal in a gf when replays (and the naked eye) showed it hit the post to prevent similar 'howlers' Fifteen years later we are still having howlers. But worse. Because everyone watching sees it over and over. The law of unintended consequences. A law the AFL consistently, repeatedly fail to respect, let alone heed. They could have saved a fortune, and a huge amount of angst, if they simply changed the rule and made it like rugby (and soccer, and Hockey and gridiron and ice hockey and Gaelic football) - it hits the inside of the post and goes thru, its a goal If it hits the post and goes back into the field of play it's a point (or play on, which would be rare, but add an interesting variable). Instead we now have ridiculous scenarios of amateur "snicko' (i mean please - its not even accurate and nor all grounds has it), points getting paid when it hits oversized, flapping padding and minutes wasted trying to zoom in using sub standard tech on the point of impact - only to end up going with whatever the "soft call" was (which there is no fixed rule on what it should be ie they could simply make the rule if its not clear its a goal). To me it yet another example of the AFL making things ridiculously, and unnecessarily complicated and having grey areas they could take out of the game. It is hard not think it is a conscious decision by the AFL not to fix all this rubbish up. Why might they not take as much grey as they can out of the game? The AFL is addicted to controversy because controversy sucks up media air time. Creates clicks. Unlimited content. A good example is a free for insufficient intent to keep the ball in play. What a ridiculous concept. The umpires have to determine the players mindset it in for petes sake. Not to mention factor in things like proximity of teamated, bounce of the ball eyc eyc. Deliberate made more sense. But was still flawed. Take out the grey, make it easier for the umpires, and just have the last touch rule between the arcs they have in AFLW. Not a single footy fan would be unhappy with that. And critically it would reduce errors, take out a variable and most important of all give one less thing for fans to howl at the umpires for. There are dozens of of rule changes they could make if they were serious about making the job of the umpire easier, reducing the criticism they receive and removing as much grey from how the game is officiated as possible. Clearing up the holding the ball/insufficient attemp/not disposing schemozzle is just one. It was a joke on Saturday night. And that's on the AFL, not the umpires. I watched Casey yesterday. There is CLEARLY a directive not to pay htb. Just like Saturday night, a ridiculous number of clear frees not paid. And the new one is blocking or holding in marling contests. I watched 10 mins of the saints game and King got the softest free for a hold in the goal square. Bowey gets pinged when he scraps and marks. Yet other clear blocks, scraps and holds get completely ignored - even when there is a 4th umpire right there. And they wonder why people get so upset at umpires. That's on the AFL. The AFL talk a good game about the importance of not criticising the umpires. Which is fair enough. But they are the problem, and offer no solutions- not even when the solutions are in their control and simple to implement. Umpires deserves better. Players deserve better. Fans deserve better.

Spargo will come in.

I agree. Frittata is far better hot than cold

Further to the above wcw, jvr was shooting for goal, not a penalty, but you get my drift (this is from an article about the maltidas- and the excerpt about cortnee vine's winning penalty) 'Penalty shootouts are fastidiously prepared long before they arrive. Every player picks their target, hammering in practice shots again and again until the precise movement is etched into their muscle fibres. But with her name 10th on the list of 11 Matildas penalty-takers, Cortnee Vine did not really think she would have to step up. Yet after 19 penalty kicks and the shootout score at 6-6, Australia’s eyes turned to the 25-year-old as she dutifully made her way to the spot. Brow furrowed in focus, Vine’s calm belied the fact this was her first World Cup and first penalty shot for the national team. She said afterwards she could not hear the 49,461-strong crowd, that she was able to block it out and focus on the task at hand.'

It wasn't a mistake wcw. jvr was not looking at anything in the crowd. They are trained to ignore all distractions, including targets and big maxy heads. If he WAS relying on the target then I feat he ain't gonna make it as AFL player.

I have heard everything now. A cheer squad member being blamed for an AFL player missing a goal! And here I thought we lost because a billion dollar industry can't spring for a go pro.

Now we are back to barracking for the lions!

How ironic would it be for finishing 4th being the best option?

Yep. The uncontested possession differential was massive after the first quarter - it's another stat that caught my attention at the game. It stayed about the same for the rest of the match, meaning we either stopped them chipping it around or they stopped using that strategy (which seems less likely)