Another night game, another night I won't get to sleep until 0400 in the cold, dark morning. I never seem to be able to get to sleep after night games.
One thing that has been glossed over.
Cats had a 9-day break.
We had a 6-day break.....and had to come back from Perth.
Given the 5 goal margin...thats about right up against the team that has won 8 in a row and sit atop the ladder.
How good are Geelong at getting a handball out of a tackle ?
One thing that has been glossed over.
Cats had a 9-day break.
We had a 6-day break.....and had to come back from Perth.
Given the 5 goal margin...thats about right up against the team that has won 8 in a row and sit atop the ladder.
It was boys vs men. Stronger bodies and more football experience including finals. They hit us hard and knew what to do to intimidate smaller younger guys. Something we will only develop over time. I am glad we lost because in all honesty you learn more from mistakes than from wins. If we finish to play finals will be the big learning experience.
How good are Geelong at getting a handball out of a tackle ?
Yep. They have some strong boys who have mastered the art of standing in the tackle and keeping one or both hands free.
Wallabies lost as well. So depressing.
Many lessons learnt I'm sure, they are the benchmark and are a very experienced and well coached unit.
They are in top form if the grand final is played next week they would win it.
We are not too far away imo... all the 50/50 went their way even the bounce - way it goes sometimes.
McKay was exhausted after getting his other team over the line this afternoon.
One thing that has been glossed over.
Cats had a 9-day break.
We had a 6-day break.....and had to come back from Perth.
Given the 5 goal margin...thats about right up against the team that has won 8 in a row and sit atop the ladder.
I wish I believed the 6 day break was the reason but reality was we looked below their level from the very start.
They are tough uncompromising do the basics right all the time and are well coached. They may be old but tonight proved there is still a decent gap between us and the very top teams.
This game was really built up and had a finals like atmosphere and was a great chance to show what we could do come finals and sadly we were found wanting.
Reckon we could go either way after tonight. Lose our confidence and go backwards and even fail to make the 8 or use tonight as a learning curve come finals (which hopefully we make).
Time Will tell.
Geelong are a good side... but they've peaked early ;)
Seriously though, I'd like another crack at them with a few more players back, equal breaks (as Kruddler mentioned), and perhaps more settled weather conditions.
Harry had a night to forget...dropping marks, but also some of the kicks to him were way off due to the breeze.
Weitering probably needs a couple more games to get back to his pre-injury form
I don't think we really dropped our bundle, we kept fighting to the end, they were just a better side on the night.
Geelong man up well and are very disciplined, we struggled to break free and
find space, strong bodies too as others have mentioned.
Being able to run Blicavs as a ruck rover is a big advantage having his big body in the contests and we struggled to bring him down and he always seemed to be able to dispose of the ball.
Using Cameron up the ground really messed with us too, thought Young wasn't comfortable on him and next time I would be setting up different with McGovern as his opponent.
The kid Holmes was important and gives those old Cat legs a bit more zip with him in the team.
No disgrace losing to them and we would have learned a bit, they are flag favourites but not by a long way..
We are lucky that the loss was only 5 goals. Our small forwards went missing, the Geelong backs seemed to mark everything and our forward thrusts brought back memories of so many past seasons - kicking blindly, kicking under pressure to the wrong position resulting in turnovers.
Hayes is a prime example. On several occasions he showed an ability to kick directly to an unmarked Geelong back resulting in an immediate turnover.
Unless our mids are in complete control our small players are covered too easily.
Not this year but a good run with injuries next year and full preseason under Voss ……………… maybe
But not unhappy with with the way we are going, usually by this time of the year we are getting beaten by 10 to 15 goals by crap teams as players have had enough
Our worst performance of the year by some margin.
Weitering is not in form yet. Each run is better for him, but he isn't reading the ball well in the air at the moment.
Young had a shocker. Lost all confidence in the air and was out-bodied a number of times. Went the punch instead of the mark.
In fact, all of our defenders struggled to take marks they ordinarily would.
H was quiet, but we just didn't kick the ball to him.
Charlie would have kicked 10 had we had any forward system at all.
We were thrashed in the centre square. We managed to get the clearances around the ground, but we were pounded in the middle. Especially with Jack Silvagni there: Geelong were ready for that.
Geelong are very good at pushing the boundaries, especially when tackled. We went unrewarded far too often.
The less I think about the umpiring the better. They may not have cost us the game, but they certainly didn't help.
Love the 'boys vs men' analogies because we could have predicted that when the draw was released!! We are the second youngest list? They are battle hardened, experienced campaigners. Our young group had a taste of 'finals like pressure' in front of a big crowd at the G... ... all part of the 2022 learning experience. In racing terms, we will be better for the run, we will have learnt a bit and we are still in the race for the finals!! Not all is lost!!
My thoughts are pretty much the same as the comments posted so far. Weiters needs some time to get back to where he was. The cats are in very good form. That was a proper finals like game and really the first taste for our boys. We will be better when Pitto and a few others are back. Not disgraced but they are currently a step above us.
Love the 'boys vs men' analogies because we could have predicted that when the draw was released!! We are the second youngest list? They are battle hardened, experienced campaigners. Our young group had a taste of 'finals like pressure' in front of a big crowd at the G... ... all part of the 2022 learning experience. In racing terms, we will be better for the run, we will have learnt a bit and we are still in the race for the finals!! Not all is lost!!
Agree, we didn't lose the game because sprayed the the ball in front of goal or lacked effort etc, they were just composed and clinical and were we panicky and fumbly. I said to the Mrs during the game that they played like we do when we are "on".
Until next time Pussycats.
Smashed in the middle. We need Pittonet back so we can return to our strength from early in the year which was centre clearances.
Smashed in the middle. We need Pittonet back so we can return to our strength from early in the year which was centre clearances.
And Gov to pick off their fwd entries.
A pretty insipid game all round to be honest. Sitting freezing cold at the G there was only two or three times that were exciting otherwise it was a crap game to watch.
We are a lot better than we showed. They looked second to the ball - I do believe the 6 day turnaround interstate travel compared to an 8 day home ground game, played a part for both sides.
There was no reward for our tackling efforts, when they did stick.
Is Selwood the most disliked captain going around ?
And Gov to pick off their fwd entries.
They don't spray the ball like most teams going forward but I'd have McGovern following Cameron like I said pre game, we let him wander and he had too much of the ball for a forward and we didn't learn from watching previous games how they setup now. They had 27 less possessions but it looked like they had 50 more because of how they used the ball.
Hayes is a trier but isn't up to it and Geelong was the wrong game to experiment with him imo as he turned the ball over and looked nervous.
Need Pittonet back too as TDK looked tired at stages in the game and I thought Jack had one of his poorer games..Stanley is a spud imo but we couldn't exploit him enough...
