Can the Carlton VFL team get the job done?
50 points, i'll take it. We'll be equal 4th on points after this weekend, 6th on percentage.
LoB vastly more effective than Setterfield in the wing role, might be finally finding his feet.
We might have another genuine mid on our hands with Carroll. Feel for Stocker, he makes our team better.
LoB vastly more effective than Setterfield in the wing role, might be finally finding his feet.
Agree..opposition was average but LOBs foot passes are his weapon.Setterfield isn't up to it imho and I'd move him on unless gets some more fire in his game.
Carroll is more my type of player, good attack on the ball and nice skills..
Any news on Stocker, I fell he's integral to our back six, especially his physicality. And he does defend.
A long time since I've been relaxed watching a final quarter! Lewis Young is looking good, gaining confidence every week.... and Adam Saad is our best acquisition in the last 5 years!!
Agree on Young he was good and is the player for Larkey next time.JW struggles on him but I thought Young played him much better.
Liked his stand and deliver bump on that thug Zurhaar too.
Can the Carlton VFL team get the job done?
Freudian slip Crash?
Fun fact....
CARLTON RESERVES 4.3 9.8 15.8 17.12 (114)
NORTH MELBOURNE VFL 4.0 5.1 7.2 9.5 (59)
CARLTON 5.2 8.5 15.8 17.12 (114)
NORTH MELBOURNE 2.3 7.3 9.4 10.4 (64)
2x 50(+) point wins against North in the same day with the same exact scoreline from us.
Good day for the bluebaggers.
Freudian slip Crash?
Fun fact....
CARLTON RESERVES 4.3 9.8 15.8 17.12 (114)
NORTH MELBOURNE VFL 4.0 5.1 7.2 9.5 (59)
CARLTON 5.2 8.5 15.8 17.12 (114)
NORTH MELBOURNE 2.3 7.3 9.4 10.4 (64)
2x 50(+) point wins against North in the same day with the same exact scoreline from us.
Good day for the bluebaggers.
Basically a straighter North kick from exact same scores all round.
So glad to hand it to NM. We’ve struggled against them long enough.
I know it’s against the bottom side but the experience of putting the foot on the throat will be valuable.
I have a feeling we're going to develop an extreme dislike for Jason Horne-Francis over the next ten years or so ;)
On the other hand, Jack Carroll has the potential to give us ten years+ of happy memories. ;D
LoB vastly more effective than Setterfield in the wing role, might be finally finding his feet.
Ditto with Newnes - both are much more effective (than Setters) when delivering the ball by foot
Innovative forward line set up for the centre bounces
Carroll (or Walsh) at CHF
Martin + Fisher (or Owies) on the HFF
Durdin (or Owies) in the goal square
Harry + Charlie in the forward pockets (more or less)
Highlight of the match was young ironing out zurhar for mine.
Disappointed the scoreline wasn't more. We were wasteful in front of goal and should have won by 70 points.
Still a win is a win.
Freudian slip Crash?
Fun fact....
CARLTON RESERVES 4.3 9.8 15.8 17.12 (114)
NORTH MELBOURNE VFL 4.0 5.1 7.2 9.5 (59)
CARLTON 5.2 8.5 15.8 17.12 (114)
NORTH MELBOURNE 2.3 7.3 9.4 10.4 (64)
2x 50(+) point wins against North in the same day with the same exact scoreline from us.
Good day for the bluebaggers.
NO. With our injuries, we are far from the best we can be, much closer to where our VFL team could be if we had a full list to chose from. No 1 ruck out and a heap of others, and yet the defence stands up, and we win the clearances by a huge margin.
Oh I almost forgot North Melbourne's best player was eleni glouftsis. I counted 4 score involvements that were just inexplicable.
Oh I almost forgot North Melbourne's best player was eleni glouftsis. I counted 4 score involvements that were just inexplicable.
She had a terrible game. She didn't keep up with the play. She guessed. She didn't bring the ball back when her bounce totally advantaged Goldstein. She took Tom de Koning out, and failed to blow the whistle and stop play that she interfered with. Some of her decisions were laughable.
I think bringing in women umps is not a bad thing, but Eleni doesn't appear to have what it takes. Not AFL standard.
I kept asking myself whether it wasn't a subconscious thing because she was female.
I think that's part of it.
She's clearly identifiable.
If an individual male umpire has a shocker, well they all look the same (except the Leprechaun) so you don't tend to notice it.
Bust seriously that was a very poor performance.
The thing was a couple of her decisions actually helped us, half tackles on North players which were called holding the ball very quickly.
One other thing while I think of it.
When O'Brien get's the ball these days rather than worrying I'm pretty confident he'll hit the target, or do something constructive, which is a dramatic shift from previous years.
I didn't think that the umpires had much influence either way, despite some clangers both teams benefited at times.
The most important umpiring trait isn't correctness, it's consistency!
One thing I've picked up on is the new dissent rules have made it worse for fans as the clangers seem to go unnoticed which makes fans livid.
I didn't think that the umpires had much influence either way, despite some clangers both teams benefited at times.
The most important umpiring trait isn't correctness, it's consistency!
They had an absolute howler last night, getting in the way of play, missed free kicks, incorrect free kicks. That game needs a serious review. It didn't influence the result but in a close game, a performance like that will dictate the outcome. Glouftsis in particular was atrocious.
She had a terrible game. She didn't keep up with the play. She guessed. She didn't bring the ball back when her bounce totally advantaged Goldstein. She took Tom de Koning out, and failed to blow the whistle and stop play that she interfered with. Some of her decisions were laughable.
I think bringing in women umps is not a bad thing, but Eleni doesn't appear to have what it takes. Not AFL standard.
She does put on a good shepherd though...haha.
Stand out items for me:
1. We didn't fold like a deck of cards to a team way below us on the ladder and out of form.
2. Adam Saad's will to get to a contest and either spoil, tackle or intercept is something to behold. I love the bloke.
3. H's has vice grips for hands.
4. Jack Carroll debut was promising, go on with it now young man.
5. More that please TDK.
6. Doc, Cripps, Young stood tall and cracked in when we were under siege for that little bit. The skipper was a beast.
7. LOB's kicking clinic was elite last night.
8. Fish lifted his output as a roaming collector and distributor, worked very hard I thought.
9. Charlie looks ready to tear the comp a new one.
10. Not a fan but Plowman was solid last night.
Durds needs to lift or he'll find himself in the 2's.
Surely Dow gets a run next week (I'm gonna keep banging on until he gets a game).
She does put on a good shepherd though...haha.
FMD surely she had to call that back and ball it up.
They had an absolute howler last night, getting in the way of play, missed free kicks, incorrect free kicks. That game needs a serious review. It didn't influence the result but in a close game, a performance like that will dictate the outcome. Glouftsis in particular was atrocious.
How the hell she ever got a senior game is beyond belief. Sub standard, I'd make sure she was never gifted another.
I kept asking myself whether it wasn't a subconscious thing because she was female.
I think that's part of it.
She's clearly identifiable.
The best thing an umpire can do is not be noticed.
