Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong (Read 45009 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #150 –
The pinning of arms is about prevention of disposal.

I saw plenty moaning about how our blokes don't do it, and tackle round the waist.

How easy would Kreuzer be to tackle at 200cm and roughly 100kg?

I'm guessing danger was just trying his hardest to bring him down let alone smash him into the turf head first.

"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #151 –
Quote from: flyboy77 – on
And let's not forget the other favourite, Dusty, should have been scrubbed for what he did to Curnow imo.

Anyone got that match recorded?



No. Here's what i find really interesting. We've now had several opposition players rubbed out by the mrp. Yet the umpire on the day fails to award a 50m penalty, or free kick. In fact, it somehow results in an opposition goal (occasionally). Go figure. I'll admit, I'm as bias as the next person, but seriously there's been more of these to be a fluke :o
Coming together is the beginning.
Keeping together is progress.
Working together is success.
Henry Ford.

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #152 –
Quote from: pinot – on

What screwed him over was Swann - Ratts wanted to go out and trade for tall forwards end of 2011 and Swann did not allow it and instead we draft Josh Bootsma and Sam Rowe

Provide a source... ????
Let’s go BIG !

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #153 –
The players don't care about individual honours - they all say it! It is surely obvious that it shouldn't matter who you are - if you do the wrong thing by the MRP, then you need to accept the penalty.

Only problem is that players do care about individual awards and the MRP is one of the more baffling things going round.

I am a little surprised that Danger had one week, however I'm just going to get splinters up the date from sitting on the fence on this one.

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #154 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
The pinning of arms is about prevention of disposal.

Dangerfield was on Kreuzer's left side during the tackle, the ball exited on the left side, there is no way Dangerfield didn't know the ball had left the scene. The tackle was about preventing Kreuzer from re-entering the contest and the sling was unnecessary. Also Dangerfield stuffed up, he lied to the media when he claimed he thought Kreuzer had the ball but he had both of Kreuzers wrists/forearms pinned by his side, what was Kreuzer holding the ball with his teeth?

The minute Dangerfield completed the tackle and Kreuzer hit his head he knew he was in potential trouble, he spun around and watched the replay rather than returning to the contest with the ball still in play.

Media types are arguing there was no free to Kreuzer as a Dangerfield defence, but the question can be flipped on it's head and we can ponder why Kreuzer wasn't awarded a free for Dangerfield hanging on!

Quote from: Thryleon – on
I saw plenty moaning about how our blokes don't do it, and tackle round the waist

I think that is a extremist view, there are plenty of complaints about our blokes not sticking tackles or otherwise acting meekly failing to constrain arms. Nobody is seriously asking for our guys to sling players in tackle, it cost Gibbs weeks.

The sling is probably more dangerous than tunnelling, and it's just lucky a player hasn't been slung into an adjacent players knee causing horrific car crash type injuries.

Quote from: Thryleon – on
How easy would Kreuzer be to tackle at 200cm and roughly 100kg?

I'm guessing danger was just trying his hardest to bring him down let alone smash him into the turf head first.

There is not that much difference between Kreuzer and Dangerfield, these are similarly sized and strength trained AFL professionals, it's not a kindergarten kid trying to tackle Cameron Munster!

Also the sling action by design is a levering action, it allows the tacklers force to be amplified by using their body mass and feet anchor point as a pivot.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #156 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
Ratts certainly wanted to target a tall forward at the end of 2011 - whether Swann interfered with that, I know not.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-18/blues-gutted-by-finals-exit/2904886

Sam Rowe was recruited as a key forward ... more blue collar than blue chip though.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #157 –
Quote from: LP – on
Dangerfield was on Kreuzer's left side during the tackle, the ball exited on the left side, there is no way Dangerfield didn't know the ball had left the scene. The tackle was about preventing Kreuzer from re-entering the contest and the sling was unnecessary. Also Dangerfield stuffed up, he lied to the media when he claimed he thought Kreuzer had the ball but he had both of Kreuzers wrists/forearms pinned by his side, what was Kreuzer holding the ball with his teeth?

The minute Dangerfield completed the tackle and Kreuzer hit his head he knew he was in potential trouble, he spun around and watched the replay rather than returning to the contest with the ball still in play.