Yes, we'll learn a lot from such a lesson from such an experienced unit in top form. But only if we're brutality honest with ourselves; can't shy away from reality of the failure and why.
Same old same old, apply real heat and we go into our shells and lose discipline and authority. So much is now above the shoulders with this group. The ability and talent is there but that's of little use if the heart and brain aint engaged, focused and locked.
The Vossmeister hid his disdain with the overall performance pretty well. Was generous with Weiters re him taking time to get back into the groove. I'm not so generous. He's a leader and has to show more engagement and heart. Taking weeks to regain his groove is indulgent.
Hayes had 23 possessions last night with a 73.9% efficiency, on a windy night when there were loose balls and miskicks everywhere.
That efficiency is better than most of his teammates.
Yep, some of the turnovers didn't look good, but he wasn't Robinson Crusoe.
If we'd been hitting targets and holding marks in those conditions McKay would have had quite a few more opportunities.
With so much ball hitting the deck or misdirected Geelong just handled those conditions mujch better than we did.
Thought Hayes locks were direct and strong a but directly to Geelong - is that his fault or the fault of teammates not getting into positions they should be in?
Whole team looked tired and behind their man. Frustrating game to watch.
Our forward pressure wasn’t what it should’ve been.
Thought Hayes locks were direct and strong a but directly to Geelong - is that his fault or the fault of teammates not getting into positions they should be in?
Whole team looked tired and behind their man. Frustrating game to watch.
Our forward pressure wasn’t what it should’ve been.
Durdin had 0 tackles and only 10 pressure acts. Not sure what was going on there.
Motlop had 5 tackles and 22 pressure acts which is as much as you could ask of the kid.
With so much ball hitting the deck or misdirected Geelong just handled those conditions mujch better than we did.
It was very much Geelong conditions.
Colder and windier than Melbourne.
Given half our games are played inside, and 1/4 of our games are played interstate, we don't come across those conditions very often, whereas Geelong would train and play in them regularly.
In those conditions you seem to exert more energy than normal chasing all those balls on the deck and the more combative style it requires....which worked against us given the extra 3 days break they had.
We needed everything in our favour and we had nothing in our favour. A 5 goal defeat is about par for the course.
One Geelong player who has improved is Zac Guthrie, was a real spud initially but after watching him a couple of weeks in a row he has become a decent player.Same with that Irish lad O'Connor who has also come on quickly and is a solid unit.
Dropping LOB was a real dumb move and playing Hayes imo, I'm sure Harry would rather LOB delivering the ball down forward .Hayes efficiency would have been helped by the fact most of his kicks went 10 metres at most , he is also very small and light which vs such a well built opposition was another negative in picking him.
Think it was obvious Newnes should not have played.
Just watched the game again. Sheesh, what a player is TDK. Hopefully the shoulder was only a stinger.
Small Durds needs a rest. Newnes likewise.
The fumbles and dinky kicks (pressure?) really hurt us.
Was not confident going into the game.
6 day break v 8 day break.
The conditions suited Geelong and not us and they made the most of it, forcing us into errors and and miss kicks due the the pressure on the player.
Withers looks like he is lacking confidence and touch. Remember him been the same after his first shoulder injury. Hope he gets into the groove soon as we need his leadership down back.
Young and Harry both had shockers and hopefully they will learn from the experience and be better next time.
Next 5 weeks will determine our fate, win 2 or 3 and we make finals.
Go Blues.
Did Young have a shocker or was he just outmatched? Cameron is one of the best forwards in the comp.
Motlop had 5 tackles and 22 pressure acts which is as much as you could ask of the kid.
Was Motlop's best game by some margin, which is encouraging given the opposition and conditions.
Did Young have a shocker or was he just outmatched? Cameron is one of the best forwards in the comp.
I thought Weiters has looked out of touch since he returned, and Young has lost a bit of confidence over the last two weeks.
Maybe Weiters has also been rushed back, much like Newnes was played not fit, we've seen a few of these MC decisions over the last few weeks that have cost us. Injuries are starting to mount up! I thought we brought Cerra back early, but he really stepped up in his 2nd game back, and was OK last night. It might take Weiters a game or
twothree.
Still do not understand LoB being dropped, and then to go back and be one of our better contributors in the VFL. Based on the VFL, we could have done with Setterfields size last night!
I'm not too fussed, it's sort of what I expected given the conditions, the short break and the travel. We still got effort, we just didn't have the polish or the ability to break away last night.
But, if you haven't got the double chance, last night was a taste of second week finals action!
Did Young have a shocker or was he just outmatched? Cameron is one of the best forwards in the comp.
To be honest, mbb, I thought Young really struggled in the conditions last night. he's been good because he's taken a lot of strong defensive marks and stopped opposition forays forward. Last night he did none of that.
Young took five marks, but not one of them was contested. Instead, he struggled to read the ball in the air and didn't even try to take a mark. He punched, sometimes with both hands, and he didn't make many good contacts. It reduced his effectiveness remarkably.
You could see that it was playing on him, eroding his confidence. He really kept Cameron quiet for a lot of the game, but his lack of confidence when it matter meant that Cameron didn't feel he had to treat him with a lot of respect. He just went where he wanted to, and hurt.
Young should be better next week at Marvel, but things like this show he isn't the total answer in defence yet.
I thought Weiters has looked out of touch since he returned, and Young has lost a bit of confidence over the last two weeks.
Maybe Weiters has also been rushed back, much like Newnes was played not fit, we've seen a few of these MC decisions over the last few weeks that have cost us. Injuries are starting to mount up! I thought we brought Cerra back early, but he really stepped up in his 2nd game back, and was OK last night. It might take Weiters a game or twothree.
Still do not understand LoB being dropped, and then to go back and be one of our better contributors in the VFL. Based on the VFL, we could have done with Setterfields size last night!
We really lacked drive from defence last night. Neither of our key defenders could take a mark, and they were fumbly on the ground as well. It really hurt us.
Weitering's form since his return has been rusty, to say the least. I like to think he'll also be better at Marvel next week. After his last injury it took him quite a while to really find his form again. I think it was just the confidence to do what he usually does. I hope he finds his form soon, because we really need him.
Actually, these two were not the only ones whose marking was down last night, Nick Newman has been very good in the air in recent weeks, but he also dropped marks he could have taken. Even Stocker dropped a couple he would normally have swallowed.
Was Motlop's best game by some margin, which is encouraging given the opposition and conditions.
Indeed. Last night showed the sort of future Motlop could have if he keeps up his present workrate. he did some very nice things, but fumbled at least one sure goal. (He wasn't alone in that!" Nor did Motlop get rewarded for much of his hard work. The umpires really allowed so many Geelong players to get away with murder last night.