The fact she continually gets herself noticed to begin with is a mark against her.
There are a few umpires that have burned themselves into my brain through consistent poor decisions, she and Razor are the obvious ones, but there have been a few over the journey, not sure if they are still umpiring and if the numbers are the same, but Leigh Fisher gave 14-1 free kicks against us vs St. Kilda one game....he used to play for the saints.
#'s 15 and 23 also have their names/numbers on the naughty list for previous incompetence.
I posted a clip of a free kick from a ruck contest from a few rounds ago (not our game) that was doing the rounds on social media. A free kick was given at a centre bounce for blocking (against a ruck) and no matter how many times i watched it, there was not even the slightest glimpse of what the umpire saw. The free kick went against the ruck who won the tap and no rhyme or reason as to why. That umpire was Eleni
How the hell she ever got a senior game is beyond belief. Sub standard, I'd make sure she was never gifted another.
Agree, was terrible and lacks control of the game imo, players pinged immediately for holding the ball, incorrect disposal then others given half an hour, swung 360 degrees and it's play on...??
Agree, was terrible and lacks control of the game imo, players pinged immediately for holding the ball, incorrect disposal then others given half an hour, swung 360 degrees and it's play on...??
EB, imo, quite simply, she does NOT understand or have any "feel" for the game.
Talking about actual decisions.... Gees that tunnel by Larkey was as weak as pi... Typical gutless stuff from that mob.
If TdK gets done for umpire contact I'd be ringing Gil over the tunnelling. That's how knees get done.
I thought our kicking into the forward line was heaps better... we kicked it into space in front of Harry or Charlie so they could run onto it. Hard to defend.
Plus they didn't get into each others way.
I'm liking what young brings and Jack Carroll is going to be a player.
Good work guys, now bring on the Cows >:(
Eleni was terrible because North wear the colours of the Greek flag, clearly!
Watched the replay late last night and have to say that Horne-Francis is a dirty sniper and fits in well with the Ziebell and Zurhaar's of this irrelevant excuse of a football club. Hope they lose every game for the rest of the year and fade off into oblivion.
>:(
She had a terrible game. She didn't keep up with the play. She guessed. She didn't bring the ball back when her bounce totally advantaged Goldstein. She took Tom de Koning out, and failed to blow the whistle and stop play that she interfered with. Some of her decisions were laughable.
I think bringing in women umps is not a bad thing, but Eleni doesn't appear to have what it takes. Not AFL standard.
Agree 100%. Its so typical AFL.
Who cares if the umpire is man or women, young or old black or white but for god sake they need to be at the top standard to get a gig and a blind man can see she is not.
Same goes for special comments and the TV commentators - seriously that Kellie Underwood is downright awful yet the AFL wouldn't dare replace her would they.
Commentators are supposed to enhance the spectacle - she does the opposite.
I have no doubts that we would have dropped this one in years gone by, or just fell over the line. It's a good sign that we win well against a side we're expected to win well against.
Great debut from JC, such footy smarts and instincts. Hard to see him going back to the Magoos.
LOB over Setters every day of the week.
Really pleasing to see such improved impact from Fisher. He can stay if he keeps that up! And another under selection pressure, Newnes, justified his place impressively.
Who to replace Stocks?
TDK answered the doubters as did Martin.
Saad. Simply brilliant. Loved how he directed Crippa in the final qtr to lead into the area he kicked it, rather than deep in the pocket where Crippa indicated he wanted it. Smart.
And anyone who doubted how we would handle mongrel acts from the Wallaroos got their answer when Young was tunnelled.
Be interesting to see how MRP deals with Young standing his ground in front of Zurhaar.
Same goes for special comments and the TV commentators - seriously that Kellie Underwood is downright awful yet the AFL wouldn't dare replace her would they.
Commentators are supposed to enhance the spectacle - she does the opposite.
I thought she improved during the past season and I agree with you she is now only downright awful - annoying voice and too much irrelevant prattle - maybe trying to fill the niche left by Bruce
Jack Carroll is going to be a player.
Best debut since Sam Walsh
Best debut since Sam Walsh
That’s one high accolade!
His first goal came after a desperate act from Walsh. It was a ripper.
Can’t wait to watch the replay.
Same goes for special comments and the TV commentators - seriously that Kellie Underwood is downright awful yet the AFL wouldn't dare replace her would they.
Has tickets on herself, and I don't know why. Out of her league
I thought she improved during the past season and I agree with you she is now only downright awful - annoying voice and too much irrelevant prattle - maybe trying to fill the niche left by Bruce
The league must know how ordinary she is as she never gets big games. Always North or Suns we have had her a bit as we have been down there as well. All for female umpires if standard up to it but not just for the afl to put on a poster look at us we have a female umpire aren’t we progressive!
Quality not Equality
I thought she improved during the past season and I agree with you she is now only downright awful - annoying voice and too much irrelevant prattle - maybe trying to fill the niche left by Bruce
Her commentary could be used by the Feds to solicit confessions from crims.
To attempt to make amends after my appalling comment... she obviously loves the game and does her best, but...
Oh gerard Healy was very anti Carlton on the commentary. Was surprised to hear him call stuff that one way. He's usually pretty good.
Eleni was terrible because North wear the colours of the Greek flag, clearly!
Watched the replay late last night and have to say that Horne-Francis is a dirty sniper and fits in well with the Ziebell and Zurhaar's of this irrelevant excuse of a football club. Hope they lose every game for the rest of the year and fade off into oblivion.
>:(
Horne Francis is another chip off the old Nth block of snipers, gave JSOS a cowardly cheap shot and was lucky it was Jack who doesn't react as much as others. One of his teammates collected him with friendly fire so he had to go off with a bad neck so karma did it's job.
Next time he plays us I'd be targeting him for some heavy treatment everytime he goes near the ball..
We still only played one quarter of, admittedly, very powerful footy, to get the win.
Carroll looks a player, shame that Stocker got injured and it pains me to say it but even Plowman had a reasonable game.
FMD surely she had to call that back and ball it up.
There are two other umpires out there who could have intervened and didn't as well, while she was on the ground they had an unobstructed view of what was happening..
Horne Francis is another chip off the old Nth block of snipers, gave JSOS a cowardly cheap shot and was lucky it was Jack who doesn't react as much as others. One of his teammates collected him with friendly fire so he had to go off with a bad neck so karma did it's job.
Next time he plays us I'd be targeting him for some heavy treatment everytime he goes near the ball..
I would like to think every opposition player gets some heavy treatment whenever they go near the ball
Agree, was terrible and lacks control of the game imo, players pinged immediately for holding the ball, incorrect disposal then others given half an hour, swung 360 degrees and it's play on...??
I went back and looked at a couple of those on the replay and I think she got it right, in every case the player either motioned to baulk or went to handball and didn't just before being tackled. That's prior opportunity under the current implementation.
I would like to think every opposition player gets some heavy treatment whenever they go near the ball
Horne-Francis won't last long in AFL if he's doing that shizen in season one!
