Soldo and Dixon are held together with sticking plaster and will be concerned with self preservation. Finlayson is more likely to be Harry’s ruck opponent and will also be concerned with his own safety.
Harry’s ruck tactics are intended to make the most of his physical attributes while avoiding the collisions that define Tom’s ruckwork. Matty K has done a great job preparing Harry for the backup role and that includes limiting the possibility of collisions. Furthermore, he will rarely have to compete for hitouts against frontline rucks.
You often post about respecting opponents, then you lightly dismiss the opposition's prime battering ram.
BigH's main advantage is his mobility and acceleration for a player his size, a ruck injury could end all that.
If I'm not mistaken, BigH is a twin, and his twin brother Ben has already had two minor PCLs.
Who is the opposition’s prime battering ram; Soldo or the incapacitated Dixon? As battering rams they are both nowhere near as destructive as Tom.
Ben doesn’t play in the ruck and Harry has more chance of suffering a PCL injury in a marking contest. He doesn’t engage in knee up ruck contests but uses his size and strength to out manoeuvre his opponent. That’s why he doesn’t bother with a shin guard.
I watched some footage of the presumptive GOP nominee at the Libertarian Party convention. He had arranged for MAGA supporters to enter the venue early to give an impression of support but they were overwhelmed by the Libertarians’ boos.
The former President was booed when he told the Libertarians to nominate him as their presidential candidate and was booed even more when he berated them for not following his directive.
He was nominated for their ballot and received six votes out of 1051 🙄
Nup, ruck Pittonet and give'em some treatment back the other way Tired of us getting worked over by crap trucks. Never miss an opportunity to push back on these arrogant bogans.
Pitto is out for a couple of weeks so it will be Tom and a combination of Harry, Crippa, Chugga, etc. I suppose that Nige could be an option but probably not in a wet game at night.
I have to laugh at LP’s fears about opposition rucks setting out to harm Harry. While Harry is more than capable of looking after himself, angelic looking Tom is one of the meanest ruckmen going around, and never hesitates to make his opposition aware of his presence. Furthermore, the ruck rotations are usually orchestrated so that Harry only competes against Finlayson.
Dixon is being nursed through the season and usually only takes some forward 50 ruck contests. He will be flat out trying cope with Weitering’s attentions.
I was at the game, and things may have looked different on TV, but i cannot agree with this statement.
Me and 40k of my closest mates seemed to see some very obvious ones being missed. Most of it was based on the holding the ball decisions.....that were not paid.
A lot of the frustration would be taken away, and the decision making of the umpires made easier, if we ditched the prior opportunity rule.
Right now a player takes on a tackler (which gives up his right to prior opportunity) is correctly tackled and doesn't dispose of it correctly, and the umpire doesn't pay anything because they say there was no prior opportunity. So the mistake came when judging if/when a player decided to take on the tackler. Removing prior opportunity removes that decision making error.
There's a similar problem when the ball comes out in the tackle. Is that supposed to be play on? Does the player with the ball get done for incorrect disposal? This seems to change depending on how long the player had the ball for as well......or....if he had prior opportunity. TBH, i'm not sure which way that rule is supposed to go, but thats how its umpired and thats where another grey area is introduced where it shouldn't be.
I keep banging on about it, but removing prior fixes so many of these errors. The main issue seems to be that people don't want to penalise the player making the play.....which is a reasonable stance. However, currently, we do not reward the tackler enough. It NEEDS to be fairer in that regard.
If the ball is knocked free in the tackle it is holding the ball if there was prior opportunity and play on if there wasn’t.
Similarly, a player must dispose of the ball immediately when tackled if he had prior opportunity. If there was no prior opportunity, the player must be given a reasonable time to dispose of the ball.
That’s where the confusion lies; identical tackles can have different outcomes depending on whether there was prior opportunity.
Get rid of prior opportunity, adjudicate every tackle on its merits but don’t disadvantage players who take on the tackler. Ping them if they don’t make an attempt, but give them a reasonable time to dispose of the ball.
Is it possible this is by instruction ? I find it hard to believe that the coaches don't notice this, and if they're unhappy with it, would they not issue a corrective ? I've heard a number of coaches criticize too many players getting sucked in to the contest, and state some players need to be stationed outside the contest to receive the footy.
That’s the key Paul; Fantasia is getting games because he’s following instructions.
He’s not supposed to get sucked into contests, we’ve got the big bodies to do that. He’s supposed to provide an outlet and make good use of the ball when it does come his way.
He also spends a lot of time talking to his teammates and I suspect that part of his role is to ensure that players stick to their roles.
I’d still like to see him more involved in the game and making the most of opportunities around goal.
Why he keeps getting full game time is beyond belief. Surely motlop takes his place if fit this week.
Fantasia was pretty good on Saturday. He had some critical possessions deep in defence and his pass to Harry for a goal was outstanding. He's still not hitting the scoreboard himself though.