On the other hand, Corey Durdin started like a house on fire and faded into total oblivion after about the 20 minute marks of the first quarter. He needs a good game, or a spell, as he simply wasn't dangerous for enough of the game.
Smashed in the middle. We need Pittonet back so we can return to our strength from early in the year which was centre clearances.
This was where we lost the game. We simply couldn't get a decent break from the centre. Geelong mids were holding ours before they even got the ball, while theirs managed to get the ball out, somehow or another (not many of these were remotely like legal disposals, but I'm not going there). We barely won a centre clearance all night.
Around the ground we started poorly, but picked up. Eventually we won most of those, but it was the centre that killed us.
Kennedy was great early, but he faded. Cerra and Hewett were good players for us, but they didn't get centre clearances like they usually do. Even Walsh, hard work that he was, was fumbly and didn't show his normal high standard when disposing of the ball.
Cripps was well held, and I mean that literally.
Durdin had 0 tackles and only 10 pressure acts. Not sure what was going on there.
Motlop had 5 tackles and 22 pressure acts which is as much as you could ask of the kid.
Right at this minute, Motlop has gone passed Durdin who has struggled for weeks. Might be time for a game in the 2s perhaps? Or Does Owies make both Mots and Durds better?
Did Young have a shocker or was he just outmatched? Cameron is one of the best forwards in the comp.
If our mids were better up the ground, the defence wouldn't have looked as bad. Their mids absolutely smashed ours. Blicavs to Cripps was a great move as he had him covered for height and endurance/speed.
Did Young have a shocker or was he just outmatched? Cameron is one of the best forwards in the comp.
Wrong opponent, Cameron doesn't play a traditional stay at home game, he had 18 possessions which was more than Cripps.
Young is a good player but if I was coaching against him I would be playing a very mobile forward on him to run him around rather than try and play a contested marking game which is what Young prefers. Didn't think it was great coaching and proved costly as Cameron was the best forward on the ground imo..
Young took five marks, but not one of them was contested. Instead, he struggled to read the ball in the air and didn't even try to take a mark. He punched, sometimes with both hands, and he didn't make many good contacts. It reduced his effectiveness remarkably.
I think a lot of players stuggled to read the ball in the air last night.
Harry had a similar problem at the other end.
In the end Young and Weitering didn't have great games, but if we'd said before the game that Hawkins and Cameron would only get 5 between them we would have thought they'd done really well, and that would have gone a long way to us winning.
We probably just expected more than 3 from the Harry/Charlie combination.
Wrong opponent, Cameron doesn't play a traditional stay at home game, he had 18 possessions which was more than Cripps.
Young is a good player but if I was coaching against him I would be playing a very mobile forward on him to run him around rather than try and play a contested marking game which is what Young prefers. Didn't think it was great coaching and proved costly as Cameron was the best forward on the ground imo..
I felt when the game was close in the first two qtrs, Cameron was well held and ineffective. Once their mids really got going, Cameron got into the game.
What annoyed me most was the lack of time put into Hawkins especially at boundary throw ins in the F50.
I thought Cameron and Hawkins contributed to other goals as well which was the difference.
Geelong are playing a different game style now, I even saw Hawkins in the back pocket, the reliance on Dangerfield, Selwood etc is now over and more of their players are playing in a non traditional way and taking on more responsibility rather than relying on a couple of stars to ignite the rest..
Wrong opponent, Cameron doesn't play a traditional stay at home game, he had 18 possessions which was more than Cripps.
Young is a good player but if I was coaching against him I would be playing a very mobile forward on him to run him around rather than try and play a contested marking game which is what Young prefers. Didn't think it was great coaching and proved costly as Cameron was the best forward on the ground imo..
If we meet them in the finals, I'd be playing McGovern on Cameron. He is more likely to like running around, and he has to be watched. Cameron couldn't just leave him and go off on his own; McGovern would bite them the other way.
To me it looked like some of our players got stage fright. Young, Weits, Harry, Cripps.
I dont remember a game where Cripps competed in the packs head first then complain about being hit head high. He usually enters into packs side on. So yeah - few f our guys got stage fright IMO. Good learning experience.
To me it looked like some of our players got stage fright. Young, Weits, Harry, Cripps.
I dont remember a game where Cripps competed in the packs head first then complain about being hit head high. He usually enters into packs side on. So yeah - few f our guys got stage fright IMO. Good learning experience.
I recall three occasions last night when Cripps seemed to over-accentuate contact.
He did receive a free after one.
On another occasion it seemed like the Geelong players told him 'to wake up to himself' and gave him a push.
Against that he was scragged from pillar to post last night with little reward, so maybe he was just trying to get things noticed.
Not alot you could say about the game other than it was a learning experience of playing at the highest level under pressure.
It seems there have been quite a few people noticing how bad Nathan Williamson is.
https://twitter.com/mickt74t/status/1548474101387317249
*sigh*
https://twitter.com/CarltonFC/status/1548589654634803201
Surprised Hayes cited for dangerous tackle. Seemed pretty innocuous. No sling motion, regulation tackle. I'd be concerned that Menegola is one of those blokes sensitive to head knocks. We see plenty of those tackles and blokes just jump straight up. I'd be consulting a neurosurgeon.
Hayes finding out the hard way that if you wear navy, the MRO will crawl through broken glass to ping you.
Meanwhile Cameron gets a fine and Nankeris gets off.... What a surprise!!!
I thought Hayes was in trouble when it happened, he didn't control the bigger Menegola when he slung him and his head hit the ground. Charlie Dixon had a Melbourne player in a position to slam tackle him but remembered his duty of care and lowered him rather than slammed him. Hayes actions were not malicious but the Geelong player was concussed badly enough not to return and you got to expect to get cited when that happens imho.
Agree EB1.
Worst decision on the night was the 50 against Sam docherty though.
How you can ping a bloke for not giving it back whens he caught holding the ball and has it ripped out of his hands by his opponent is just ridiculous.
It wasn't exactly holding the ball either.
I thought Hayes was in trouble when it happened, he didn't control the bigger Menegola when he slung him and his head hit the ground. Charlie Dixon had a Melbourne player in a position to slam tackle him but remembered his duty of care and lowered him rather than slammed him. Hayes actions were not malicious but the Geelong player was concussed badly enough not to return and you got to expect to get cited when that happens imho.
x2
I don’t remember one occasion when our midfield got a clean takeaway from a centre bounce last night so our forwards had no chance to contest without being out numbered. Our midfield was no where near as effective as usual, Cripps was way down, Harry had a dirty day, Weitering looked like he needed another run and our kicking into our 50 was as horrible as I’ve seen it all year and yet the top team only beat us by 5 goals. Last year this would have been a 60 point loss.