Yep, I think those who don't like the prior opportunity component are happy to ignore it when they compare different examples. But once you've had prior you have to get rid of it immediately upon being tackled. When the player with the ball is tackled by someone grabbing the bottom of the jumper from behind, that's still a tackle if it retards the player. It doesn't have to stop the player in his tracks, it just has to knock a few km/h off his progress. I'm sure the ball carrier on that occasion knew he was being tackled and he had his hands free so he should have just squirted a handball out ahead of himself. Instead, he started looking around for options as if he were a QB with 5 seconds to target a receiver.
Yep, I think those who don't like the prior opportunity component are happy to ignore it when they compare different examples. But once you've had prior you have to get rid of it immediately upon being tackled. When the player with the ball is tackled by someone grabbing the bottom of the jumper from behind, that's still a tackle if it retards the player. It doesn't have to stop the player in his tracks, it just has to knock a few km/h off his progress. I'm sure the ball carrier on that occasion knew he was being tackled and he had his hands free so he should have just squirted a handball out ahead of himself. Instead, he started looking around for options as if he were a QB with 5 seconds to target a receiver.
The problem is not so much with the rules but the inconsistency of interpretation by the umpires.
Some players were penalised right away last night. Others were given until this morning to dispose of it.
If you apply a strict interpretation a player like Cripps would be free kicked out of the game.
I was pleased last night for a lot of reasons:
[1] We put a team away, even with many of our more important players unavailable. We haven't done that in years.
[2] Plowman might have been lucky to get a game, as the only reason he came in was for the late out of Williams, but he really deserved his spot last night. He looked the fittest he has all year. He didn't panic and he went for his marks. He'll play next week because he deserves to, not because someone else wasn't fit.
[3] We saw the beginnings of a real career last night in the development of Lewis Young. Instead of just punching the ball, he had the confidence to go for his marks and the ability to take them. Well done, young man. That was what we've been needing, as it take a lot of pressure off Weitering.
[4] We also saw another career start last night: Jack Carroll. He wasn't overawed. he worked hard. His disposal was neat. He got in the right spots and he was hard at the ball. A pleasing debut.
[5] Our smaller forwards/mids have copped criticism of late, but they worked really hard last night. Owies got some rewards, and while he still, only managed a handful of possessions, he tackles hard. He had 5 possessions for 3 scoring shots and 8 tackles. I really liked that. Durdin got a bit more of the ball, 11 possessions and 4 tackles. He tried hard, but things didn't really go his way. Martin appeared more involved for longer, although he is still a long way from being a 4 quarter player. He competed well, instead of just leaving it someone else. Fisher had a much better game, and was so much more effective than he has been. His run was good, but his kicking was much better. He didn't turn the ball over the way he has been doing.
But sometimes the apparent inconsistency is explained by prior opportunity or the lack of it. This adds a layer to the decision-making process and that means more room for mistakes from umpires. Trying to dumb down the rules to make it easier for the umpire to adjudicate isn't necessarily the answer. For instance, It'd make it easier for cricket umpires if they did away with the exclusion of balls which bounce outside the leg stump or balls which make contact outside the line of off-stump where the batsman plays a shot, but that would introduce other problems.
I would like to think every opposition player gets some heavy treatment whenever they go near the ball
We are a friendly team who play a gentlemans game....we have a couple like Stocker and Young(eg Zurhaar) not adverse to handing out a decent heavy bump but within the rules but we dont have cheap shot artists like Horne Francis giving players a clip when they are running past. Jack doesnt deserve that type of BS and it reminded me of that other little prick Merrett who gave him a punch in the ribs when he tackled him a while back. Like to see Jack deal with that stuff a bit more severely and let these cowardly snipers know its coming back with interest.
Some players just pee me off more than others and Horne Francis just has that smug cocky look that I want someone to rearrange his smile for him. Toby Nankervis is another that gives cheap shots like knees in the ribs when players are down on the ground or the odd stray elbow and makes out it was just a awkward accident because he is a big awkward player and he always gets away with it.
Unable to follow the game… someone tell me please how Weiters came to kick a goal?
The highlights reel doesn’t show what happened before his kick. Result of a 50m penalty?
Unable to follow the game… someone tell me please how Weiters came to kick a goal?
The highlights reel doesn’t show what happened before his kick. Result of a 50m penalty?
Infringement in the backline then two 50 metres
Unable to follow the game… someone tell me please how Weiters came to kick a goal?
The highlights reel doesn’t show what happened before his kick. Result of a 50m penalty?
Weitering got a free kick then as Young tried to mark a dead ball Larkey tunnelled him. Not sure if the first 50 was for that or the melee? Then another 50 was given as North players trying to get back infringed the whatever metre zone is.
The problem is not so much with the rules but the inconsistency of interpretation by the umpires.
Some players were penalised right away last night. Others were given until this morning to dispose of it.
If you apply a strict interpretation a player like Cripps would be free kicked out of the game.
Exactly.
The inconsistency of it was a joke.
Both with holding the ball (or not)
and the 'stand' rule being umpired correctly.
There were times where a player lined up 2m offline and was not play on, there were other times where they were directly behind and just throught about moving and got told to play on.
Stocker, Young charged
https://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/1116754?fbclid=IwAR2C_vrjvAqfiJzHLt1WI2K1ij3eHQU6L5UjSMXKatjLlXqcyAnD3fjXQh4
Stocker has been charged with rough conduct during a contest in the third quarter, which has been graded as careless with medium impact and high contact.
Young has been charged with front on contact during a contest in the fourth quarter, that was graded as careless and high impact, with contact to the body.
Both players have each been offered a one-week sanction as a result.
Stocker, Young charged
https://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/1116754?fbclid=IwAR2C_vrjvAqfiJzHLt1WI2K1ij3eHQU6L5UjSMXKatjLlXqcyAnD3fjXQh4
What a friggin joke the AFL has become. Now you can't even hit a body??? WTF
Stocker, Young charged
https://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/1116754?fbclid=IwAR2C_vrjvAqfiJzHLt1WI2K1ij3eHQU6L5UjSMXKatjLlXqcyAnD3fjXQh4
Once again, we get targeted ! Effin' sickening bias
What a friggin joke the AFL has become. Now you can't even hit a body??? WTF
That one on Young might be challenged i'd say.
Stocker, Young charged
https://www.carltonfc.com.au/news/1116754?fbclid=IwAR2C_vrjvAqfiJzHLt1WI2K1ij3eHQU6L5UjSMXKatjLlXqcyAnD3fjXQh4
I said at the time that it was lucky Stocker hurt himself otherwise he'd get suspended.....apparantly it doesn't matter.
Once again, we get targeted !
Every fking time. Surely we challenge the Young one. The dirty pr1ck Larkey has to get 3 weeks if you base it on stocker and young’s suspensions.
Joke Afl.
No head contact with the Young incident, just a very solid bump against a sniper. Since when was the bump outlawed?? Use the Stocker vs Mihocek example from last year.... no case to answer based on that precedent!!
Every fking time. Surely we challenge the Young one. The dirty pr1ck Larkey has to get 3 weeks if you base it on stocker and young’s suspensions.
