View Full Version : Non-Lions footy talk
Hey folks POBT and I have been talking about having a place on our board to talk about things that happen in footy that are not directly Lions related (yes, believe it or not other teams play games with out us and everything :eek:)
Non-Lions posters be warned, you are welcome to post here but make sure you read our forum rules first. We have a zero troll tolerance in here.
Away you go.
Great idea guys! I don't post on the main board because posts get lost and there never seems to be good valid discussion without trolls!
The Soloman incident was a strange one, i have never seen a player come out and apologise like that at the coaches conference. Then after watching it i actually believed that Soloman was sorry and he wasn't trying to get browny points from the tribunal. Fremantle is a funny place to be!
lionslady
14 Jul 2008, 08:37
yeah it was a pretty vicious attack on poor old lingy!!!
William C
14 Jul 2008, 18:55
geez that elbow onto ling looked ugly ... How many weeks for solomon?
Im guessing about 8 weeks and season over because of his poor record.
geez that elbow onto ling looked ugly ... How many weeks for solomon?
Im guessing about 8 weeks and season over because of his poor record.
Yeah, good on him for apologising, but I think he can hang up his boots for this year.
JasRulz63
14 Jul 2008, 19:31
What does everyone think about the Cats MRP decisions? Quite shocked to see Hunt not even cited for this...
http://www.dockerland.com/message-board/docker-discussions/trial-by-our-own-media/view-3.html#263914
Mooney got off for this;
http://www.dockerland.com/message-board/docker-discussions/trial-by-our-own-media/view.html#263883
Causing quite a stir in the main board.
konstas_87
14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ling is out for 4, so anything less than 6 for soloman would be a disgrace.
i reckon 8 is about right.
I understand he had quite a few demerit points already. Of course he was sorry, he knew how many games he was likely to miss :rolleyes:.
Chasing the Dream
14 Jul 2008, 21:12
I honestly can not think of a fair word to say about Soloman. It was a very ordinary act. Anything less than 8 weeks would be unjust, seeing as though he has a less that perfect record (I could not believe that he has been reported 5 times in the last 18 months, all guilty).
Hall got 8 down to 7 for a good record, Soloman should get at least the 8 with some extra for his rubbish record.
Hey there CtD, you live on the gold coast.......what are your thoughts on the names for the new GC team?....Personally, I think they are ridiculous....I tried to vote on-line for a name, but unless you are a member or a GC resident, couldn't vote................Soloman should get at least 6-8wks IMO......dirt act...
Chasing the Dream
15 Jul 2008, 09:56
Yeah, strange one the name thing for the GC team.
At a recent game they were really pushing the Sharks as the name, now they have released a short list and amazingly no sharks on the list. They are claiming that there were legal issues with Sharks over Cronulla Sharks in the NRL:confused: Not sure how that goes with the Bulldogs or the Eagles but anyway.
I am personally a fan of the Stingrays. The GC youth teams have always been called the Stingrays and it just seem a natural progression for me.
My tip is different though, they will be the Ironmen. As much as it pisses me off that name, the local radio station (Hot Tomato) are a major sponsor and seem to be really pushing that for some bizarre reason.
Anyway, who cares, I just hope we smash them when we play.:D
Reading that short list, the Stingrays or Rays seem the best options out of a pretty shitty lot. Guards and Ironmen are just terrible. It makes them sound like they're going to come out in red and yellow hats wearing budgie smugglers.
lionbear
15 Jul 2008, 12:18
When I looked at the options the Gold Coast gave I had the same thought as when I saw the clash jumper for the first time "Is that it"
Luckily this doesn't effect the Brisbane Lions at all.;)
Chasing the Dream
15 Jul 2008, 13:01
http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsid=63354
Thanks to Lionbear for posting this in another thread.
The thing that gets me is what is going on at the Bulldogs? They have only lost one game, and have not even been able to grow by one membership?
Eagles also went backwards. Don't they have some massive waiting list or something?:confused:
Geez, that huge backlash of Essendon people not renewing as Sheedy left ended up a fizzer as well, 9,000 extra this year (up 28%)
Great effort by the Hawks and Roos as well:thumbsu:
Membership is always a strange thing though. What I would love to see is a list of the revenue from memberships, team by team. Our memberships in general are a heck of a bit more expensive that the Melbourne based clubs as all of our Queensland members pretty much have to be reserved seat memberships.
brisbanelioness
15 Jul 2008, 21:55
http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsid=63354
Thanks to Lionbear for posting this in another thread.
Membership is always a strange thing though.