Yes they won comfortably but we had an off night and now the dust has settled I still have a quiet confidence that if we play or are allowed to play close to our best we will be a good chance to go past week one come finals. And yes I know we need to get there first.
Get McGovern in for Plowman and Pit in to give TDK a chance to rest forward and Owies for Motlop and we will give a much better account of ourself.
Worst decision on the night was the 50 against Sam Docherty though.
How you can ping a bloke for not giving it back whens he caught holding the ball and has it ripped out of his hands by his opponent is just ridiculous.
Agreed with emphasis - Doc had no opportunity to throw the ball to the free kick recipient because the other Geelong player was interfering with him and the ball and the umpire was behind Doc and unable to see it. If Doc had allowed his opponent to take the ball from him, he might still have been penalised for not returning the ball to the correct opponent.
Cripps was well held, and I mean that literally.
Possibly the least effective game Crippa has played this year. The Blicavs match up was a critical move because he is bigger, faster and a much better runner than Crippa and probably just as strong.
I wonder if was just the match up or whether he is carrying a niggle, was a bit unwell, or struggled to get up from the shorter break. Thinking back to the way he was dominating in the early rounds, another possibility is that the absence of Pitto has been the major factor.
The pace of the game and the continued intensity of pressure caught out quite a few of the players - Newman being one of the worst offenders with his turnovers but I was buoyed by the way we fought out the game - especially without winning centre clearances and a number of easy goals that we (or the umpires) gifted to the pussies.
The pace of the game and the continued intensity of pressure caught out quite a few of the players - Newman being one of the worst offenders with his turnovers but I was buoyed by the way we fought out the game - especially without winning centre clearances and a number of easy goals that we (or the umpires) gifted to the pussies.
agree totally. Team looked spooked early and never shook it off. Even when we brought them to a standstill. Cats weren't really that good. It was hugely disappointing. Seemed to be panicking when we needn't. Guess we're a couple of years away from totally crushing others. Nice that it seems the boys look staunch. Gee I hope so.
The pace of the game and the continued intensity of pressure caught out quite a few of the players - Newman being one of the worst offenders with his turnovers but I was buoyed by the way we fought out the game - especially without winning centre clearances and a number of easy goals that we (or the umpires) gifted to the pussies.
I reckon Father Time is catching up to Newmy quicker than he thinks. Its been a number of weeks now where I reckon he gets caught with the ball a lot easier than in the past, looks extremely slow at times.
I reckon Father Time is catching up to Newmy quicker than he thinks. Its been a number of weeks now where I reckon he gets caught with the ball a lot easier than in the past, looks extremely slow at times.
In fairness you could say the same about Walsh, Kennedy and Hewett as they are all getting pegged more often recently.
The problem isn't the ball carrier, it's the lack of free options around the ball carrier. But this is expected in the 2nd half of the season after opposition clubs have had the chance to dissect the Voss tactics. The next question is how does Voss tweak the style to make the required corrections.
An effect is that as a group we've lost some confidence, that causes indecision and it shows when players get caught holding the ball.
I thought Newman was better than Docherty.
I thought Newman was better than Docherty.
I thought quite a few of our players did not look 100% in the headspace, Docherty, SoJ, Cripps, it looked like they had let the Handbaggers get under their skin and never got back on track.
That 22 is a real problem for us, he even rules against us from remote distances! I suspect someone at our club must be asking a few questions today, because the difference in the umpiring stands out like a sore thumb! This season it seems worse than before. For example, Cripps can have his head ripped off and 22 won't budge, but if Cripps even dusts an opponent's hairdo 22 won't hesitate to blow the whistle. It must be infuriating for our players, it's not the free being paid it's the frees not being paid that are the problem. I thought Leigh Fisher was pretty harsh on us, but 22 takes it to a new level!
I thought quite a few of our players did not look 100% in the headspace, Docherty, SoJ, Cripps, it looked like they had let the Handbaggers get under their skin and never got back on track.
That 22 is a real problem for us, he even rules against us from remote distances! I suspect someone at our club must be asking a few questions today, because the difference in the umpiring stands out like a sore thumb! This season it seems worse than before. For example, Cripps can have his head ripped off and 22 won't budge, but if Cripps even dusts an opponent's hairdo 22 won't hesitate to blow the whistle. It must be infuriating for our players, it's not the free being paid it's the frees not being paid that are the problem. I thought Leigh Fisher was pretty harsh on us, but 22 takes it to a new level!
Wow, based on this he should get the sack today. Oh sorry forgot, its all part of the AFL's agenda to keep us out of the 8 and down the bottom of the ladder.
Geelong are better without Dangerfield and Selwood as their leading lights.
They don't play the old Cat way anymore and are aggressive tacklers and chasers.
None of our key play makers had the time to break clear or create any method going forward.We seemed under constant pressure and the scoreboard flattered us imo, I don't buy into junk time late goals either. Our mids got plenty of ball but the stats inflated their effectiveness, good reality check for us and the coach who didn't have a great night imho.
The one saving grace about the stage fright phenomenon is that it happened during the Home & Away. I would like to think we will be far better prepared next time (assuming we get another crack!).
The one saving grace about the stage fright phenomenon is that it happened during the Home & Away. I would like to think we will be far better prepared next time (assuming we get another crack!).
Was thinking the same thing watching the game on Saturday night, a reality check for what happens when you're not 100% switched on.
I thought quite a few of our players did not look 100% in the headspace, Docherty, SoJ, Cripps, it looked like they had let the Handbaggers get under their skin and never got back on track.
Each of the three players you've mentioned have had to shoulder extra responsibilty for a number of weeks because of players missing.
Pittonet being absent means Cripps and Silvagni have had harder tasks.
Docherty has suffered a bit with Weitering, Williams and other defenders out of action.
You hold up well for a while but in the end it does wear you down, and frustrations start to show.
Jack, in particular, could probably do with a week off but it's a luxury we don't have at the moment.
It's not that they're not up to the task...it's more that the task has been formidable....perhaps a bit more than we realise.
Im a bit more concerned by our MCG form to be honest.
The matches at the MCG have been the ones we have shown the patchiest form where we have played good footy for less than half the game (if that).
Against Geelong we went with them until they got some freebies, and then never looked likely which was the most frustrating part of it.
Here's a crazy stat I read, when Kennedy plays and gets 14 handballs, we are 9W-0L. When doesn't, we are 2W-4L.
Wow, based on this he should get the sack today. Oh sorry forgot, its all part of the AFL's agenda to keep us out of the 8 and down the bottom of the ladder.
I think you have conflated and confused multiple different issues covering both off-field and on-field events into a single perspective. Whether you do that innocently or deliberately only you can know, but it is invalid to de-value multiple debates by conflating several issues into the single perspective, that's the sort of stuff the media do when they attempt to deride an opinion. There is a philosophical term used to describe that sort of tactic/error, whether it's innocent or deliberate, it is called an Association Fallacy.
