AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong

Topic: AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong (Read 15642 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #120 – July 20, 2022, 06:38:17 pm

And Jack Reiwoldt spends half a game appealing for kicks and giving the umpires instructions on where the free kicks should be paid and why.

Re: AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #121 – July 20, 2022, 07:00:32 pm

Quote from: LP – on July 20, 2022, 04:43:59 pm

Whingers are winners.

You know I've written this many times here, Dimma and Scott are A-Grade Gold Star whingers who through making off-field commentary influence the way umpires adjudicate the games they play.

That commentary also pumps up the crowds, and makes the umpires become subconsciously sympathetic to the cause.

No matter what the umpires or AFL officials may claim, the umpires cannot unhear what Dimma and Scott say and the umpires are not immune to the influence of that commentary.

Rich are 18th in free kicks for and have the highest differential of for and against (more frees against than any team).

Re: AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #122 – July 20, 2022, 07:39:42 pm

Quote from: Lods – on July 20, 2022, 06:38:01 pm

This just has the feeling of a bit of a schemozzle.
We'll hear the howls when a player like Selwood continues to get away with it.
We'll hear the howls when one of our blokes isn't rewarded.

It's like the dissention rule.
It puts a burden on the umpire that is very subjective.
Have a look back at the recent discussion here and you'll see that two people can have a totally different opinion of exactly the same situation.

I'll go against the grain here....
To me a high tackle is a high tackle and should be penalised.

Introduce a whole range of options and caveats and it gets very confusing.
No doubt it will influence the results of some games.

re Bold.....Bevo just said the same thing...but i think he just likes taking digs at the AFL, so who knows.

Personally i think its relatively clear in an unclear way.

If a player goes looking for high contact, he doesn't get it unless its completely unreasonable like a player tries to take his head off.

If a player is legitmately making a play and gets taken high, reward it.

Its like diving...even if contact is there, if its unreasonable in how you react to it....stiff you don't get the call.
STOP PLAYING FOR FREE KICKS.

If a player ducks, or drops his knees or does anything that is done for the sole purpose of drawing a free....he doesn't get it.

No player in history has dropped his knees for a footballing reason.....its always to draw a free. So don't reward it.
No player has ever lowered his shoulder on a tackler for a footballing reason....its always to draw a free. So don't reward it.

If its clear as day when a player is playing for a free kick....why do we give it to them?

Re: AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #123 – July 20, 2022, 07:58:10 pm

I agree with most of that except the dropping the shoulder part. We have seen players slip out of tackles, break away and score goals, they're not all trying to get a free kick.

Re: AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #124 – July 20, 2022, 08:02:28 pm

Quote from: madbluboy – on July 20, 2022, 07:58:10 pm

I agree with most of that except the dropping the shoulder part. We have seen players slip out of tackles, break away and score goals, they're not all trying to get a free kick.

I'm referring to when a player drops his shoulder on the side that the tackler is coming from, so the tacklers arm hits him in the neck rather than where the shoulder was initially.

I'm not sure thats the same scenario you are describing.

Re: AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #125 – July 20, 2022, 08:40:23 pm

Ok cool. No not the same.

Re: AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #126 – July 20, 2022, 10:05:56 pm

Quote from: Gointocarlton – on July 20, 2022, 07:00:32 pm

Rich are 18th in free kicks for and have the highest differential of for and against (more frees against than any team).

Thats a tell.

Considering that the umpires like to try and even up the free kick count, the players who rank 1st in the differential are likely the cleanest team in the AFL. The ones dead last, are likely to be the ones that infringe the most frequently.

They NEVER pay "too many" frees a game. Richmond are currently the team that get away with the most illegal activity on game day. Watch them off the ball for this one.

Re: AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #127 – July 20, 2022, 10:29:53 pm

Quote from: Thryleon – on July 20, 2022, 10:05:56 pm

Thats a tell.

Considering that the umpires like to try and even up the free kick count, the players who rank 1st in the differential are likely the cleanest team in the AFL. The ones dead last, are likely to be the ones that infringe the most frequently.

They NEVER pay "too many" frees a game. Richmond are currently the team that get away with the most illegal activity on game day. Watch them off the ball for this one.

For the record, Crippa is equal first for frees with Dylan Moore (HAW).

Re: AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #128 – July 20, 2022, 11:21:06 pm

Quote from: kruddler – on July 20, 2022, 07:39:42 pm

re Bold.....Bevo just said the same thing...but i think he just likes taking digs at the AFL, so who knows.

Personally i think its relatively clear in an unclear way.

If a player goes looking for high contact, he doesn't get it unless its completely unreasonable like a player tries to take his head off.

If a player is legitmately making a play and gets taken high, reward it.

Its like diving...even if contact is there, if its unreasonable in how you react to it....stiff you don't get the call.
STOP PLAYING FOR FREE KICKS.

If a player ducks, or drops his knees or does anything that is done for the sole purpose of drawing a free....he doesn't get it.

No player in history has dropped his knees for a footballing reason.....its always to draw a free. So don't reward it.
No player has ever lowered his shoulder on a tackler for a footballing reason....its always to draw a free. So don't reward it.

If its clear as day when a player is playing for a free kick....why do we give it to them?

I guess where I have a problem with that is we're asking the umpire to get into the head of the player.
No doubt there are players who play for that free but....
There are occasions when the impact of the tackle causes what appears to be a dropping.
A high tackle will often result in the players legs going out from under him.
I've watched some of the examples and I'll be buggered if I can pick intent on most of them.
Whereas it's easy to pick a high tackle.
It's obvious.
Now factor in the fact that we're judging with the benefit of slow motion and replay compared to real time for the umpire...how hard is that.

I reckon when they review some of these decisions and non decisions in coming weeks there will be as many wrong interpretations as right ones.
It's just another set of judgements (and pressure) for the umpires.

Perhaps there should be an onus on the player not to play for free kicks.
We'll see how it goes in interpretation in the coming weeks....but maybe there is some degree of fault with the tackling technique as well....and both can result in injuries.

Re: AFL Rd 18 2022 Post Game Postulations Carlton vs Geelong

Reply #129 – July 21, 2022, 12:22:18 pm

Quote from: Gointocarlton – on July 20, 2022, 10:29:53 pm

For the record, Crippa is equal first for frees with Dylan Moore (HAW).

Yet how many do they miss when his opponent is illegally holding him? One suspect handball or loose disposal is incorrected disposal but to prove my point, he gets away with holding the ball a bit longer than the average.

He wouldn't infringe much either.

Apply that to an entire football team, and when you do view it through the context that they paid about 8 50 metre penalties against Richmond in round 1. From memory when we faced them the second time, it was 1 a piece, with the one paid to Richmond paid against Charlie Curnow who couldnt give the ball back to his opponent, because his opponent WOULDNT FACE HIM.