2015 NAB Challenge - Adelaide v Nth Melbourne, Pt Lincoln, 4.10pm (4.40 AEDT),

[ok.crows]

Your arguments are floundering, you are stumbling around like a blind man in a dark room.

Fallacies you have made include:

• Appeal to emotion
• Personal incredulity
• Appeal to authority
• Strawman
• Ad hominem

I surmise that your posts in this thread constitute a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[Dugdale2Dwyer]

Fallacies you have made include:

• Appeal to emotion
• Personal incredulity
• Appeal to authority
• Strawman
• Ad hominem

I surmise that your posts in this thread constitute a good example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Once you post this rubbish you have nowhere else to go, goal line photo or all else fails, btw does mummy know you are up this late?

 

[kangaspurs]

So did these teams play a game or was it just one big incident with the goal umpire and Lindsey Thomas diving.

I read somewhere North had the breeze in the last, was it significant? How many goals was the breeze worth?

Did Adelaide look the goods for the first 3/4s?

Adelaide were the better side for much of the game. Kicking with a 3-4 goal wind in the 1st they set up a relatively comfortable lead by quarter time and kicked the first two of the second before North really got into gear, having most of the play in the final 2/3 of the second quarter. It must be said that North were experimenting quite a bit - at one stage we had several consecutive centre square midfield combinations of Daw, Thomas, Dumont and Harvey. I'm sure Adelaide were as well but I don't know their players well enough to say for certain. With the wind again in the 3rd Adelaide dominated, getting the lead out to 50 at one stage. North were horribly wasteful/unlucky throughout the first 3 quarters as well, hitting the post several times and missing very gettable shots. Betts was the clear dominant player on the ground at 3/4 time - albeit playing on a rookie in Max Warren, nevertheless it was still an impressive individual performance so early in the season.
The final quarter was completely different with North absolutely dominant, winning clearance after clearance. Adelaide could barely get their hands on the ball and this was reflected in their dearth of inside 50s for the quarter. Obviously, Adelaide were resting a few by this stage but this notwithstanding, North played the best footy of the game in the last quarter. We also had a couple of ours rested by this stage as well; most noticeably Daniel Wells, who was the best player on the ground early on.
Statistically speaking North finished the game with about 10 more inside 50's and 5 more scoring shots, but this, and the 10 point margin, flattered us. Adelaide were a 4-5 goal better side for much of the contest, with North's very inexperienced defence unable to stop Adelaide scoring despite their relatively low inside 50 count.
Despite all this I think both sides will be content with where they're at but both sides will have concerns: North with how such a massive lead was able to be established and a lack of fluidity of ball movement (probably not a massive problem so early on) and Adelaide with how they were completely overrun in the last and perhaps with some of their defensive setups. Most importantly for both sides there were minimal injury concerns; Lynch suffered a concussion after playing well early and Tarrant seemed to be in some discomfort after landing awkwardly on his ankle/lower leg but I doubt if either of these will be anything major.
Notable/impressive players (imo) for Adelaide included Betts, Brad Crouch, Lyons (or Laird - I'm not sure) and Van Berlo (mainly becasue it was a solid return from injury - including a fine long range goal) and for North were Cunnington, Wells, Harvey, Higgins, Daw and Waite (obviously being a North fan I'm going to pick up on more impressive players for them than Adelaide as I was watching them more closely).

 

[ok.crows]

Once you post this rubbish

Mere assertion on your part does not constitute an argument.

you have nowhere else to go

I do not have to go anywhere, the ball is clearly now in your court. You have utterly failed to address how the evidence provided somehow does not show that the umpire was standing behind the goal line.

goal line photo or all else fails,

The photos provided do indeed show the relative position of the umpire and the goal line. The umpire is standing behind the line. Since the ball rebounded off the umpire, this is quite good evidence that the ball did in fact cross the line.

A quick summary of your evidence to the contrary would be: Didly squat, zip, zero, nada and zilch.

btw does mummy know you are up this late?

Ad hominem.

 

[Dugdale2Dwyer]

Good grief, there is no evidence that the ball crossed the line. The photos show no evidence the ball crossed the line. ad nauseam.

 

[ok.crows]

Good grief, there is no evidence that the ball crossed the line. The photos show no evidence the ball crossed the line.

Who ever told you that evidence had to be direct? The photos show quite good indirect evidence that the ball did in fact cross the line. The point stands.

PS: Your evidence to the contrary remains at: Didly squat, zip, zero, nada and zilch.

 

[Dugdale2Dwyer]

The photos show quite good indirect evidence that the ball did in fact cross the line. The point stands.

No they don't.

 

[mattymac]

"A goal shall stand if a shot on goal would have been a certain goal but for obstruction by an umpire"

Insert that in the rules before it happens to Collingwood and we all have to suffer Eddie's outrage.

 

[ok.crows]

No they don't.

Mere assertion on your part does not constitute an argument.

From an earlier post: "The photos provided do indeed show the relative position of the umpire and the goal line. The umpire is standing behind the line. Since the ball rebounded off the umpire, this is quite good evidence that the ball did in fact cross the line."

You have yet to address this point.

 

[Ian Dunross]

If this hasn't been mentioned already, can someone please take Tom Lynch aside and tell him to stop ducking his head. I understand that often times he does it to shrug off a tackle, but there are enough times where he does it for god knows what reason (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's not trying to draw a free kick).

The kid is going to permanently injure himself and mentally scar some poor bloke who's done nothing wrong!