Like it or not we as a club have an issue with 22, why that exists is a very separate debate but there is clearly a difference in how he officiates when he is part of our umpiring panel.
by EB1
I thought Cameron and Hawkins contributed to other goals as well which was the difference.
Geelong are playing a different game style now, I even saw Hawkins in the back pocket, the reliance on Dangerfield, Selwood etc is now over and more of their players are playing in a non traditional way and taking on more responsibility rather than relying on a couple of stars to ignite the rest..
I posted these stats in another thread pre-game last week.
Score involvements
Curnow 7.4
McKay 6.4
Cameron 7.8
Hawkins 8.2
The difference here is probably in some part due to the fact that Geelong are producing a few more scoring opportunities.
Goal Assists
Curnow 0.4
McKay 0.3
Cameron 0.8
Hawkins 1.2
I put some of the difference down to the fact that Geelong have had more scoring opportunities, but the real takeaway is that Cameron and Hawkins are a big influence in those scoring opportunities
The real strength of the Geelong forwards is their contribution to other goals.
https://www.afl.com.au/news/798737/nine-things-we-learned-the-tigers-have-forgotten-how-to-win
5. There's more to goals than kicking them
The 'goalkicking gunfight at the 'G' may have seemed an anticlimax with eight goals spread between Jeremy Cameron, Tom Hawkins, Charlie Curnow and Harry McKay, but it's the hidden statistics that show the difference between the pairs. The Cats duo combined for 20 score involvements, making sure goals were being kicked no matter whose boot the ball came off, while the two Blues totalled just nine. So far this season Hawkins and Cameron have totalled 33 goal assists compared to Curnow and McKay's 10. As good as the Carlton combo is, their Geelong counterparts know how to share the spoils up forward just a little bit better. - Howard Kimber
I think you have conflated and confused multiple different issues covering both off-field and on-field events into a single perspective. Whether you do that innocently or deliberately only you can know, but it is invalid to de-value multiple debates by conflating several issues into the single perspective, that's the sort of stuff the media do when they attempt to deride an opinion. There is a philosophical term used to describe that sort of tactic/error, whether it's innocent or deliberate, it is called an Association Fallacy.
Like it or not we as a club have an issue with 22, why that exists is a very separate debate but there is clearly a difference in how he officiates when he is part of our umpiring panel.
Soooooo? Too many big words for a dummy like me, just tell me why he hasn't been fired for all these deliberate bad calls against us? I love this bit: Like it or not we as a club have an issue with 22.
By the this you the CFC or the CSC?
Soooooo?
Identifying the conflation makes the assertion there is a global FL agenda an absurdity.
Just because there are multiple individual examples of a prejudicial behaviour, won't automatically mean it is systematic or that identifying the examples has asserted that it is systematic.
The association that a unique and identifiable set of events can be combined to highlight a global conspiracy is a fallacy, it's Trumpesque.
( btw., What did you think of Donald allegedly having Ivana pushed down the stairs? )
Geelong are very good at pushing the boundaries,
As were the great Hawks sides. As were the Tigs (still are, but they arent quite good enough to get away with it anymore).
All the little things - like, holding onto the footy that second longer, when you give away a free, keeping a guy down in a tackle for an extra beat, crimping the mark, holding off the footy a ball ups.... they all add to the extra pressure, but only the good teams are allowed to get away with them.
umpires arent biased, but they do get influenced by reputation. selwood can do what he likes, and never get penalised - doc fights for a ball with danger, and gets pinged 50 for it - all due to reputation.
Geelong mids were holding ours before they even got the ball, while theirs managed to get the ball out, somehow or another (not many of these were remotely like legal disposals, but I'm not going there).
Cripps was well held, and I mean that literally.
I really dont understand how this is allowed to keep happening. Every game that Cripps is "down" - you watch the replay, and see him being held, with 2 hands, off the footy. he will get 1 or 2 frees, but compared to the 50 times they get away with it, then the tactic works... bliscavs played well, but jeez he was allowed to just turn and face cripps and do whatever he liked at a number of stoppages. and the number of times we would gather the footy and be tackled "as we took possession", or was it just a little before....
and, did we get a single HTB all night?? cats players being spun 360 before they disposed, taking a couple of steps but apparently no prior and as mentioned above - just slinging the ball out of a tackle, all allowed. again, reputation helps - liam stocker aint umpired the same way as joel selwood
our aim this year was to make the finals (lucky teams below us losing),i wouldn't worry about our forward line our biggest problem is defence ,we need to find some express players that run from hbf.
That 22 is a real problem for us, he even rules against us from remote distances! I suspect someone at our club must be asking a few questions today, because the difference in the umpiring stands out like a sore thumb! This season it seems worse than before. For example, Cripps can have his head ripped off and 22 won't budge, but if Cripps even dusts an opponent's hairdo 22 won't hesitate to blow the whistle. It must be infuriating for our players, it's not the free being paid it's the frees not being paid that are the problem. I thought Leigh Fisher was pretty harsh on us, but 22 takes it to a new level!
[/quote]
Ever since he has arrived on the scene, he seems to have been setting his sights on replacing Razor Ray as the most (over) officious umpire. Where Ray used to sprint in to IMPOSE himself, this guy always seems to run in and POSE himself.
I doubt that he has a bias against us but I wouldn't be surprised if he disproportionately rules against the less experienced teams because players on those teams are often less subtle in how they go about their business.
A couple of positives for me:
Tom De Koning hurt his shoulder but stayed on the ground and went for hitouts with his other hand until his shoulder improved. It was probably just a stinger but, earlier in his career, he would have gone off. He is really developing into a very good ruckman and having Pitto back will free him up and take some of the pressure off Charlie and Harry.
Jesse Motlop still has a way to go but he is improving with every game. The tackle he stuck deep in defence in the last quarter tells me that he is going to be a very good player for us.
I stopped watching after Cameron's goal in the third.
While we were harrassed at every opportunity, we panicked a bit and our ball handling was no good. It was a good lesson from Geelong in showing us what is required to get to the top - hopefully we can thank them later and return it in spades.
( btw., What did you think of Donald allegedly having Ivana pushed down the stairs? )
Couldn't give a flying fork about anything that happens in that Kent of a country.
Ever since he has arrived on the scene, he seems to have been setting his sights on replacing Razor Ray as the most (over) officious umpire. Where Ray used to sprint in to IMPOSE himself, this guy always seems to run in and POSE himself.
I doubt that he has a bias against us but I wouldn't be surprised if he disproportionately rules against the less experienced teams because players on those teams are often less subtle in how they go about their business.
Yes, I'm not claiming it's a deliberate bias, although the images
@kruddler posted today
from out at CheatsFC headquarters (https://www.carltonsc.com/index.php?topic=6038.0) are a bit disconcerting.