Geez, after all that campaigning and we only gained an extra 700 members this year. Not good, but maybe it's a reflection of the pressures of rising interest rates and petrol prices. Well, I guess a gain is still better than a loss.
On the Gold Coast list of possible names, there's no question that Sharks or Dolphins would be the most appropriate names. The issue is obviously with existing trademarks that exist in professional sport in relation to those names. It is different to have two Bulldogs teams as those marks have been used for a long time by both clubs and were used in different markets for a long time before they emerged on a shared, national sporting market. Neither club (Canterbury and Western/Footscray) can really claim a greater sense of ownership of the Bulldogs brand than the other.
I actually don't mind Marlins. But why don't they go back to some of the great Gold Coast sporting team names. Top of the list: Gladiators!
Chasing the Dream
16 Jul 2008, 09:23
But why don't they go back to some of the great Gold Coast sporting team names. Top of the list: Gladiators!
And the mascot could be...
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5955424,00.jpg
Cousin Jed
16 Jul 2008, 09:23
I must admit I was out on Saturday and have only caught a couple of replays on the news, but I thought I have seen worse hits than what Solomon did.
I know he he has a record that Chopper Read would be proud of which increases the length, but still I reckon Mr Protected Species has hit blokes worse than that and got off.
Chasing the Dream
16 Jul 2008, 09:26
but still I reckon Mr Protected Species has hit blokes worse than that and got off.
Big call that.
To cause the injury he did, it was a mighty good hit I would have thought. Eight seems about right.
I was personally amazed to read on Foxsports last night that freo were considering an appeal. In his apology, I might be wrong, but did he not say he would take his ban on the chin (instead of the cheek:D).
I think in any era that Solomon, if cited (which was always the downfall before the modern era), would have copped a hefty suspension. I wouldn't have been surprised if they hit him with 10 weeks. By way of comparison, the Storm's Danny Williams copped 18 weeks for king hitting Mark O'Neill in rugby league.
Lady Lawrence
16 Jul 2008, 12:52
Can we please have a discussion on the prior opportunity rule - Did anyone watch on the couch last night or night before? They showed the Chris Judd incident where the ball was thrown in from the boundary, tapped down and Judd took the ball, ran 2 or 3 steps, was tackled with the other player holding his arm (therefore unable to lay off a handpass) but the tackle also sent him forward which meant he was almost off his feet. The umpy said you didn't make any attempt to hand pass it off and Juddy asked him how many arms he thought he had and then the umpy said you should have kicked it. All options offered in my opinion nigh on impossible. I also don't believe he had prior opportunity as from a ball in it is a pack situation and you just do you best to try and break free.
If the ball had been a fumbled mark or a pass that was not a clean mark and then the player was tackled then all wel and good playing the prior opp rule.
With the Judd incident I believe it should have been a ball up not turnover.
Did I explain this at all well?
I watched the Judd thing happen live and it did not immediately strike me as a poor call. On replay, it clearly seemed to be a rough decision. That it happened to Judd probably made it more newsworthy but I can't criticise the umps too much as I initially also thought it was holding the ball.
I think the idea that a player can expect an explanation from a umpire is sometimes problematic. When the umpire is wrong, as he appeared to be in this case, then the explanation seems to heighten the error. That saying about "Better keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool..." should be adopted by umps on occasion.
Lady Lawrence
16 Jul 2008, 13:13
I'm not so much questioning if it was the right call or not, more the way the rule is sort of.
I'm not so much questioning if it was the right call or not, more the way the rule is sort of.
Maybe it is about interpretation, rather than the rule itself? Not sure.
There seems to be a difference between the opportunity to simply dispose of the ball and the opportunity to dispose of the ball in a manner that won't get you dragged for terrible disposal. There's no doubt that players take time to look for the best possible option before disposing of the ball. No-one wants to see players throw the ball onto to boot immediately upon gaining possession, turning the game into an u/10s exhibition. But Judd did have the time to do that - he could have simply put the ball straight onto his boot, without assessing the options, looking for teammates etc. In that regard, he had "prior opportunity" to dispose of it. Obviously, we'd rather he had the chance to take a step or two and make a decision. If he then chose to run with it, and got pinged, well he deserves it. But I don't think even Judd, with his brilliant anticipation and decision making ability, had the time to make that decision. That's where I think the decision is wrong.
Can you change the rule to give greater clarity? Maybe. But I'd suggest that there is still going to be interpretation issues and, no matter where we draw the line on a rule like holding the ball, it is going to be a matter of subjective interpretation for the umpire in question.