The dirty pr1ck Larkey actually only gets ONE week. Apparently potentially crippling someone ranks alongside a solid bump.
AFL - Corrupt and incompetent governing body that is ripping the fabric of the game apart.
Yet more evidence that the MRO is a total clown and takes every opportunity to punish us. Wouldnt know what the word consistency means. Circus.
That one on Young might be challenged i'd say.
Agree, Young braced for contact, it wasn't aggressive..
Agree, Young braced for contact, it wasn't aggressive..
Mitch Robinson got done for something similar.
Mitch Robinson got done for something similar.
Seems wrong that Zurhaar can cripple Jones nearly in a previous game, Larkey can tunnel Young in a very dangerous move and just get a week yet Young can't stand his ground vs an oncoming Zurhaar...
I'm suprised they didn't add an umpire contact charge to TDK for being run into.
100% EB. Young braced to protect himself from being nailed, yet he's going to pay for it?!? How about the bloke who instigated the impact? HTF do these b******s keep getting away with it?
100% EB. Young braced to protect himself from being nailed, yet he's going to pay for it?!? How about the bloke who instigated the impact? HTF do these b******s keep getting away with it?
Prof, because the tribunal/match review system needs an overhaul. It's full of inconsistencies and applies no common sense. Intent to injure doesn't count, because Young gets up and plays on Larkey only gets one week, that doesn't take into account how dangerous the move from Larkey was and it's a blight on the game. Zurhaar tried to bash his way through tackles and ran into the bigger bodied Young and created the contact..play on.
I'm suprised they didn't add an umpire contact charge to TDK for being run into.
I'm guessing they might want to limit the 'exposure' to said umpire.
A performance best not highlighted perhaps.
The dirty pr1ck Larkey actually only gets ONE week. Apparently potentially crippling someone ranks alongside a solid bump.
AFL - Corrupt and incompetent governing body that is ripping the fabric of the game apart.
You’re right. And they are never wrong in situation whether it be a new umpiring rule or tribunal decisions etc. That’s part of the problem they won’t change because they would have to admit they made an error and that’s not going to happen.
Larkeys suspension of just 1 week is laughable and a complete contradiction on all levels of them trying rule out serious head injuries. Young could have easily landed on his head or neck in that act and not out of the question to even end up in a wheelchair.
Disgraceful and watch the media say stuff all.
I'm guessing they might want to limit the 'exposure' to said umpire.
A performance best not highlighted perhaps.
By the same logic, i think it was her who paid a free kick for 'high contact' for the Young incident despite not hitting him high (as evidenced by the charge which said contact was to the body.
But i guess you don't get that backstory from the replay, so less obvious of the umpiring error.
Was at the game and one thing that looked odd at the time was when every player on the field ran up to newnes when he kicked the goal in the 3rd.
Every the backs ran the full length of the ground and he didn’t even celebrate. There looked to be a lot of love for him for reasons I don’t know but maybe he is a loved team mate or there is something happening behind the scenes with him.
Or maybe I’m just over thinking it!!
The tunneling penalty confirms the league do not put player safety first.
What a joke.
The charge against Young includes that he failed to exercise a duty of care to Zurhaar.
What the charge is failing to understand is that Zurhaar also has a duty of care to himself. He knew (or should) if he continued to charge at the aggot as vigorously as he did and with Young standing where he was, that, he (Zurhaar) was in fact contributing in no small manner to his own endangerment. Are players who are about to be kamikazed by someone ignoring of their own safety expected to be responsible for such carelessness; to do their utmost to get out of the way of the kamikaze act?
If you have poor regard for your own well-being does it then become the responsibility of the person you're going to recklessly career into?
In basketball Zurhaar would have received a call for a charge and picked up a foul, funny how two different sports see the incident differently. A player is entitled to hold his ground and brace for contact IMHO the same as in basketball and should be entitled to protection. The problem was Young is a bigger human and Zurhaar came off second best so Young gets punished...wrong IMO.
Interesting Zurhaar was the one who came in to pull Young off Larkey after the latter tunneled our man and then threw Young to the ground. Karma for that schmuck Zurhaar IMO and highlight of the game for me.....Young has gone way up in my estimations and happy to have him on the list.
Oh gerard Healy was very anti Carlton on the commentary. Was surprised to hear him call stuff that one way. He's usually pretty good.
Healy was terrible, as you said anti Carlton all night and it was so obvious. The rest of the Fox team wasn't any better Sat night.
Every fking time. Surely we challenge the Young one. The dirty pr1ck Larkey has to get 3 weeks if you base it on stocker and young’s suspensions.
Joke Afl.
Tunnelling is not a reportable/suspendible offence.
Tunnelling is not a reportable/suspendible offence.
I take that back, Larkey has been suspended.
The reason the game erupted was because Norp became frustrated that the shizen bully boy tactics they had used in the past to beat up on us failed to work this time around. Blokes like Larkey and Horne-Francis really showed themselves to be bottom of the barrel, and I have to applauded our guys for staying focussed and not taking a step back when required.
This is another new feature of our club that Voss should get some credit for!
I hope the club contests the Young MRO penalty, given Stocker is out it's a bit of a waste of time contesting that one but maybe it should do so also as a show of unity! What Young did wasn't much more than brace for impact, while Zurhaar acted like he is free to throw himself through a pack of players and expects the opposition to part like Noah crossing the Red Sea. Interesting all the media describe the Young event as a collision.
Zurhaar's shizen attitude comes from being allowed by the AFL to get away with so much so early in his career, the AFL MRO is mostly to blame in this case.
Given recent MRO outcomes, how can it be the case that Horne-Francis hasn't been done for an on video hit on Silvagni, it's simply bizarre!
Horne Francis has been fined $2000 for striking
Horne Francis has been fined $2000 for striking
Earlier in the season some players got games for much the same act, now it's just a fine, all because SoJ didn't was stoic about being punched in the guts yet again!
Late to the party as usual.
Didn't get to watch the game because of family commitments but watched the highlights....and loved the Young bump on Zurhaar....especially after some of the discussion on here during the week before the game about the likes of him. And was then staggered to see that Young gets a week? Brad Scott needs to come out this week and basically say that the hip and shoulder bump is basically outlawed from here on it even when there's no head high contact....because that's basically what this suspension is saying. If "care for the player" is what it's about then Larkey should get 3-4 weeks because that act (after the whistle too) has the potential to cause serious injury.
On a side not, was so rapt to see Jack Carroll get a debut and play so well....showed lots of compsure. I posted on here a few weeks back that he will surprise a few people this year. He's an automatic upgrade on Setterfield and should hold his spot this week even if Hewett comes back in. I think him and O'Brien could be a handy pair on the wings as they're different sorts of players but can both use the ball really well.
Brad Scott needs to come out this week and basically say that the hip and shoulder bump is basically outlawed from here on
I wouldn't expect anything from that "terd"
I wouldn't expect anything from that "terd"
I hope you haven’t raised your arms while you’re saying that 😉
Club is appealing the Young ban. I just watched it again and surely that can't be a week? Got him on the shoulder and winded him....that's all it was.
