Review R3: Port v North Melbourne Review

[Powerstufff]

I always use the "what if it were one of our players test" ....

Exactly, and probably most of us do. Still even doing that you are right, that was a bad decision (deliberate out of bounds against Jacobs).
However in the end we are still not even for that 2013 game where the Roos were awarded 21 free kicks during the first half – to 5 for us (28-10 by the end). We are still due another close one gifted to us by the umpires before the karma accounts are closed.

 

[*PAF]

Exactly, and probably most of us do. Still even doing that you are right, that was a bad decision (deliberate out of bounds against Jacobs).
However in the end we are still not even for that 2013 game where the Roos were awarded 21 free kicks during the first half – to 5 for us (28-10 by the end). We are still due another close one gifted to us by the umpires before the karma accounts are closed.

The decision was correct, the rule is badly written.
If you rush a behind under pressure there is nothing to worry about.

If you rush a behind under pressure but run into the point post does it become a deliberate out of bounds?

 

[Powerstufff]

.... If you rush a behind under pressure there is nothing to worry about.

If you rush a behind under pressure but run into the point post does it become a deliberate out of bounds?

I'm not sure how this applies to my comment about a deliberate out of bounds call.

 

[*PAF]

I'm not sure how this applies to my comment about a deliberate out of bounds call.

Only the bad decision part. The call was correct.

 

[tribey]

However in the end we are still not even for that 2013 game where the Roos were awarded 21 free kicks during the first half – to 5 for us (28-10 by the end).

1. It was 38-15 at the end. 28-10 at 3QT. We somehow managed to even cop a 5 free disparity while winning the last quarter by three goals.

2. That tally also doesn't include a stack of frees to Schulz (1 FF/0 FA) and Westhoff (0/2) that were missed, while Petrie (3/1) & Linz (4/1) couldn't be touched up the other end.

3.



A run of 19 free kicks to 1 between the middle of Q1 and the early stages of Q3; 11-1 in Q2 despite us winning the quarter by 3 goals. I mean drink that in for a second. We won that quarter handsomely, despite North winning a free every other minute of gametime. How does that even work?

You'd be excused for assuming we unashamedly went the knuckle - or were actively throwing the game.

I don't harbour the hatred for North that a lot here seem to, know a handful of their blokes and they're intelligent, jovial types who are just as passionate and immersed as any one of us, but when it comes to anyone subscribing to the theory that North were hard done by the other night, it's GTFO territory.

We could win the next 5 flags and I'll still vomit blood over that Hobart game. If Stewart, Meredith and McInerney umpired a game like that under the glare of ANZAC Day, Easter Monday or a final, they'd never take the field again.

 

[ZingerB]

Would be interesting to see how the free kicks stacked up for infringements. We got done a few times for holding the ball, but we got a whole heap of 'dead to rights' holding the ball decisions paid to us.

 

[Schulzenfest]

1. It was 38-15 at the end.

The most lopsided free kick count of the past 22 years. TWENTY. TWO. YEARS.

All-Australian Chad Wingard hadn't even been born the last time there was a free kick count that uneven.

 

[Duck Farmer]

Does his scarf say chode?

 

[Peck]

I always use the "what if it were one of our players test"

I would have been ****ing livid if that was paid against us. He had no other real option but to kick it from the danger area.

Was always going to be paid but that doesn't make it right.

I think it was pretty obvious, even if it seems harsh. If he kicked it further up the ground he may have been okay, which is kind of dumb.

The one that really ******* gets me is the rushed behind rule. The rule that was brought in to never, ever be enforced?

 

[Lighthouse End]

How awesome are our team colours, seriously.

Imagining having to don an outfit of baby blue....

Baby blue rather suits them actually considering they're the biggest pack of cry babies I've ever come across....

 

[Lighthouse End]

. They are just the team that gets knocked around every year, poked fun at, laughed at, it's like the nerd at school that the jocks pretend is really cool just to see them sweat when they get the confidence to start believing it, then they get ripped down to size and laughed at for believing it..

And it's f***in' gorgeous to watch. Even the 1998 grand final gave me a chubby. That's got to tell you something.

 

[tribey]

I think it was pretty obvious, even if it seems harsh. If he kicked it further up the ground he may have been okay, which is kind of dumb.

The one that really ******* gets me is the rushed behind rule. The rule that was brought in to never, ever be enforced?

What we have now is about right.

Remember, it was brought in after the 2008 Grand Final when the Hawks employed a tactic of "if in doubt, rush it regardless" to the point where defenders were putting the ball over the line deliberately from up to 15 metres out under no imminent pressure.

If you do that, you concede a free in the square. If you're being hassled/tackled/chased on the goalline you should be able to concede a behind.

 

[Dylan8]

How awesome are our team colours, seriously.

Imagining having to don an outfit of baby blue....

'Baby blue'? North? You what now?

 

[Shaucob_Burjan]

Voss pushed for Krak.

 

[Amstaff]

Voss pushed for Krak.

What a great job they do with these videos. Absolutely love it.

 

[Peck]

What we have now is about right.

Remember, it was brought in after the 2008 Grand Final when the Hawks employed a tactic of "if in doubt, rush it regardless" to the point where defenders were putting the ball over the line deliberately from up to 15 metres out under no imminent pressure.