Grimreepah
16 Jul 2008, 13:22
The rule states that you need have had prior opportunity, but as far as that is interpreted, often that will go out the window if the arm is pinned. I think it may come down to a mindset of "rewarding a tackler", which is something I disagree with. Free kicks are there to punish someone for doing something wrong, not reward someone for doing something right.
An issue that interests me is the Burton knee reco and his contract negotiations. Apart from feeling desperately sorry for the bloke, who was arguably in line for a contract upgrade based on his form this year, I am interested to see how Adelaide handle the matter.
On the 12 month rule for knees, he won't be back until over half way through next season. Based on the usual recovery time, it may be closer to 2 years before he returns to peak form (although JMac and Braddy are making a mockery of that). That is money and list space that could be diverted elsewhere. There's no way Adelaide won't re-sign him but he's probably going to have to accept a hefty contract reduction. If Adelaide are on the downward part of the premiership cycle (as most experts seem to think is the case), Burton may not be of much use when Adelaide are ready to challenge for a flag again.
The rule states that you need have had prior opportunity, but as far as that is interpreted, often that will go out the window if the arm is pinned. I think it may come down to a mindset of "rewarding a tackler", which is something I disagree with. Free kicks are there to punish someone for doing something wrong, not reward someone for doing something right.
I agree with that. I think the "rewarding the tackler" rule came about when tackling was not a primary skill of footballers. These days, tackling is a non-negotiable (ask Dal Santo!). Why reward something that all players are expected to be competent at?
Grimreepah
16 Jul 2008, 13:36
There's no way Adelaide won't re-sign him ...
I'm not so sure. Adelaide are fairly ruthless when it comes to players over 30 (eg. only 1 year contracts).
lionbear
16 Jul 2008, 13:42
I'm not so sure. Adelaide are fairly ruthless when it comes to players over 30 (eg. only 1 year contracts).
I would still think they would re sign him on a one year contract and tell him to go for it after the split round next year.
Could he be potential trade bait. ie for a 4th or 5th round pick?
The rule states that you need have had prior opportunity, but as far as that is interpreted, often that will go out the window if the arm is pinned. I think it may come down to a mindset of "rewarding a tackler", which is something I disagree with. Free kicks are there to punish someone for doing something wrong, not reward someone for doing something right.
This makes me think of all the times I get really pissed off with this "holding the ball" rule in relation to the player at the bottom of a pack.
Quite often we see the ball dragged back in by an opposition player who has clearly jumped into / onto a players back (which I thought was an infringement?), drag the ball ball back in and get a free for it. My opinion of the correct interpretation of this rule should be the player on the bottom should be the one rewarded for "in the back" and possibly receive a 50 because the opposition player has wasted time by shoving the ball back in.
Well, maybe not the fifty, thats just because its a really shit way this "rule" is interpreted.
Chasing the Dream
16 Jul 2008, 17:03
There are two rule interpetations that get me going.
a) Holding the ball, or more specifically when say a Lions player has laid a tackle on a Collingwood player, then a Collingwood player jumps into the pack and in a way is tackling the Liosn player. What is with that? Who is he tackling? Something is wrong there:o
b) Big Guns Bradshaw take a great mark about 5 metres out, near the point post. Then some defender scum immediatley goes over the mark (usually on a 45 degree angle) to stop him from playing on. Time is called and the Guns have to go back and be put on the angle. Fair enough I say, then 5 minutes later, that same defender scum takes a mark, Big Guns tries to stop him from playing on by doing exactly the same. 50 metres thankyou:mad: Why can a defender do it, but anywhere else on the ground encroaching the mark is a offence deemed worthy enough of a free 50 metres.
The prior opportunity rule should be very simple,
1. if a player is deemed to have had a fair amount of time to dispose of the ball is tackled and they don't dispose of the ball correctly then they are deemed to be holding the ball,
2 if a player hasn't been given a fair amount of time to dispose of the ball and cannot dispose of the ball and maintains possession then it should be a ball
3. If they haven't had prior opportunity and drop the ball or dispose of it incorrectly then it is should be a free kick
It annoys me when a player makes a great tackle and the player in possession handpasses or gets their foot onto the ball and it is still paid as holding the ball, umpires are far too affected by the noise of the crowd and the thrill of the tackle.
The rule is prior oppurtunity for a disposal, not a disposal for your benefit. It doesn't matter whether you couldn't kick it to someone on your team, you had the time to kick it.
Wrapping the arm up stops them from getting a hand to it, and its a skill that should be encouraged. Black had his arm held in a tackle earlier this year, he just chucked the ball into his held hand and belted it out with his free.
The tackler should be rewarded/ the person who's holding should be punished, I see nothing wrong with that. I would even argue for a heavier hand in applying the rule.