A few weeks back Mason Cox jumped in the air and kneed a guy fair in the back/kidneys while making no attempt to mark or spoil....and that didn't even warrant a week.
Very glad that the club is contesting the Young suspension. Zurhaar contributed, even caused the contact. I'm not optimistic as the AFL has shown no inclination to acknowledge that recklessness from the victim can contribute to the contact.
It's amazing how the media flip, yesterday and this morning the Young / Zurhaar collision was reported as it was, ............... a collision.
Moments after Carlton announces the intention to appeal articles began popping up describing it as a fiery clash!
Very glad that the club is contesting the Young suspension. Zurhaar contributed, even caused the contact. I'm not optimistic as the AFL has shown no inclination to acknowledge that recklessness from the victim can contribute to the contact.
I thought Zurhaar viciously attacked Young's shoulder with his chest. 🙄
How impressive was Harry's shot at goal for our 2nd in the match after he marked outside 50 and then launched a raking 60m kick from the line of the centre square which cleared the 197cm Josh Walker (who didn't even bother jumping to spoil) and hit the base of the fence 5m away from the goal line. And when I say "raking", I mean it. At the top of its trajectory, it was at most 10m off the ground. It was probably kicked at an angle of less than 30 degrees rather than the optimal angle for distance, around 43 degrees. Makes you wonder how far he would have kicked it if he'd given it more air.
Pity about Stocker's injury. But he has to learn to avoid going 4th man up in marking contests. In the 1st quarter, Scott bombed long to the hotspot and Ziebel was sitting under it, flanked by Young and Weitering. Stocker was behind the marking contest with Stephenson but left him and launched into the pack. Once he committed to the contest, he just had to punch it well outside D50 but instead it was Zeibel who got a fist to it to knock it goalwards where Stephenson would have picked it up for an easy goal if Larkey hadn't beaten him to it. If he had stayed down, he would have been in a good position to kill the ball after it had been punched. Letting 2 opponents behind the contest when you're effectively the goalkeeper is a cardinal sin. This isn't the first time he's done this. In the game against North last year, he jumped into a 2 on 2 contest and the only impact he had was to push everybody under the ball only to see it drop to his man Thomas who waited down behind the pack and goaled.
Not sure we'll get great joy out of Carlton's appeal of the Young suspension. I hope the appeal was taken because Young won't face an increase in the suspension if he loses.
Fact is that Young could have (and should have) targetted the ball. As it was, the bump happened just about the same time as the ball bounced at Young's feet. If he'd bent down to pick it up, chances are he would have earned a free kick if he'd turned his body so Zurhaar would have had no choice but to go over his back. And if Zurhaar had kept his head down and his head hit Young's back, there would have been no criticism of Young. Young could also have shepherded the ball, again by turning his back on Zurhaar, allowing Saad first access to it. Again, if Zurhaar hadn't modified his approach then he would have given away the free kick.
I'd imagine the best defence for Young would be to say that he had been intending to pick up the ball (and he did have his hands out in front as if he were preparing to grab the bouncing ball) but he realised Zurhaar would hit him head high at speed so he sought to protect himself (and arguably Zurhaar) by crouching away from his head). In other words, we'd want to argue this is the same as Rioli making contact after jumping for the mark and then turning his body on instinct at the last second.
I think it's wishful thinking to argue Young was stationary. He had run into that position albeit he was decelerating. Zurhaar at no point ducked his head. He was always concentrating on the ball and his head was down when he made contact with Young only because the ball was bouncing between them and he was bending down to pick it up.
If the Tribunal finds that Young chose to bump when the alternatives of gathering the ball or shepherding were open to him, then he'll be found guilty unless the bump was executed perfectly.
I think that the Tribunal will class the bump as dangerous unless it can be clearly shown that the impact was made to the upper arm or the front of the shoulder. If we're forced into a last-ditch effort of arguing that it was more on the front than the top of the shoulder, I don't like our chances. A hip and shoulder to the top of an opponent's shoulder can do a lot of damage (as it did to Bishop when Long nailed him in the 2000 GF).
Mav....my question is that does it say anywhere that you can't bump? My understanding was that if you choose to bump and make head high contact, then that is a reportable offence..... I get that bit. But just delivering a fair hip and shoulder? Is that now outside the laws of the game? Or are you now only allowed to deliver a fair hip and shoulder bump that's not considered "high impact"?
I feel sorry for the players having to continually change their approach to the ball for the ever changing interpretations. A classic example was in the Geelong v Dockers game. All pre-season they were talking about players who drop the knee or shrug a tackle to force high contact will now be taken to have prior opportunity and will be penalised for holding the ball. Late in the game when scores were very close, Selwood did his usual thing...dropped the knees, shrugged the tackler's arm up to force high contact and the umpire awarded him a free kick. You could see the frustration on the Docker's faces....
I feel sorry for the players having to continually change their approach to the ball for the ever changing interpretations. A classic example was in the Geelong v Dockers game. All pre-season they were talking about players who drop the knee or shrug a tackle to force high contact will now be taken to have prior opportunity and will be penalised for holding the ball. Late in the game when scores were very close, Selwood did his usual thing...dropped the knees, shrugged the tackler's arm up to force high contact and the umpire awarded him a free kick. You could see the frustration on the Docker's faces....
Agreed, in my opinion this type of inconsistency in decision making is far worse than getting a basic decision wrong.
It's why I laugh at the idea of even more umpires, the problem now is we have too many and the rules are interpreted too many different ways!
It depends on how you define "fair bump". The example I gave of Bishop bending down to pick up the ball and Long coming in and nailing him with his hip to the top of the Bishop's shoulder ended Bishop's GF and I don't consider that a fair bump. As for what will penalise a bump at the tribunal, that's a different matter. The problem for Young is that the charge is dangerous conduct rather than, say, striking the head. That's a bit harder to pin down.
It was Simmonds and not Bishop who was laid out. And it has to be said the contact was to the head rather than the shoulder, so it may not be the best comparison. But that sort of bump is what has concerned the AFL: https://youtu.be/ZGPAuLzrrs8 (https://youtu.be/ZGPAuLzrrs8)
Tunnelling is not a reportable/suspendible offence.
“Rough play” covers a multitude of sins G2C.
I thought that the potential to cause serious injury was one of the factors that the MRO/tribunal had to consider. Young was lucky not to be seriously injured and Larkey should really have been referred to the tribunal.
What's the next step then if they're going to basically ban the bump because of the potential to cause injury? Stop blokes from flying for a hanger and using the knee to get up...regularly see blokes cop a knee in the back or side of the head when someone leaps over them for a mark....time we stopped that too then. If the potential to cause injury is the benchmark, then why wasn't Darcy reported last week for jumping into Pittonet with the raised knee?
If you're after proof that the bump is dead, look at the Pies v Suns match. With just under 9 minutes left in the 1st quarter, the ball was in the F50 for Collingwood and the hot potato landed in Brown's hands in a pack. He tried to handball it (I'm not convinced it was a legit handball, but no prior so play on) under pressure from Ballard. As the ball dribbled forward, Ballard fell into Brown's side and took him to the ground without tackling him. They fell to the ground and the umpire paid holding the man, even though he wasn't held and Ballard was entitled to knock him to the ground by a push to the side as the ball was within 5m.