If you do that, you concede a free in the square. If you're being hassled/tackled/chased on the goalline you should be able to concede a behind.

I don't think I've seen it paid other than the Salter walking back through the goals though.

It just seems stupid to have a rule that only exists as a threat, I honestly think players could get away with a lot more than they try to.

 

[Power04Surge]

After watching the replay of Saturday nights game after missing it i for one was very impressed with the short cameo from Ah Chee. Thought he showed some good signs for a first gamer in such a high pressure game. On quite a few occasions he was in the right places at stoppages and was more than surprised by his size and speed. I would love for him to keep his place and play more minutes against the hawks.

 

[Lighthouse End]

As tempting as it is to want to go mock norf about their cries of 'umpires cost us the game', I wouldn't recommend it. They're touchy.

Just finished serving a day off for suggesting (in their own 'our crowds are bad' thread) that we are happy to lend them the tarps we no longer require.

Bunch of humorless ninnies.

Mate you have no idea. Years ago I used to work with a real feral North supporter in a second tier bank. This twat used to pour derision over Port Adelaide non stop, reckoned Tredrea was a dud, Cornes was gay, etc etc....and the Monday after that game in 2002 in Adelaide bombarded my email inbox with 45 - yes, 45 - emails carrying on about how soft Port are, still can't beat them without Carey, etc etc.. and when we had those finals losses.. he didn't let up. with how crap a club we are, this is n't the SANFL....ad nauseam.
But i used to team up with another bloke who was a Collingwood tragic and get into him about begging bowls, crap crowds, nomads, the carey incident, etc, and you should have seen hin sook it up. But the clincher was when I chucked a load of 5c pieces in a Coke can and went rattling it round his desk. He dobbed me in to a supervisor for harassment.. I mean, really??? What a flog.

 

[El_Scorcho]

The one that really ******* gets me is the rushed behind rule. The rule that was brought in to never, ever be enforced?

If it's never used it's still working perfectly.

The whole idea is that it stops people walking over the line to escape pressure, and it's undoubtedly succeeded. Good rule change.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Just watching the replay and noticed Westhoff give Robbie Gray a spray telling him to take the ******* shot instead of trying to pass to him in a worse position. I loved it and wholeheartedly agree Justin, if you take a mark in or around 50 take the shot. Back yourself in. Every time. If you don't make the distance then it can create goal square crumbing opportunities.

For reference it was pretty much the first play of the game.

Agree totally

We as a rule need to take more shots on the run from 50. Even 60 when you consider we have the likes of Broadbent and Hartlett who can kick the leather off of it.

We'll find so much more space in our forward 50 when teams are worried about us banging them in from 50 on the run.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Mate you have no idea. Years ago I used to work with a real feral North supporter in a second tier bank. This twat used to pour derision over Port Adelaide non stop, reckoned Tredrea was a dud, Cornes was gay, etc etc....and the Monday after that game in 2002 in Adelaide bombarded my email inbox with 45 - yes, 45 - emails carrying on about how soft Port are, still can't beat them without Carey, etc etc.. and when we had those finals losses.. he didn't let up. with how crap a club we are, this is n't the SANFL....ad nauseam.
But i used to team up with another bloke who was a Collingwood tragic and get into him about begging bowls, crap crowds, nomads, the carey incident, etc, and you should have seen hin sook it up. But the clincher was when I chucked a load of 5c pieces in a Coke can and went rattling it round his desk. He dobbed me in to a supervisor for harassment.. I mean, really??? What a flog.

Ricky Gervais could do something with that.

 

[Lockhart Road]

After watching the replay of Saturday nights game after missing it i for one was very impressed with the short cameo from Ah Chee. Thought he showed some good signs for a first gamer in such a high pressure game. On quite a few occasions he was in the right places at stoppages and was more than surprised by his size and speed. I would love for him to keep his place and play more minutes against the hawks.

You, sir, are a football guru.

 

[Powerstufff]

1. It was 38-15 at the end. 28-10 at 3QT .....

Wow, thanks. I had it in my head it was about 20, and was casting around for the actual result. Looks like I misread the relevant post.

 

[Peck]

If it's never used it's still working perfectly.

The whole idea is that it stops people walking over the line to escape pressure, and it's undoubtedly succeeded. Good rule change.

Yeah, but the thing is players walk over the line under reasonably small pressure, handball the ball over the line from 10 m out, etc. etc. all the time. I certainly agree that players are more afraid of running the ball over the line, which is a very good thing, but they usually get away with it even if they do it. I actually don't even know what they are scared of. As long as you don't handball it through from 20 metres out under no pressure, you are going to be fine.

I like the rule. I think it was an obvious change, and it was good it came in so quickly. I just feel like rushing a behind and being awarded with a kickout is a stupid thing. Its too hard for me to tell if its integral to the balance of the game, but it just seems dumb *shrug*

 

[Peck]

Agree totally

We as a rule need to take more shots on the run from 50. Even 60 when you consider we have the likes of Broadbent and Hartlett who can kick the leather off of it.

We'll find so much more space in our forward 50 when teams are worried about us banging them in from 50 on the run.

In the Sydney game I can remember Monfries having the ball in the clear from 35/40 metres out in the pocket, handballing it to someone else who also could have had a shot, who then also handballed it on, this time to someone under pressure.

It was just so garbage to watch. If you have a chance at a shot, just bloody take it!!!