Shmoses
16 Jul 2008, 23:47
This is a really great idea guys. I think in regards to Burton he'll have to retire, given his history of knee problems and his playing style. If he does come back he won't have anywhere near the athleticism or pace which are his greatest attributes. Plus, he probably won't be able to play much or any footy till preseason 2010, by which stage he's pushing 32.
As for the Solomon thing, don't get me started! Fremantle should drop him but probably won't.
The prior opportunity rule should be very simple,
1. if a player is deemed to have had a fair amount of time to dispose of the ball is tackled and they don't dispose of the ball correctly then they are deemed to be holding the ball,
2 if a player hasn't been given a fair amount of time to dispose of the ball and cannot dispose of the ball and maintains possession then it should be a ball
3. If they haven't had prior opportunity and drop the ball or dispose of it incorrectly then it is should be a free kick
It annoys me when a player makes a great tackle and the player in possession handpasses or gets their foot onto the ball and it is still paid as holding the ball, umpires are far too affected by the noise of the crowd and the thrill of the tackle.
The rule, as you've stated it, is very simple acuguy. But it becomes an exercise in subjectivity. "Fair amount of time" is as subjective a term as could be had.
The League tries to strike a balance between having simple rules and giving players, coaches, the media and fans enough information about interpretation so that they can understand decision making. You hear all the stakeholders say "all we are after is consistency in decision making". Then, when the umpires are very consistent, to the point of being pedantic, such as with the hands in the back rule, the League gets (rightly, IMO) criticised. I actually don't think fans do want just consistent decision making - they also want rules interpretation which accords with the way they think the game should be played.
Grimreepah
17 Jul 2008, 10:56
Yeah "prior opportunity" is always going to be a grey area. It comes down to judgment and different people will judge it differently. Often you hear the commentators say 'how will the umps see that one?' because it could go either way.
Does a drama like the Fevola contract negotiation affect playing performance? I tend to think it doesn't. The players must be so accustomed to the fact that their good players will be the subject of heightened rumour during their last season of contract.
That's not to excuse Fevola's way of dealing with the situation. Liam Pickering said that if he was Fev's manager, he would have told him to shut up 6 weeks ago. Tough talk when he's not your client but probably what needed to happen, if only to try and douse the media's interest.
triplemac
18 Jul 2008, 09:24
Do we actually know that he hasn't agreed to sign, but not signed as yet? He did say on the radio last weekend that he was staying. This sounds like a media and Carlton beat up to me. Fev is a unique talent, if you were a Carlton supporter you would be cringing at anything in the media about him. Although, he is not the one saying anything to anyone. It is a bit like us with the Brown talk.
Do we actually know that he hasn't agreed to sign, but not signed as yet? He did say on the radio last weekend that he was staying. This sounds like a media and Carlton beat up to me. Fev is a unique talent, if you were a Carlton supporter you would be cringing at anything in the media about him. Although, he is not the one saying anything to anyone. It is a bit like us with the Brown talk.
The talk is pretty strong that there is still a gap between the offer and his asking price.
The difference between him and the Brown situation is that one bloke and his club have barely mentioned it while the other bloke and club are in the news every day with comment or "private sources". There is certainly a media beat up element but the fact is that it is dragged on publicly for an age.
triplemac
18 Jul 2008, 09:38
Fev has come out once in the media, to shut up the speculation. He said he has never said he was leaving Carlton. Where as the club and media have been in the papers talking it up. No matter what Fev does it is wrong in the eyes of the media. Carlton have a wonderful talent in this bloke. He is not a run of the mill cloned footballer, and maybe thats the problem. He is unique in his personality and his talent. If he left Carlton, I would have him in Brisbane in a split second.
Carlton are still realistically 3 years away from being a premiership contender, they should trade Fev for early draft picks, individuals like Fevola don't play in premiership teams!
chopperduck
19 Jul 2008, 07:41
The prior opportunity rule should be very simple,
1. if a player is deemed to have had a fair amount of time to dispose of the ball is tackled and they don't dispose of the ball correctly then they are deemed to be holding the ball,
2 if a player hasn't been given a fair amount of time to dispose of the ball and cannot dispose of the ball and maintains possession then it should be a ball
3. If they haven't had prior opportunity and drop the ball or dispose of it incorrectly then it is should be a free kick
It annoys me when a player makes a great tackle and the player in possession handpasses or gets their foot onto the ball and it is still paid as holding the ball, umpires are far too affected by the noise of the crowd and the thrill of the tackle.
just reading through and had to come back to reply to this, can't agree more acuguy. isn't it a rule that you have to dispose of the ball correctly, you can't just drop it, you must kick or hand ball it. it annoys the hell out of me how often a player is caught in a tackle and they just kinda let it dribble out or attempt to handball and it just kinda gets knocked on. they didn't dispose of it, they should be pinged.
most of the time if you ask how did he dispose of it you cant give an answer. one of my pet hates atm, besides how soft the rules are for defenders now. its nearly like netball where the defender isn't allowed to touch them at all.
should be one blanket rule, all contact is ok, as long as it doesn't take them out of or handicap them in the marking contest. simple as that
chopperduck
19 Jul 2008, 07:44
The talk is pretty strong that there is still a gap between the offer and his asking price.