Then Brown missed the shot. On the kickout, Jack Ginnivan was on the mark and closed on Lachie Weller as he ran out to the right from the goalsquare. Sam Collins had been standing close to goal and obviously was going to come in and try to shepherd Ginnivan to help out Weller. Ginnivan should have been aware that this was going to happen. However, as Lachie Weller went into his kicking motion, Ginnivan gave up on the chase just as Sam Collins came in and bumped him, meaning he went down like a sack of spuds. The bump was neither forceful nor illegal. Contact was made pretty much as Weller kicked the ball and definitely when the ball was less than 5m away. Sure enough, free to Ginnivan for an easy goal. So, within a few seconds, 2 free kicks were paid against defenders who bumped from the side. In both cases, Jason Dunstall was surprised the free kicks were paid. Nick Riewoldt tried to say it was the type of "blind side hit" the AFL was trying to get out of the game, though he lost a bit of steam when he saw the replay. (By the way, I can't see how it could be argued that this was a blind side hit given that Ginnivan should have known Sam Collins was standing where he was so he could deliver that bump).
Then when the ball made its way to the wing after the centre bounce, Brown took possession and tried to run past Farrar with the aid of a don't argue. Farrar stuck the tackle anyway but hit the ball as he was doing so and knocked it out. It should have been a free kick for holding the ball, but instead it was paid to Brown for holding the man. The commentators all agreed that it was just a bad decision. Boy oh boy, if that sequence of frees had been paid against us, this site would have melted down.
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2022/05/01/the-bump-is-essentially-gone-after-blues-strange-ban/
https://www.sen.com.au/news/2022/05/01/the-bump-is-essentially-gone-after-blues-strange-ban/
We only need to ask, who initiated contact? Young did not leave his line or position, he simply braced for impact. If you listen to the commentary, Moons said that Zurhaar initiated contact. End of story.
Baffles me why some reporters are stating that Young went the bump on Zurhaar... it just didn't happen that way.
What's the next step then if they're going to basically ban the bump because of the potential to cause injury? Stop blokes from flying for a hanger and using the knee to get up...regularly see blokes cop a knee in the back or side of the head when someone leaps over them for a mark....time we stopped that too then. If the potential to cause injury is the benchmark, then why wasn't Darcy reported last week for jumping into Pittonet with the raised knee?
Banning knees in marking contests has been seriously suggested, God forbid! I remember Fatprick Smith arguing that consistency demands that a player who makes contact with an opponent's head in a marking contest should be suspended, whether it be with the knee, elbow or any other manner.
We only need to ask, who initiated contact? Young did not leave his line or position, he simply braced for impact. If you listen to the commentary, Moons said that Zurhaar initiated contact. End of story.
Baffles me why some reporters are stating that Young went the bump on Zurhaar... it just didn't happen that way.
Thats how I viewed it...Young approached the contest but slowed down and braced for the impact, as Buckley said on SEN what was he meant to do?, step aside and offer no contest...?
If Zurhaar had Durdin in front of him and ran though him and injured him he would have got away with it, he just got unlucky it was a bigger stronger body like I said before, he likes to ride his luck being physical like when he cannoned into Liam Jones in that marking contest and badly injured him a few years ago not much duty of care shown there which some have pointed the finger at Young for...
We only need to ask, who initiated contact? Young did not leave his line or position, he simply braced for impact. If you listen to the commentary, Moons said that Zurhaar initiated contact. End of story.
Baffles me why some reporters are stating that Young went the bump on Zurhaar... it just didn't happen that way.
We've been down this road before: Plowman was suspended when he tried to spoil and O'Meara ran into his shoulder. It's eye of the beholder stuff. The club has to argue that Young moved to the ball intending to pick it up but then saw Zurhaar steaming in so fast that it would have been dangerous for him to have tried to pick it up. With Zurhaar's knees pumping and head down, it would have been dangerous for Young to continue to catch the bouncing ball with his head lowered towards Zurhaar. Then, it would be argued that he had insufficient time to do anything else but brace for contact in such a way that it would minimise the impact for both of them.
But let's face it, if I were a betting man, I'd want some juicy odds if I were to bet on the Tribunal clearing Young. It's more likely than not that his appeal will fail. I just hope that this doesn't mean he'll cop an extra week.
Thats how I viewed it...Young approached the contest but slowed down and braced for the impact, as Buckley said on SEN what was he meant to do?, step aside and offer no contest...?
The track record of arguing that it's not reasonable to ask a footballer to pull up/move aside isn't great. It's a line that older footballers love, but the Tribunal doesn't.
The track record of arguing that it's not reasonable to ask a footballer to pull up/move aside isn't great. It's a line that older footballers love, but the Tribunal doesn't.
If Young moved aside and failed to contest he would have been crucified by the media and coach......Zurhaar didnt show much care for Jones when he collided with him and went through with the contest injuring both himself and Jones a few years back.
I take your point about the Tribunal not recognizing what was expected of Young as a footballer but the bigger AFL picture requiring him to put the safety of Zurhaar first. Thats fine if they are consistent but if Young was Buddy Franklin I think Young would be playing this week as its easier to be safety first when its a lesser player involved...
Yep, I think there's be a little bit of prejudice against defenders, even though Young is nowhere near the sort of hitman that Luke Hodge was.
Unfortunately, we know 1 thing that stands to Young's credit can't be considered: there's no sympathy for 200 cm guys who bump smaller guys (leaving aside the issue of whether it was a bump), even though Young did really well to get as low as he did. If it had been Newman rather than Young, the contact would have been made around the stomach/chest area and there'd be no issue. The AFL has declared that a choice to bump is like a Damoclean Sword: execute the perfect bump and you're okay, but if there's any miscue at all it's a suspension.
What should be considered in his favour is that at 200 cm he would not have the agility of a guy like Durdin to move off the line.
The MRO graded Young’s bump on Kangaroos forward Cameron Zurhaar as careless and high impact with contact to the body.
Zurhaar briefly came from the ground after colliding with Young, but was able to play out the remainder of the match.
One more reason why I hate the North Melbourne football club and their dirty tactics. They hide behind the "shinboner spirit" to play like thugs and get away with it, and the second one of their blokes cops a hit, they go "down into the rooms" to make it look worse because the second you go through concussion precautions, its a hit to the head, and a suspension to your opponent. This has happened frequently over the last few years, and I have started to really loathe such underhanded behaviour.
And Horne Francis gets Rising Star nomination 🙄
Check his AFL stats against Carroll...... No comparison, and not in favor of the big mouth!!!!
On On The Couch, Jon Ralph thought there was a chance the contact would be downgraded from high impact to medium impact, allowing Young to get off his suspension. Lyon, Riewoldt and Brown were okay with the 1 week but they wanted more consistency.
Jonathan Brown suggested that this was one of those few times in the year a footballer has to decide to go for the ball knowing that doing so may well injure him.
