Earl Hood

2 hours ago, sue said:

I guess I'm ignorant about cricket but I don't see how being captain of a cricket team means leadership, especially in footy?  What does a cricket captain do that is relevant (besides not being a total introvert)?  Genuine question.

 

I would have thought that being nominated as captain of any sporting team means you show the better leadership attributes than your peers in the team. Doesn’t mean he is going to be a gun footballer but we know he is comfortable in a leadership role. Captain of the U19 Aussie cricket team says to me that we have an individual that is determined, focused and will give it everything he has. 

50 minutes ago, old dee said:

Why is it that every player has to be a hard at it defender? IMO part of the problem at the Dees is we are trying to change the way every player plays. Why is our best Full forward being played way up field? Back to basics might help. Play the full forward at full forward and play the half forward there as well.

And I could accept that team mantra of every player being a hard at it defender if we were defending but we are failing miserably to defend up forward or through the midfield which then leaves our actual defenders, shall we say defenceless! 

All the better sides have worked us out, it’s time for a change in stratgies, Spargo, Jeffy and Stretch need some game time. 

On 7/1/2018 at 10:37 PM, layzie said:

I don’t know if many other people are like this. I am at a point in life where football is pretty much all I care about. I’m single, in my early 30s, social but not quite as social as I used to be. But all I look forward to during a working week is the game that we are playing and hopefully that we’ll win so I can get that temporary happy boost that seems to be lacking so much in my life right now.

Today was real hard to deal with, as I’m sure it was for many people here. I feel like most people here have other things to concentrate on but I feel like this is the only thing giving me some kind of buzz. Football is literally everything to me right now.

Probably shouldn’t even be saying all this but I have thought about doing it for a while now. 

Layzie, hang in there mate. Maybe time for a change in your job? My worry is that you are depending on the Dees performances, I think we all know they will find a way to let you down, Year on Year. I know I struggled with this a few years ago but have learnt to move on from a loss very quickly, I have had to work hard on that though, I admit. You need to work to keep the MFC and it’s rials in perspective. Their failures are no reflection on you. 

Just a bit of house keeping here. I assume this thread should also be locked based on the no politics, no religious, no ideological discussion edict. Climate Change should be purely about the science and the observed data but we all know it has been politicised by some so let’s shut this one down before I have a swipe at Andrew Bolt! 

15 minutes ago, dworship said:

(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.

 

DW the (b) words are confusing, are they from the rule book? I mean am I holding or pushing the player in front, you can’t do both according to your definition of a push. No wonder there is utter confusion.

there is ample scope for the Umpire to award a free for rough play if someone dives into someone’s back that could cause injury. We have all seen players taken forward with arms pinned in aggressive tackles and get concussed. Those tackles should be pinged. 

21 hours ago, dworship said:

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.

 

Tithe other interesting scenario is that if I tackle the guy running with the ball by grabbing him around the waist and we inevitably fall forward, if I am strong enough to swing him around in the tackle and we land sideways it will be judged a fair tackle but if I can’t and I land on top of him I am likely to be pinged for in the back. So is the infringement for pushing someone forward for advantage or for the impact when we both hit the ground. Again that logic seems faulty to me. The push in the back rule is intended IMHO to protect the player in front in a marking contest or any contested ball situation from being shoved out of the contest, not when they have the ball and are laying on the ground. 

On the footage shown is it leg speed issues, fitness or mental laziness? Probably a combo of all three but we certainly our midfielders are one paced, contested ballers, but if they don’t have the ball....

Whatever no wonder the backline is struggling with the ball being run into our forward 50 like that. And we have been seeing oppositions move the ball Coast to Coast in every game where we haven’t totally dominated the midfield battle. 

Spargo, Stretch, Garlett, Frost must be in the mix over the next few games if things don’t improve.

7 minutes ago, dworship said:

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.

 

Re your example of a push to the side, Petracca was penalised in the first quarter I think for pushing a Saints player in the side just before the ball arrived, took the mark inside 50m but no called for an illegal push out? Mind boggling stuff when I think of the antics of some of our major forward adversaries over the years, think Dunstall, Ablett senior or Plugger. 