My problem is that he will reward someone like Selwood while penalising (or not rewarding) Fisher or Hayes for what is the very same act. I've no problem rewarding Selwood for what he does, it is a skill, but why not reward Fisher or Hayes as well? The Razor Ray analogy is very appropriate, I was actually going to mention the bemused look on the face of one of 22's associates, when they made a decision from 5m away and he overruled them from 30m away! At one stage the two other umpires just looked at each other like, "WTF? Oh, he's at it again!"
It's that difference that is extremely hard to explain outside of a personal subjectivity, and it's partially explained by an unconscious bias as you describe, but I'd also assert it the high profile complaints from voices like Scott and Dimma that also have an influence on match day. So I'd say we are too good, after our TPP penalties we have become the good citizens of AFL, never complaining, never trying to push back, but perhaps we have taken that too far! I'd be shifting the spotlight back on a few of the influentials.
It's quite possible that 22 enters games with a preconceived notion about who is going to win, because I've heard other clubs with similar complaints.
Couldn't give a flying fork about anything that happens in that Kent of a country.
😂
I feel for Ginnivan, was getting his head ripped off on Saturday no free kick. Umpires apparently cracking down on ducking only for Selwood to get his usual soft frees a couple of hours later.
Re: Ginnivan. It doesnt help when you go initiating the contact and showing your technique on video.
Comparisons to Selwood are a bit wrong too. Selwood usually shrugs the tackle which actually takes some strength. Ginnivan seems to go looking for the contact under the armpit and pulling himself into it, rather than moving the other player. Not to mention he does it lurking around the goal square, and only touches it 8 times a game on average.
There is no comparison to Selwood, he is the king of ducking and getting away with it. There has never been a media beat up about cracking down on his ducking which has been going on for 15 years.
There is no comparison to Selwood, he is the king of ducking and getting away with it. There has never been a media beat up about cracking down on his ducking which has been going on for 15 years.
Yes, I just do not understand the media hypocrisy, they look after there mates and have put this Filth kid Ginnivan to the sword.
Selwood got 3 of his 4 free kicks against us for the exact act of abnormally lowering his body, that the AFL says won't be rewarded. He had 2 more free kicks than anybody else on the field, and umpire 22 basically penalised Fisher and Hayes for doing the same thing.
It's abhorrent that one player can get away with this while all others are either penalised or unprotected, it's as bad as Dusty fending players off with a thumb to the throat and being allowed to play on!
These are "at best" examples of an unconscious bias, and some are worse than others.
I feel for Ginnivan, was getting his head ripped off on Saturday no free kick. Umpires apparently cracking down on ducking only for Selwood to get his usual soft frees a couple of hours later.
Selwood forces the tacklers arms up by lifting them with his, he uses strength he rarely ducks (IMO). The prick from the Filth folds his knees the instant he is touched and goes to ground. He is a cheat.
Selwood forces the tacklers arms up by lifting them with his, he uses strength he rarely ducks (IMO). The filth prick folds his knees the instant he is touched and goes to ground. He is a cheat.
Selwood drops at the knees, you'll see 3 perfect examples of it in the replay of last weekends game.
And watch Selwood lodge a claim against the AFL in years to come as a result of the numerous concussions he's "suffered". If they're as serious about the concussion issue as they claim, the umpires just don't pay those free kicks to the likes of Ginnivan where they deliberatly instigate the head high contact....by whatever method....in a few weeks they'll stop doing it. Michael Walters is another one always trying to milk high contact frees and in The West after the weekend loss to Sydney where a review of each player was reported, the journo said something along the lines of "needs to stop playing for free kicks". The umpires are a wake up to him too.
Selwood gets away with it because he is seen as the footballers " footballer", Ginnivan is a show pony lair only loved by his mum and Collingwood fans and doesnt have the same respect in terms of runs on the board and has been highlighted as a staging artist.
AFL Statement today:
“We want to be clear, if the umpire believes the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact, then they won’t be rewarded.
“First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus of duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact.
“Ultimately, the rules do not reward players for putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a free kick. This is something we prefer not to see in our game at any level.
AFL Statement today:
“We want to be clear, if the umpire believes the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact, then they won’t be rewarded.
“First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus of duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact.
“Ultimately, the rules do not reward players for putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a free kick. This is something we prefer not to see in our game at any level.
Be a novelty seeing players like Selwood go unrewarded for staging high contact for a few weeks but then it will revert to normal viewing and umps will be paying the name players a free for staged high contact and letting the no name players get their heads ripped off under the guise they are cracking down on stagers..
That's probably the frustrating part I guess EB....if they applied the same rules to everyone, including Selwood, instead of just making an example of one bloke like Ginnivan, we could live with the rule whether you agree with it or not.
Selwood drops at the knees, you'll see 3 perfect examples of it in the replay of last weekends game.
Wanganeen was a classic at doing this
AFL Statement today:
“We want to be clear, if the umpire believes the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact, then they won’t be rewarded.
“First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus of duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact.
“Ultimately, the rules do not reward players for putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a free kick. This is something we prefer not to see in our game at any level.
I have posted similar decade or so ago based on similar statements.
Once upon there was a rule that said "If a player with he ball contributes to the high tackle, then no free kick shall be awarded for high contact"
I used to point this out in the same way the AFL is doing now, to stop players like Ginnivan (in my case Selwood) from 'earning' free kicks by "contributing" to the high contact.
AFL swept it under the carpet, because, Selwood, and now are trying to dig it up again.
AFL Statement today:
“We want to be clear, if the umpire believes the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact, then they won’t be rewarded.
“First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus of duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact.
“Ultimately, the rules do not reward players for putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a free kick. This is something we prefer not to see in our game at any level.
The Full AFL statement contains this table, shrugs (ie Selwood) should be play on.
(https://mcusercontent.com/7cd32ad25c565a577b74060a9/images/70dced48-959e-9dc1-cbd9-72fa8e2b6f86.png)
AFL Statement today:
“We want to be clear, if the umpire believes the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact, then they won’t be rewarded.
“First and foremost, players attempting to win the ball must be protected and the onus of duty of care is on the tackler. However, having won the ball, the ball carrier has a duty of care to not put themselves in a position for high contact.
“Ultimately, the rules do not reward players for putting themselves in vulnerable positions to draw a free kick. This is something we prefer not to see in our game at any level.
Have you seen the examples? Pickett didn't even duck, it was just a poor tackle.