And Horne Francis gets Rising Star nomination 🙄
They should just do away with these pretend round nominations.
I was close to the bump, right in line with it and think he is lucky to have got one week.
They should just do away with these pretend round nominations.
True. They just want to make sure they nominate guys like Horne-Francis and Rochelle early just in case they injure themselves before they do. They can't give a retrospective nomination after that happens.
True. They just want to make sure they nominate guys like Horne-Francis and Rochelle early just in case they injure themselves before they do. They can't give a retrospective nomination after that happens.
Remember the year Charlie didn't get nominated until really late in the season? He then went on to nearly win it.
And Horne Francis gets Rising Star nomination 🙄
Must have been that hit on JSOS, wouldn't be many rising star nominees that get fined and nominated on the same day.
One more reason why I hate the North Melbourne football club and their dirty tactics. They hide behind the "shinboner spirit" to play like thugs and get away with it, and the second one of their blokes cops a hit, they go "down into the rooms" to make it look worse because the second you go through concussion precautions, its a hit to the head, and a suspension to your opponent. This has happened frequently over the last few years, and I have started to really loathe such underhanded behaviour.
You'd think we lost to these bastards with the venom we're spitting at them .. but they sure as hell deserve it.
I was close to the bump, right in line with it and think he is lucky to have got one week.
He didn't hit him in the head.
The charge said it was body contact.
Why is this even a report?
Just watched the replay of both Youngs incidents.
1. When he went the bump, Eleni played a free kick against for High contact. - There was no high contact. She guessed and she was wrong.
2. When Young got tunnelled, the umpire that paid the 50m did not even see it.
He was looking left and said it was a free kick from downfield.....he then looked right at where the ball ended up from the kick and then he looked at Young laying on the ground and immediately paid a 50.
He simply guessed at what happened. In this instance he was right....but he guessed nonetheless.
Both examples of poor umpiring decisions and guessing.
Videos below
https://www.afl.com.au/news/753757/blues-to-appeal-young-s-ban-for-front-on-bump-on-roo
He didn't hit him in the head.
The charge said it was body contact.
Why is this even a report?
Agree, rubbish report. What was Young supposed to do? Both travelling towards the footy, its a collision and there was no head contact. Zurharr bit off more than he could chew and came off second best. If Young steps aside he gets labelled a jib. Fk that.
On 10 news apparently Horne-Francis was sticking up for his club because Jack said the Roos were sh*it, no footage of his sniper punch before Jack told him the truth.
On 10 news apparently Horne-Francis was sticking up for his club because Jack said the Roos were sh*it, no footage of his sniper punch before Jack told him the truth.
What Jack said to that dhead was AFTER his cheap shot, from behind. Tosser.
What Jack said to that dhead was AFTER his cheap shot, from behind. Tosser.
Yep, just seen footage on Ch9 news.
What Jack said to that dhead was AFTER his cheap shot, from behind. Tosser.
Hope Stocker plays on him next time and belts him, Jack is way too nice a young bloke....
Horne Francis has crept up my list of opposition disliked players.... got a few Nth players on that list.
With you EB....Simpkin is another one who likes to think he's tough and takes a few cheap shots...throw in Zurhaar, Ziebell and, with all due respect to his current situation, Cunnington as well. And now Larkey can join the list too.
Pi55ant club.
I think, despite their sniping, Nth were a bit shocked by the new Vossy-toughened Blues and definitely came off second best. At the end of the game though there seemed to be plenty of fraternising between the teams.
Just a rubbish club that is a drain on the AFL, Elliott should have bought them out and closed them down when he had the chance.
I think, despite their sniping, Nth were a bit shocked by the new Vossy-toughened Blues and definitely came off second best. At the end of the game though there seemed to be plenty of fraternising between the teams.
There is only about 720 AFL listed players each and every year. Despite what we all think, they are all mates and get along fairly well.
Bet you Jack and Horne-Francis are having a laugh on twitter or something.
Bet you Jack and Horne-Francis are having a laugh on twitter or something.
Yeah, not too sure about that Thry. Going on this quote from the dhead himself ;
"He just said that we weren't very good and that I wasn't very good," Horne-Francis laughed on Tuesday.
"A lot of it was in the heat of the moment and none of it was taken to heart. There's a mutual respect there. We shook hands. We didn't say much, but we shook hands."
Yeah, not too sure about that Thry. Going on this quote from the dhead himself ;
"He just said that we weren't very good and that I wasn't very good," Horne-Francis laughed on Tuesday.
"A lot of it was in the heat of the moment and none of it was taken to heart. There's a mutual respect there. We shook hands. We didn't say much, but we shook hands."
Jack calling it as he sees it, and he’s a pretty astute judge.
More astute than whoever was responsible for Horne-Francis getting a rising star nomination. His cheap shot should have disqualified him, and then there’s the fact that Carroll’s performance was far superior.
Jack calling it as he sees it, and he’s a pretty astute judge.
More astute than whoever was responsible for Horne-Francis getting a rising star nomination. His cheap shot should have disqualified him, and then there’s the fact that Carroll’s performance was far superior.
I’m being petty now. HF disposal stats are misleading. I saw 3 of his kicks get smothered. Def 50% 😳
YOUNG CLEARED
common sense prevails despite efforts to pervert it 🙌
YOUNG CLEARED
common sense prevails despite efforts to pervert it 🙌
Justice prevailed. It was a unique situation where, as was successfully argued, Zurhaar contributed in no smaller manner to the impact and Young slowed up and braced for impact. Well argued and presented BlueBaggers.
Justice prevailed. It was a unique situation where, as was successfully argued, Zurhaar contributed in no smaller manner to the impact and Young slowed up and braced for impact. Well argued and presented BlueBaggers.
Both the appeal and the outcome are atypical of old Carlton. All the small changes will eventually turn the big ship.
There is only about 720 AFL listed players each and every year. Despite what we all think, they are all mates and get along fairly well.
Bet you Jack and Horne-Francis are having a laugh on twitter or something.
They were having a chat after the game and all seemed well.
Just a rubbish club that is a drain on the AFL, Elliott should have bought them out and closed them down when he had the chance.
It wasn't a closed down deal, it was a merger...Carlton kangaroos.
Was all set to go ahead at the end of the year.
1 problem though, that year was 1999 and Carlton played Kangaroos in the grand final that year and nobody would've agreed to the deal.
It wasn't a closed down deal, it was a merger...Carlton kangaroos.
Was all set to go ahead at the end of the year.
1 problem though, that year was 1999 and Carlton played Kangaroos in the grand final that year and nobody would've agreed to the deal.
Make no mistake, there was no "merger", it was take over, poach the best players and shut the old entity down. It was going to be called the Carlton Football Club, wearing navy blue with a white CFC on the front.
They were having a chat after the game and all seemed well.
Not according to Horne-Francis; “We shook hands. We didn’t say much, but we shook hands.”
Jack probably reprised his “You’re a p1ss-weak player in a rubbish team” comment (I’m paraphrasing).
Make no mistake, there was no "merger", it was take over, poach the best players and shut the old entity down. It was going to be called the Carlton Football Club, wearing navy blue with a white CFC on the front.