3 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

It’s easy in such a loss to forget how immense Maxxy was - one of the most complete games I’ve seen from a ruckman in my nearly 60 years of watching footy. 

I also love watching Fritsch - the silkiest player we have had since dear old Tulip. 

 

I agree in part as I was thinking during the match how Max’s amazing performance was reminding so much of that other number 11 circa 1991. Jimmy was amazing in that year. It was a different game back then where he could get to many more contests than any modern day player could, but gee he was a one man force to be reckoned with in those years. And Jimmy is still the perfect prototype ruckman in today’s footy, tall enough, huge endurance, incredible resilience, great mark, reasonable kick. 

54 minutes ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Why not pay in the back when that's what it is?  

Balling it up just causes more stagnant play.  If a player wants to tackle a player in that situation, they should stay on their feet and lift the player so the actually have a chance to get it out, or the other alternatives are that they let the ball get handballed out or let the player stand up again giving them an actual opertunity to dispose of it.

I didn't think Port deserved to win the game last week either, yet they did (more poor umpiring a contribution there), if we are to become a good team and finish top 4, then we need to win more of these games we don't really deserve to and rack up the 4 points.  Not many teams bring their A game every week, but the best ones find a way to win regardless. We should have done that round 1 against Geelong and probably against Port and the Saints too.

Rodney re the in the back ruling I would not pay it for the same reason we are criticising the Salem decision, tackling someone and they fall forward and take you with them is not the original intent of the rule in my opinion. The push in the back rule was for using your hands to push the player in front out of a marking contest or a possession opportunity to the point where they are disadvantaged. 

As to your other point I would support a new ruling where players who pile on top of the ball player to create congestion are penalised. It would be good if players caught with the ball could release it as in rugby. If a player on the ground who is not in a position to move the ball on grabs the ball they are gone but also if a player piles on even after the player gets caught with it, they get done. Not sure how easy that would be to adjudicate though. 

7 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Sorry, you lost me a bit there Wil, but talking about holding the ball, I get so anoyed with some of the ones that get paid when players are on the ground trying to pick up the ball and distribute it out.  Fair enough to pay holding the ball for someone dragging it in and making no attempt to get rid of it, but when someone goes to pick it up, ends up on the bottom of the pack and then getting ridden like a bull on their back like the Lewis one yesterday, then I think it should be paid in the back.

Yes the Lewis holding the ball was laughable. He grabbed the ball in traffic, immediately tackled, no prior, ends up face first on the ground with a Saint sitting on his back and Lewis indicating to the Ump that he hasn’t got the ball, it is obviously somewhere down near his legs. The umpire is watching and sure enough indicates it’s holding the ball and the Saints player immediately gets up with the ball in his hands. Lewis did not drag a ball back in, no prior and no possible way of releasing the ball. The commentators said Lewis should have made some action to look like he was trying to handball, but you can’t do that if the ball is somewhere else. I wouldn’t pay in the back either for someone sitting on your back. It is ball up. 

Summed up the umpires efforts yesterday in my mind. Over officiated to the point I likened it to a World Cup soccer match where every physical clash is called an infringement. 

That said we didn’t deserve to win that game. 

16 minutes ago, WERRIDEE said:

Why does everybody have Garlett in the team I know he's quick but he's a front runner no use to us.

Are you saying he had no forward defensive work? Gee we have plenty of that with the current forward crew. Garlett or Spargo at least provide some crumming ability up forward. They will stay down looking for the spilled ball and be in a position to lay a tackle on the rebounding opposition backman as opposed to our current flying squadron who have all leapt and spoiled each other and ended on lying on the ground while the opposition defenders run the ball out up the Members wing, time and time again!!! 

1 hour ago, Demon17 said:

Re: Petracca.  You must be in a parallel universe, or I am. 

Interesting, is it about expectation based the Trac’s potential? I thought he battled on today and did some good things but yes he could not turn the game on it’s head. But I can’t remember him being responsible for an absolute howler whereas how many of our guys coughed up the ball with embarrassing errors? 

We all hope for more but today he put in, I thought. 

