Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne (Read 20177 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #90 –
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).

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #91 –
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....

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #92 –
Quote from: WASurfer – on
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!
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #93 –
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.

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #94 –
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

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #95 –
Quote from: Gointocarlton – on
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. 
It's still the Gulf of Mexico, Don Old!

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #96 –
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?

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #97 –
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.

 

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #99 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
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.
Only our ruthless best, from Board to bootstudders will get us no. 17

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #100 –
Quote from: WASurfer – on
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. 

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #101 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
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...

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #102 –
Quote from: Baggers – on
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. 

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #103 –
Quote from: ElwoodBlues1 – on
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.

Re: AFL Rd 7 2022 Post Game Permutations Carlton vs North Melbourne

Reply #104 –
Quote from: Mav – on
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...