I believe the cfc was being replaced by the kangaroo, but otherwise accurate.
It wasnseen that way because we had the money and they didn't, but make no mistake, 'the blues' would cease to exist.
I believe the cfc was being replaced by the kangaroo, but otherwise accurate.
It wasnseen that way because we had the money and they didn't, but make no mistake, 'the blues' would cease to exist.
There were two separate episodes.
In 1991, we secured shares in North Melbourne with a view to a hostile takeover.
In 1999, Ron Casey approached Pig’s Ask about a merger of the two clubs.
There were two separate episodes.
In 1991, we secured shares in North Melbourne with a view to a hostile takeover.
In 1999, Ron Casey approached Pig’s Ask about a merger of the two clubs.
Both are linked.
Elliot had 25% share of kangas after the failed merger of 1999, he sold them off soon after as the afl turned its back on mergers at the same time.
Both are linked.
Elliot had 25% share of kangas after the failed merger of 1999, he sold them off soon after as the afl turned its back on mergers at the same time.
The Club, not Elliott, had 20% of North's shares for a decade. John Magowan bought the shares and became North's majority shareholder when he led the push to relocate North to the Gold Coast.
Both the hostile takeover and the merger were pies in the sky; the members/supporters - Carlton and North - wouldn't have accepted either.
The AFL's legal counsel Andrew Woods argued Young could have avoided a collision with Zurhaar altogether.
"What I submit is Young slows his body in a manner that makes forceful contact and one of the things he could have done to avoid contact is he could have veered to his left and accelerated out of the contest," Woods said.
Sounds reasonable to me ;D
The AFL's legal counsel Andrew Woods argued Young could have avoided a collision with Zurhaar altogether.
Sounds reasonable to me ;D
It's late, so forgive me if im not understanding this correctly, but is he saying he should’ve ran out of the way?
It's late, so forgive me if im not understanding this correctly, but is he saying he should’ve ran out of the way?
Yes, that's what it seems on the face of it. ;D
One of the first things you learn as a young footballer is that if someone big is charging at you, the best thing to do is to step aside and then accelerate away from the contest.
I was quite good at it.
My nickname was the 'Accelerator'. :D
You wont get a lot of possessions, but you won't get injured or reported.
You may also get some nasty comments from your team-mates and supporters....but they're only words:)
....and best to avoid the coach for a whie
It's late, so forgive me if im not understanding this correctly, but is he saying he should’ve ran out of the way?
Yep,step aside and wave Zurhaar through and give him directions for the quickest route to goal... :o
Run away !
Run away…!
The AFL's legal counsel Andrew Woods argued Young could have avoided a collision with Zurhaar altogether.
"What I submit is Young slows his body in a manner that makes forceful contact and one of the things he could have done to avoid contact is he could have veered to his left and accelerated out of the contest," Woods said.
Sounds reasonable to me ;D
Yep, quite an absurd argument. Could have 'veered' and 'accelerated out of the contest'... all in a split second. Ridiculous, and likely physically impossible. Just because the game was at Marvel Stadium, it doesn't mean that Young possessed the evasive skills of Spider-Man. ::)
Hope Stocker plays on him next time and belts him, Jack is way too nice a young bloke....
Horne Francis has crept up my list of opposition disliked players.... got a few Nth players on that list.
After Stocker cleaned up Thomas, Horne Francis tried to rag doll Stocker and didn't move him one bit :)
Yep, quite an absurd argument. Could have 'veered' and 'accelerated out of the contest'... all in a split second. Ridiculous, and likely physically impossible. Just because the game was at Marvel Stadium, it doesn't mean that Young possessed the evasive skills of Spider-Man. ::)
All from an empty suit who's probably never played the game. Idiot
The AFL's legal counsel Andrew Woods argued Young could have avoided a collision with Zurhaar altogether.
"What I submit is Young slows his body in a manner that makes forceful contact and one of the things he could have done to avoid contact is he could have veered to his left and accelerated out of the contest," Woods said.
Sounds reasonable to me ;D
Absolutely amazing comment. Ripping at the very fabric of the game and simply wrong on all levels but watch the media let it slide through to the keeper.
So in other words on one hand they expect a player to avoid a contest to avoid heavy contact and if choose to legally bump and it’s a hard bump to the body we will still suspend you even though it’s within the rules.
On the flip side they hand out the same term suspension to a bloke who did a very dangerous non football illegal act when the ball wasn’t even in play at the time. That act had the potential to break the kids neck or cause a severe injury.
This is the problem with administration of the competition. There is not one ounce of consistency.
There were two separate episodes.
In 1991, we secured shares in North Melbourne with a view to a hostile takeover.
In 1999, Ron Casey approached Pig’s Ask about a merger of the two clubs.
I want to know if that means we get half of North's 96 and 99 Flags meaning we already have no.17....lol!
The deal most definitely disadvantaged us. Was never going to happen
I just did a bit of lip reading. ;D
Jack did tell Horne-Francis his team was sh*t, but it was after all the pushing and shoving had taken place and they were walking away from one another.
Jack's being made out as a bit of a villain (by some of the usual suspects...read K Cornes)
Not a lot of mention of the hit that started the fracas
...and Noble is praising Horne Francis for the way he stood up.
They are a pretty crappy side and not just because of their football.
I just did a bit of lip reading. ;D
Jack did tell Horne-Francis his team was sh*t, but it was after all the pushing and had taken place and they were walking away from one another.
Jack's being made out as a bit of a villain (by some of the usual suspects...read K Cornes)
Not a lot of mention of the hit that started the fracas
...and Noble is praising Horne Francis for the way he stood up.
They are a pretty crappy side and not just because of their football.
Jack is no villain, Norf are crap, JHF is a cock head, EOS.
I just did a bit of lip reading. ;D
Jack did tell Horne-Francis his team was sh*t, but it was after all the pushing and had taken place and they were walking away from one another.
Jack's being made out as a bit of a villain (by some of the usual suspects...read K Cornes)
Not a lot of mention of the hit that started the fracas
...and Noble is praising Horne Francis for the way he stood up.
They are a pretty crappy side and not just because of their football.
Yep, i caught that at the time. From memory there may have even been an old fashion pointing to the scoreboard included in there too.
Jack did nothing wrong. If Cornes says he did than that simply backs up that Jack did nothing wrong. Kane is wrong almost 100% of the time, so i'd be worried if he agreed with it.
Cornes was still pushing the Rozee was better than Walsh after 2 years of total domination.
Absolutely amazing comment. Ripping at the very fabric of the game and simply wrong on all levels but watch the media let it slide through to the keeper.
So in other words on one hand they expect a player to avoid a contest to avoid heavy contact and if choose to legally bump and it’s a hard bump to the body we will still suspend you even though it’s within the rules.
On the flip side they hand out the same term suspension to a bloke who did a very dangerous non football illegal act when the ball wasn’t even in play at the time. That act had the potential to break the kids neck or cause a severe injury.
This is the problem with administration of the competition. There is not one ounce of consistency.
Not one ounce of common sense.