6. Gawn

5. Fritsch

4. Hibberd

3. Harmes

2. Jones

1. Brayshaw

2 minutes ago, Bates Mate said:

I did see another he put harmes who was our best line breaker all day deep forward in the last when the game was still up for grabs . I'm losing faith in his ability to adapt and when he does try something is the obvious wrong move

Didn’t TMac go down back for 5 minutes in the second half then went back forward? And Max going off with 10 minutes to go for quite a period of time had me flummoxed. 

3 minutes ago, Roost It said:

Having Viney tagging is really odd especially what he was able to do in the last. That’s mistake 1 of a few today by the coaches. 

In another note the umpiring is poor this year. Is there prior opportunity or not? And how is it that so often a player is tackled ball flies free and it’s called play on except when its called in correct disposal the rest of the time. It’s not consistent and can make watching very frustrating. Then there’s the in the back decisions when the person getting tackled takes a forward dive. That free against Salem ruined a great contest. Then there’s the frees in the ruck contests? Unexplainable by everyone. 

Why play Petty?

Why play Tyson?

Why not let McDonald play back when we’re getting rolled?

not criticisms just questions

 

Re the umpiring, it was appalling at one stage I thought I was watching the world  cup such was the over officiating, but we lost the game through our own sheer incompetence. 

Oliver is off the boil and that is showing weaknesses in our mid field and the lack of midfield dominance is exposing our weaknesses on the outside and down back. The backline is a shadow of its former self during the 6 game winning streak. Except for Hibberd I don’t think we won a one on one contest all day.

And as for the forward line, they may as well be called the Forward Squadron, Everyone flies for every inside bomb, no one down. And what happened to forward pressure? They ran the ball back out of our 50 at will. 

So many players out of form it is unfathomable. Oliver? 

2 minutes ago, Jaded said:

Also lol at Trac and Hogan promising a return to form. Touched the ball 13 times between them for zero return. 

Tracc has kicked a goal! 

5 hours ago, Wells 11 said:

he just cant influence contests physically.  Its never been his strength I suppose but in todays game, with forward pressure being so important...his days may be numbered. Im  a fan of his tbh I just think the game may have passed him by. 

 

Yes forward pressure is important but my observations on our losses this season is that there has been near zero defensive forward pressure. The playbook has been the same every time. We bomb it in 60 plus times but our conversion rate is less than 20% and it comes straight out through the corridor or over our high press around the wings. It seems to me we are favouring defensive small forwards who can’t kick goals and aren’t defending that well either against the sides that can match us. Can we afford to play someone like a Jeffy who can kick a goal from nothing? I also note that Spargo is out, he is another with some spark but limited crash and bash ability which is Goodwin’s current preference. 

16 minutes ago, SFebey said:

A couple of nice fluffy cumulonimbus?

You said it not me. But yes nice imagery! 

1 minute ago, SFebey said:

Jane Bunn?

Hmmm having politically incorrect thoughts, let’s move on. 

GWS incompetitence in front of goal keeping the Dorks in it. Dorks being smashed in the clearances but Giants brain fades and poor kicking means the Dorks are in it. 

I think we need to give him some opportunities in the ones to gain some form if we make finals and want to be competitive. That said if we persist with the high press and manic high bombs into a congested forward line then maybe don’t bother. Just continue to lose despite winning the contested footy count and 60 plus inside 50’s. 

Garlett is not a crash and bash player so is on the outer with our current coaching philosophy. I am not convinced we don’t need some silky skills, pace and unpredictability on the outside. So far the better sides have easily defended our one dimensional forward entries and strangled our scoring while easily running the ball out of our forward 50 yet we talk about the importance of defensive forwards. We aren’t seeing much of that against the better sides. 

Interesting analysis, the fact we go forward in a narrower corridor makes us more accurate at goal as we have demonstrated in our big wins against lower sides but has also made us vulnerable against the better sides as they just set up to counter our predictable attacks and in some cases such as Hawks and Tigers where they just strangled us to a standstill. It is akin to that situation where you have one gun forward and go to him 9 out of 10 times and thus become predictable and defendable, think G Ablett Snr and Buddy in finals over the years. 

We have to get our forwards spreading more and our mids looking for wider options. We do practice this at training, quick, unpredictable ball movement forward but don’t see it on game day that often.