One free kick to Pickett involved him running towards goal when he was tackled on the upper arm. He then raised his arm to the sky, forcing the tackler’s arm over his shoulder. He then threw his legs forward as if he’d been coathangered. It would have been hard for an umpire to deconstruct the incident without a slow-mo replay. But when the slow-mo replay was shown on Fox Footy, it was plain as day that he’d milked a free kick. Play-on should have been the initial call followed by a holding the ball call as Pickett was committed to acting as if he’d been hit by a train and he made no attempt to dispose of the ball.
This one is running away from goal. The AFL are using it as an example of a free kick that shouldn't have been paid. Who ever came up with that should be fired.
Not sure whether it was towards goal or not but the rest was clear as day. If we’re talking about the same incident (and there wouldn’t be too many coathanger-type tackles against Pickett given how hard it was to put a hand on him), there’s no way it should have been paid to Pickett.
I have watched it 3 times from all the angles they show and it's not a duck. It was a high tackle.
In the words of the Duke (and Buddy Holly)
"Selwood being free kicked for dropping....That'll be the day ::)
We'll see how it goes but it's just another 'complicated judgement' call the umpire has to make....and I suspect they'll get it wrong as often as they get it right.
I have watched it 3 times from all the angles they show and it's not a duck. It was a high tackle.
The one I remember is the tackler’s hand on the upper arm and Pickett thrust his hand up like Hermoine Grainger desperately wanting to answer a question. This definitely qualifies under “Tackle around shoulder area and arm pushes tackle up”. And that’s leaving to one side the Kung Fu double kick to make the umpire think it was a coathanger.
You're allowed to shrug tackles. He didn't lower his body, he just isn't that tall.
He raised his arm for no reason other than to force the tackler’s hand onto his shoulder. That’s the precise action that the AFL says should not draw a free kick. You say you’re allowed to shrug a tackle. That’s why the AFL says the call should be “play on”; note that it doesn’t say the player who does this should be penalised. So, you’re right: you’re allowed to do it but on the other hand you don’t get a free kick for doing this. But if the player who tries to milk a free kick decides to put Mayo on it by acting as though he’s been in a UFC fight, bad luck: that’s holding the ball. Either handball or give the ball to the opposition. Simples.
Every game has its 'howlers' but in our game I saw one classic howler that a Pussies' player got away with which also resulted in a goal. Forward pocket running along the boundary with a BlueBagger holding him and he bounced the ball then shrugged the tackle... dropping the ball, but no free. Wonder if anyone else saw it. They don't come much more obvious than that.
22 is a very good umpire - just ask him.
He raised his arm for no reason other than to force the tackler’s hand onto his shoulder. That’s the precise action that the AFL says should not draw a free kick. You say you’re allowed to shrug a tackle. That’s why the AFL says the call should be “play on”; note that it doesn’t say the player who does this should be penalised. So, you’re right: you’re allowed to do it but on the other hand you don’t get a free kick for doing this. But if the player who tries to milk a free kick decides to put Mayo on it by acting as though he’s been in a UFC fight, bad luck: that’s holding the ball. Either handball or give the ball to the opposition. Simples.
Some players do milk free kicks but every player wants to shrug the tackle. This new rule discriminates against shorter players who are basically fair fame to be clotheslined.
It might be argued that failure to crack down on smaller players attempting to create head high contact discriminates against tall players. If you’re a 200cm guy trying to tackle a 175 cm guy, it’s already difficult to avoid giving away a free kick. But when the 175 cm guy wriggles around to try to create some apparent head to bicep contact, it’s impossible. Maybe the AFL should ban tall players from tackling to avoid a wave of head to bicep concussions?
It might be argued that failure to crack down on smaller players attempting to create head high contact discriminates against tall players. If you’re a 200cm guy trying to tackle a 175 cm guy, it’s already difficult to avoid giving away a free kick. But when the 175 cm guy wriggles around to try to create some apparent head to bicep contact, it’s impossible. Maybe the AFL should ban tall players from tackling to avoid a wave of head to bicep concussions?
Maybe we should just ban all players under 6 foot. They're a danger to themselves.
Or maybe the AFL could discourage players under 6 foot from being a danger to themselves. Trying to draw head contact shouldn’t be rewarded. Neil Sache did it by lowering his head into the chest of an oncoming tackler and he spent a lifetime in a wheelchair as a result.
Or maybe the AFL could discourage players under 6 foot from being a danger to themselves. Trying to draw head contact shouldn’t be rewarded. Neil Sache did it by lowering his head into the chest of an oncoming tackler and he spent a lifetime in a wheelchair as a result.
There is too much subjectivity in the way it is implemented, and the opposite as well which I think is even more proof there is some change needed.
For example, when did you last see Cripps get a free kick for high contact? Last weekend while breaking away from a boundary line stoppage I saw Cripps get hit high(neck / jaw) twice in succession, palm slaps only but even so, and he still didn't get a free! After he disposed of the ball he just held his jaw and shook his head!
Should Cripps have done a Menegola, and thrown his arm in the air while twisting to flop on his back like a fish?
Ask Ginnevan (and pickett) where he learned to do that.
If either of them don't say from watching players like Selwood, then they are liars.
The AFL shot themselves in the foot by not doing something about this earlier.
Selwood has been doing this for 350-odd games over 16 years. All the kids being drafted today wouldn't remember a 'pre-shrug' kind of game. They've grown up with it their whole lives and NOW the AFL want to change it.
Too little too late.
Every game has its 'howlers' but in our game I saw one classic howler that a Pussies' player got away with which also resulted in a goal. Forward pocket running along the boundary with a BlueBagger holding him and he bounced the ball then shrugged the tackle... dropping the ball, but no free. Wonder if anyone else saw it. They don't come much more obvious than that.
22 is a very good umpire - just ask him.
I saw it Baggers and I agree with you about #22 FIGJAM
https://www.afl.com.au/news/802959/-he-gets-treated-harshly-dimma-wants-umps-to-give-nank-a-fair-go
Wonder if we ever make a call to the Umpiring department on how Crippa gets held every week without the ball?
What do they say about squeaky wheels?
https://www.afl.com.au/news/802959/-he-gets-treated-harshly-dimma-wants-umps-to-give-nank-a-fair-go
Wonder if we ever make a call to the Umpiring department on how Crippa gets held every week without the ball?
What do they say about squeaky wheels?
Nankervis along with Cotchin is Richmonds biggest sniper, amazing how many elbows and knees he manages to land on opposition players while feigning it was accidental, he got away with it for the glory years along with decking players off the ball and its good to see now he is being pinged by umps and giving away costly frees and fifties.....
Cripps has been held, blocked/shepherded out of contests illegally since Noah built the ark but umps just see him as big enough to handle the manhandling and work though it, thats what happens when you are a superior footballer.
Kouta was another who opposition teams just illegally held and blocked him from getting to the ball and then eventually had to resort to injuring him because he was too athletic for his own good.
This is why Greg Williams took matters into his own hands and belted opposition players week after week to get the dirty scumbag taggers to stop their illegal ways...