Media types are arguing there was no free to Kreuzer as a Dangerfield defence, but the question can be flipped on it's head and we can ponder why Kreuzer wasn't awarded a free for Dangerfield hanging on!

I think that is a extremist view, there are plenty of complaints about our blokes not sticking tackles or otherwise acting meekly failing to constrain arms. Nobody is seriously asking for our guys to sling players in tackle, it cost Gibbs weeks.

The sling is probably more dangerous than tunnelling, and it's just lucky a player hasn't been slung into an adjacent players knee causing horrific car crash type injuries.

There is not that much difference between Kreuzer and Dangerfield, these are similarly sized and strength trained AFL professionals, it's not a kindergarten kid trying to tackle Cameron Munster!

Also the sling action by design is a levering action, it allows the tacklers force to be amplified by using their body mass and feet anchor point as a pivot.

Danger is 188 and 91 kilos. 

Kreuzer is 200 cm and 101 kilos.


Bringing down big blokes is not something that everyone can do easily, and whilst I get your point if you think that he was able to exert that amount of force, concentrate on holding onto his opponent, AND see what ELSE was happening around him (regarding the ball coming loose) then you have a higher estimation of what he can do.  Lets not pretend that Danger is in peak phyical condition either, which means he was probably pushing through some sort of pain barrier himself, and his stats certainly would show that hes down on his usual output.

I dont like that one of our boys got hurt any more than anyone else but I see a certain level of hypocrisy in many people's comments here regarding these incidents.

Now that I have written the above, do not be surprised to see Geelong appeal, and for the suspension to get over turned at the tribunal because aside from Kreuzers medical report, the rest of it is line ball as to whether or not its a suspendable offense, and as far as Im concerned, if the umpires started paying holding the ball free kicks quicker, and balling things up sooner, they will do more to prevent these sort of tackles and rolling mauls than restriction of interchange or any other factor like that.  If you go back to the 80's you will see that the umpires get involved before these massive packs form which is where most of it comes undone.
"everything you know is wrong"

Paul Hewson

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #158 –
I don't see why there is an obsession with bringing the ball carrier crashing to the ground. If they're completely wrapped up and standing, the ball won't be coming out regardless, and the tackle is equally effective. Unless there are ulterior motives to the said crashing to the ground.

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #160 –
Quote from: PaulP – on
Geelong not challenging Danger's ban.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-08-01/geelongs-dangerfield-challenge-decision

I was hoping that they would ... and he'd end up with 2 weeks off.

I guess from a team perspective, giving one of your key players a week off to refresh is a good thing.  Two weeks is a different matter.
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!
 

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #161 –
Quote from: DJC – on
I was hoping that they would ... and he'd end up with 2 weeks off.

I guess from a team perspective, giving one of your key players a week off to refresh is a good thing.  Two weeks is a different matter.

Yep, I was hoping the Pudding Faces would cut up and cry about the perceived unfair treatment and take it all the way to the tribunal winning Dangerfield an extra weeks break. Bartlett was actively encouraging the Handbaggers on SEN knowing full well they play Nthmond in two weeks.

The rumors behind the scenes are that because of his recent ankle he was borderline week to week and they were probably going to have to rest him anyway! But they are spinning it now that it's all about doing the right thing by the team!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #162 –
I was waiting for the whole thing to go to appeal and then conveniently get dismissed.  Pleased to see that all involved did the right thing and accepted the findings.
DrE is no more... you ok with that harmonica man?

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #163 –
Quote from: Professer E – on
I was waiting for the whole thing to go to appeal and then conveniently get dismissed.  Pleased to see that all involved did the right thing and accepted the findings.

I was sort of hoping for some more Pudding Face, I know I write that I'm sick of it but it also gives me a good laugh! ;D

Schadenfreude! :(
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: Rd 19: Post Game Conversations: Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #164 –
Quote from: Thryleon – on
Whilst it's unfortunate that Kreuzer was concussed, I am a firm believer in the outcome of an action not dictating whether or not that action is legal.

So am i. but the afl is not....and thus the right result prevailed....for consistency