The difference between him and the Brown situation is that one bloke and his club have barely mentioned it while the other bloke and club are in the news every day with comment or "private sources". There is certainly a media beat up element but the fact is that it is dragged on publicly for an age.
yeah, fev wants the money he thinks he is worth and wont settle for less. browns contract is length, but i think they have made progress with browns contract. i heard they might do like a 3 year deal and just have a clause in it to extent to 5 if he can play.
win win for both parties there. got to understand the lions worry with such an expensive player. when rebuilding a team you dont want to carry that amount of money for like 2 years for no players.
Carlton are still realistically 3 years away from being a premiership contender, they should trade Fev for early draft picks, individuals like Fevola don't play in premiership teams!
Is Fevola worth as much as Judd in a trade? Fevola could make a number of sides premiership quality.
Bobby Beecroft
19 Jul 2008, 08:34
Is Fevola worth as much as Judd in a trade? Fevola could make a number of sides premiership quality.
Could just as easily destroy the fabric of an up & coming list eg the Bulldogs.
Leopards such as him, don't change.
Certainly wouldn't want him at our club.
Bobby Beecroft
19 Jul 2008, 08:44
Fev has come out once in the media, to shut up the speculation. He said he has never said he was leaving Carlton. Where as the club and media have been in the papers talking it up. No matter what Fev does it is wrong in the eyes of the media. Carlton have a wonderful talent in this bloke. He is not a run of the mill cloned footballer, and maybe thats the problem. He is unique in his personality and his talent. If he left Carlton, I would have him in Brisbane in a split second.
But its OK for him to talk up that another club will offer him $$$$ to anyone within ear shot at a particular fight night.
He is far from innocent within this whole process & I'm not entirely sure that he is receiving the best advice.
Not sure what Carlton have done wrong in this whole process? Have presented offers that they believe are reasonable & he has declined them.
Carlton including Brett Ratten are starting to wear thin of the whole episode, & fair enough. If the circus doesn't end soon he may well have no choice but to leave, which may not be as bad a result for the Blues as some may think.
Warwick
19 Jul 2008, 15:29
Look at the difference between Geelong, Western Bulldogs and Brisbane.
It is massive.
Their rucks tap it to advantage, they shepherd to allow time and space for a player to pick it up in the contest, they run in numbers, they switch the ball through the centre corridor, they have players at the foot at every contest, their tackles stick, they don't commit 3 players when an opposition picks the ball up, etc, etc....
Like we use to in our hey day........I used to call it our waves....they ran in packs (waves), if it went the other way, the wave was there to bring it back again....Leigh needs to bring out some of our old tapes and let them see how it is done, and get back to that style..
As stated on the sticky on the main Lions board; The Den has now been opened up to allow all non-Lions talk. So I am moving this thread in there.
Blight going off!
http://www.mytalk.com.au/aspx/pages/mediaplayer.aspx?t=audio&w=11370
Cousin Jed
20 Jul 2008, 15:06
:D
Go Blighty!
Buttress does come across as a bit of a boob.
Shmoses
21 Jul 2008, 00:12
The Blight tirade was bloody brilliant. Blight was an exceptional coach and Butterss or whatever his name is is a fool.
I have it on good authority that Blight was exceptionally well liked by the playing group at St Kilda, apparently one player wished they had kept a diary everyday that Blight coached, thought it would have been a best seller. You can imagine what happened hear, Butthole and his ego driven slick mates probably thought they would get this footy legend and become best mates with him, swan him around town etc, Blight was a unique and brilliant coach, his teams always played attacking and positive footy. His obvious strength was in creating self belief within a group. Saints supporters should be spewing still!
Grimreepah
22 Jul 2008, 00:45
Blight going off!
http://www.mytalk.com.au/aspx/pages/mediaplayer.aspx?t=audio&w=11370
For some reason the sound just isn't working for me in that link. Is anyone else having the same problem?
Bombers piling on loads of goals in a hurry but then going quiet for a while only to score another rush of goals in a burst.