Nankervis along with Cotchin is Richmonds biggest sniper, amazing how many elbows and knees he manages to land on opposition players while feigning it was accidental, he got away with it for the glory years along with decking players off the ball and its good to see now he is being pinged by umps and giving away costly frees and fifties.....
Whingers are winners.
You know I've written this many times here, Dimma and Scott are A-Grade Gold Star whingers who through making off-field commentary influence the way umpires adjudicate the games they play.
That commentary also pumps up the crowds, and makes the umpires become subconsciously sympathetic to the cause.
No matter what the umpires or AFL officials may claim, the umpires cannot unhear what Dimma and Scott say and the umpires are not immune to the influence of that commentary.
This just has the feeling of a bit of a schemozzle.
We'll hear the howls when a player like Selwood continues to get away with it.
We'll hear the howls when one of our blokes isn't rewarded.
It's like the dissention rule.
It puts a burden on the umpire that is very subjective.
Have a look back at the recent discussion here and you'll see that two people can have a totally different opinion of exactly the same situation.
I'll go against the grain here....
To me a high tackle is a high tackle and should be penalised.
Introduce a whole range of options and caveats and it gets very confusing.
No doubt it will influence the results of some games.
And Jack Reiwoldt spends half a game appealing for kicks and giving the umpires instructions on where the free kicks should be paid and why.
Whingers are winners.
You know I've written this many times here, Dimma and Scott are A-Grade Gold Star whingers who through making off-field commentary influence the way umpires adjudicate the games they play.
That commentary also pumps up the crowds, and makes the umpires become subconsciously sympathetic to the cause.
No matter what the umpires or AFL officials may claim, the umpires cannot unhear what Dimma and Scott say and the umpires are not immune to the influence of that commentary.
Rich are 18th in free kicks for and have the highest differential of for and against (more frees against than any team).
This just has the feeling of a bit of a schemozzle.
We'll hear the howls when a player like Selwood continues to get away with it.
We'll hear the howls when one of our blokes isn't rewarded.
It's like the dissention rule.
It puts a burden on the umpire that is very subjective.
Have a look back at the recent discussion here and you'll see that two people can have a totally different opinion of exactly the same situation.
I'll go against the grain here....
To me a high tackle is a high tackle and should be penalised.
Introduce a whole range of options and caveats and it gets very confusing.
No doubt it will influence the results of some games.
re Bold.....Bevo just said the same thing...but i think he just likes taking digs at the AFL, so who knows.
Personally i think its relatively clear in an unclear way.
If a player goes looking for high contact, he doesn't get it unless its completely unreasonable like a player tries to take his head off.
If a player is legitmately making a play and gets taken high, reward it.
Its like diving...even if contact is there, if its unreasonable in how you react to it....stiff you don't get the call.
STOP PLAYING FOR FREE KICKS.
If a player ducks, or drops his knees or does anything that is done for the sole purpose of drawing a free....he doesn't get it.
No player in history has dropped his knees for a footballing reason.....its always to draw a free. So don't reward it.
No player has ever lowered his shoulder on a tackler for a footballing reason....its always to draw a free. So don't reward it.
If its clear as day when a player is playing for a free kick....why do we give it to them?
I agree with most of that except the dropping the shoulder part. We have seen players slip out of tackles, break away and score goals, they're not all trying to get a free kick.
I agree with most of that except the dropping the shoulder part. We have seen players slip out of tackles, break away and score goals, they're not all trying to get a free kick.
I'm referring to when a player drops his shoulder on the side that the tackler is coming from, so the tacklers arm hits him in the neck rather than where the shoulder was initially.
I'm not sure thats the same scenario you are describing.
Ok cool. No not the same.
Rich are 18th in free kicks for and have the highest differential of for and against (more frees against than any team).
Thats a tell.
Considering that the umpires like to try and even up the free kick count, the players who rank 1st in the differential are likely the cleanest team in the AFL. The ones dead last, are likely to be the ones that infringe the most frequently.
They NEVER pay "too many" frees a game. Richmond are currently the team that get away with the most illegal activity on game day. Watch them off the ball for this one.
Thats a tell.
Considering that the umpires like to try and even up the free kick count, the players who rank 1st in the differential are likely the cleanest team in the AFL. The ones dead last, are likely to be the ones that infringe the most frequently.
They NEVER pay "too many" frees a game. Richmond are currently the team that get away with the most illegal activity on game day. Watch them off the ball for this one.
For the record, Crippa is equal first for frees with Dylan Moore (HAW).
re Bold.....Bevo just said the same thing...but i think he just likes taking digs at the AFL, so who knows.
Personally i think its relatively clear in an unclear way.
If a player goes looking for high contact, he doesn't get it unless its completely unreasonable like a player tries to take his head off.
If a player is legitmately making a play and gets taken high, reward it.
Its like diving...even if contact is there, if its unreasonable in how you react to it....stiff you don't get the call.
STOP PLAYING FOR FREE KICKS.
If a player ducks, or drops his knees or does anything that is done for the sole purpose of drawing a free....he doesn't get it.
No player in history has dropped his knees for a footballing reason.....its always to draw a free. So don't reward it.
No player has ever lowered his shoulder on a tackler for a footballing reason....its always to draw a free. So don't reward it.
If its clear as day when a player is playing for a free kick....why do we give it to them?
I guess where I have a problem with that is we're asking the umpire to get into the head of the player.
No doubt there are players who play for that free but....
There are occasions when the impact of the tackle causes what appears to be a dropping.
A high tackle will often result in the players legs going out from under him.
I've watched some of the examples and I'll be buggered if I can pick intent on most of them.
Whereas it's easy to pick a high tackle.
It's obvious.
Now factor in the fact that we're judging with the benefit of slow motion and replay compared to real time for the umpire...how hard is that.
I reckon when they review some of these decisions and non decisions in coming weeks there will be as many wrong interpretations as right ones.
It's just another set of judgements (and pressure) for the umpires.
Perhaps there should be an onus on the player not to play for free kicks.
We'll see how it goes in interpretation in the coming weeks....but maybe there is some degree of fault with the tackling technique as well....and both can result in injuries.
For the record, Crippa is equal first for frees with Dylan Moore (HAW).
Yet how many do they miss when his opponent is illegally holding him? One suspect handball or loose disposal is incorrected disposal but to prove my point, he gets away with holding the ball a bit longer than the average.
He wouldn't infringe much either.
Apply that to an entire football team, and when you do view it through the context that they paid about 8 50 metre penalties against Richmond in round 1. From memory when we faced them the second time, it was 1 a piece, with the one paid to Richmond paid against Charlie Curnow who couldnt give the ball back to his opponent, because his opponent WOULDNT FACE HIM.