I'd much prefer to have Motlop in the team, but not on the back of a five disposal game in the VFL. If he's fit, he should be dominating at that level, even if the team is copping a hiding.
There won't be much to come out of that umpire complaining, Hardwick's example was Charlie being spun in the tackle but the reality is Andrew didn't halt Charlie's movement or inhibit his disposal so the umpire is correct.
The umpire was correct because the rule says that he/she must give the player with the ball a reasonable time to dispose of it. In the circumstances, that was a reasonable time … and the rules say nothing about 360 degrees.
The tackle definition does not include “impede progress” or “prevent disposal”.
The real error the umpire made in that passage of play was failing to pay Charlie a free kick for a push in the back.
I'm against Hardwick's demand umpires blow the whistle sooner, he seems to think "We the public" want that as the default, which in effect encourages and rewards tacklers. But for me it's the exact opposite of what the general public want, we want the player hunting the ball rewarded, we do not want the sniper who sits off the contests and tackles rewarded.
There’s no logical connection between umpires paying holding the ball free kicks quickly and players being injured in tackles. Andrew’s tackle was poorly applied and allowed Charlie freedom to move and get an effective disposal. Hardwick would be better off focusing on ensuring that his players tackle correctly.
Part of the problem is confusion about the holding the ball rules. A player who has “prior opportunity” must dispose of the ball immediately when tackled. A player who doesn’t have prior opportunity (ie Charlie) must dispose of the ball within a reasonable time as determined by the umpire in the circumstances.
Putting aside team loyalties, what do punters want to see; a player winning a free kick for holding an opponent’s arm or a player taking on the tackler and using strength and skill to dispose of the ball?
I’d rather see Dusty, Reid, Petracca, Crippa, etc take on and beat the tackler.
Hardwick did make one pertinent point; 131 tackles were laid for very few free kicks. A lot of those tackles were relatively meaningless, repeat efforts in congestion, but more than a few should have been rewarded with holding the ball free kicks and some should have been punished for holding the man.
I guess jamming comms has never been done before either? Regarding musk and being ask to turn it on, that sounds a bit basic. His satellite service is always on, the individual connections probably subject to the same capability of taking out any other internet connection. Depending on the method he might be able to.circumvent it, but denying it is harder.
Disrupting communications has been a thing since communication was first employed in human conflict. The Persians would have nobbled Pheidippides given half a chance.
@EB1, propaganda has always been a tool to sway public opinion. At first it was pictures because the majority were illiterate, but over the centuries it became print, newspapers, advertisements television, movies and the internet just makes it easier for everyone to have a platform.
The tools have changed, the actual method not so much. The messages are different but it's all just social engineering.
Jamming Skylink is not about propaganda. It’s disrupting Ukraine’s battlefield communications at strategic and tactical levels.
Ukraine’s vastly outnumbered forces rely on rapid responses to Russian troop movements. That cannot be achieved if battlefield communications are disrupted.
Of course, Ukraine will be doing whatever it can to disrupt Russian communications.
Williams had significant game influence today, fans seem reluctant to give him credit where credit is due. For me his F50 success highlights a fundamental contributing cause of our failings over the last few weeks. How can it be a rookie SF like Williams gets in all the right spaces, while relatively more seasoned SFs like Fantasia, Owies and Durdin cannot?
I thought that Williams played with freedom and made his own luck. Perhaps our regular small/medium forwards are too focused on performing defined roles to take a chance.
Of course, Williams is a very talented footballer whose skill set is similar to Jack Martin’s and a level above that of Owies, Durdin, Fantasia and Motlop.
That snap for his fourth was a bit hungry, could have laid it off by hand. Doesn't look a natural forward, but I'll take any goal we can get
There was no-one else in a better position and Williams had to take the shot. How many times did we waste forward 50 entries with too many handballs and forwards not willing to seize the moment?
Why is TDK expected to be Buddy Franklin when he goes forward?
It’s a bonus if your ruckman can get a goal or two when they rest forward. They should be expected to keep a tall defender engaged and make life a little easier for the regular key forwards.
Again, are you taking the p!55 or what? Tom got smashed by Witts today, if ever you needed two rucks with one parked in the fwd line it was today. I dont know why they didn't park TDK in the goal square for his rest instead of the bench (like the resting ruckman did in the good old days). Sometimes old is new.
No, Tom didn’t get smashed in the ruck. Witts got more hitouts but few ended up as GC clearances. Most of Tom’s hitouts resulted in a clearance to us, and Tom’s second and third efforts at stoppages played a big part in that.
Tom had twice as many effective disposals than Witts and took important marks around the ground. Witts was a virtually a non-event around the ground, apart from the goal he was gifted.
From what I could see, Tom went to the bench for running repairs and because he had no gas in his tank.
