Round 19 - Fremantle vs Carlton @ PS

[imperial_oz]

I addressed every single one of your points factually.



Perhaps you didn't understand. I said I don't like taggers in Crowley's mold and that I miss the days where teammates would fix guys like this up. Just like I loved it when Scarlett dropped Ballas a few years ago. Oh the days when little yappers like him didn't have the protection of video review.

So your comments about not liking those tactics are shown to be untrue. You are advocating violence on the field. So you basically have proven my point.

No you didn't address my points. You made up stuff the deflect away from Judd's reputation which by any measure is immeasurably worse than anything Ballantyne has been accused of doing and in fact is one of the worst on field reputations in the game. but yeah, you dont like players like that.

Enough. You never change and rarely say anything remotely sensible so I'm adding you to the ignore list.

 

[Kram]

Who cares, we got the 4 points and are still a big top 4 chance.

 

[Monkey King]

So your comments about not liking those tactics are shown to be untrue. You are advocating violence on the field. So you basically have proven my point.

Not sure what your point even is or how I have proven it. Don't think you even get what I'm saying tbh.

Enough. You never change and rarely say anything remotely sensible so I'm adding you to the ignore list.

Good-o then.

 

[davis_756]

So what does he do that's so bad?

Like Macaffer neither legitimately attempt to play the game and instead spend 2 hours trying to stop someone who can by cheating. These types of players are scum and no better then drug cheats like Lance Armstrong.

 

[davis_756]

So your comments about not liking those tactics are shown to be untrue. You are advocating violence on the field. So you basically have proven my point.

No you didn't address my points. You made up stuff the deflect away from Judd's reputation which by any measure is immeasurably worse than anything Ballantyne has been accused of doing and in fact is one of the worst on field reputations in the game. but yeah, you dont like players like that.

Enough. You never change and rarely say anything remotely sensible so I'm adding you to the ignore list.

The good players should be allowed to turn around, barry hall KO the tagger and then continue playing as if nothing had happened. Unlike you I would like to see good players play good football not s**t ones praised for being athletic enough to follow a rabbit all day, we have greyhounds for that.

 

[ilikepotatoes]

Like Macaffer neither legitimately attempt to play the game and instead spend 2 hours trying to stop someone who can by cheating. These types of players are scum and no better then drug cheats like Lance Armstrong.

Thoughts on Ed Curnow please.

 

[estibador]

Thoughts on Ed Curnow please.

That cheat did nothing but follow Hill around all night and try stop him playing football. He may as well have started shooting up EPO in the middle of Subi Oval.

 

[Fadge]

Like Macaffer neither legitimately attempt to play the game and instead spend 2 hours trying to stop someone who can by cheating. These types of players are scum and no better then drug cheats like Lance Armstrong.

How is a midfield tagged any different to a Zac Dawson or Simon Prestigicomo type defender who average no more than five possessions per game and whose sole goal is to stop their opponent? These types have been a part of the game for 100 years.

 

[okeydoke7]

Don't make an issue out of it. It's simple: "if you have prior you must attempt to dispose of it proporperly if you don't you must dispose of it properly" I recon we just leave it like that and don't bring in all the confusion about "bought to ground" , "dropping"' the ball etc it's easy to interpret.

I'm not sure how old you are but most bloke 40+ on here would remember from our footy days were 2 main calls from the umpires "he tried play on" as in you attempted and "you ducked play on". But haven't we managed to confuse the issue with ignorant commentators who don't know or understand the rules and then make up s**t to cause some controversy

If it's so simple why have you responded with irrelevant tripe?

I was replying directly to an incident from the game, not giving a hypothetical. In the incident, the player was brought to ground in the tackle and lay flat on his back (arguably with prior, but let's say he didn't have prior for sake of the argument).

Said player, on his back, made an attempt to kick but missed the ball completely. OK, so I understand that the umpire may have deemed he had no prior and made a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. I don't have an issue with that.

When the player, on his back, literally throws the ball more than a metre in his attempt to kick, but misses, it is incorrect disposal. They are two different rules.

I don't think the concept is too confusing to understand. If, in the attempt of genuinely disposing of the ball, the ball is thrown...Incorrect disposal.

 

[Spook]

If it's so simple why have you responded with irrelevant tripe?

I was replying directly to an incident from the game, not giving a hypothetical. In the incident, the player was brought to ground in the tackle and lay flat on his back (arguably with prior, but let's say he didn't have prior for sake of the argument).

Said player, on his back, made an attempt to kick but missed the ball completely. OK, so I understand that the umpire may have deemed he had no prior and made a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. I don't have an issue with that.

When the player, on his back, literally throws the ball more than a metre in his attempt to kick, but misses, it is incorrect disposal. They are two different rules.

I don't think the concept is too confusing to understand. If, in the attempt of genuinely disposing of the ball, the ball is thrown...Incorrect disposal.

What does it matter if he has been brought to ground? What's the difference? Brought to ground, held up, held upside down, tacked with a two step cha cha, on his back, on his front, on his side WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES OT MAKE? If he is tackled without prior opportunity he must attempt to dispose of the ball correctly..... Which he did simple.....

I say this sincerely, go and read the rule, it is very simple.

As to say incorrect disposal because he threw the ball trying to kick it...... Well how do players execute 500 odd kicks in a game? They DROP the ball onto their foot to kick it, yes that right every time a player kicks the ball he DROPS it, what do you want to do then.

 

[okeydoke7]

What does it matter if he has been brought to ground? What's the difference? Brought to ground, held up, held upside down, tacked with a two step cha cha, on his back, on his front, on his side WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES OT MAKE? If he is tackled without prior opportunity he must attempt to dispose of the all correctly..... Which he did simple.....

I say this sincerely, go and read the rule, it is very simple.

As to say incorrect disposal because he threw the ball trying to kick it...... Well how do players execute 500 odd kicks in a game? They DROP the ball onto their foot to kick it, yes that right every time a player kicks the ball he DROPS it, what do you want to do then.

This is quite embarrassing, frankly.

Your determination to argue in favour of the holding the ball rule/interpretation has seen you make an argument that isn't there.

I am, once again, referring to a specific incident from the game in question. The fact the player was brought to ground (on his back) is central to the issue. Because we aren't discussing holding the ball. We are discussing incorrect disposal. There was an argument that said player had prior opportunity (in which case it should've been holding the ball), but AGAIN for the sake of the argument we will suggest he did not.

DURING his attempt to kick the ball, while being on his back, he literally threw the ball and missed it with his foot. Yes, I understand he made an attempt and hence the holding the ball rule may not be applied. But in this circumstance (a very rare, strange set of circumstances), the player genuinely threw the ball into the air and with a distance of over a metre and had a fresh air swing at it. It's a throw. It's incorrect disposal.

Your rant, once again, is irrelevant. I agree a player drops the ball onto boot on every kick. Thank you for enlightening me. I also have no problem if there's no prior in a player's attempt to kick he drops the ball (again, this is nowhere near the argument being made despite your insistence on making it). But in this exact example, when the player was tackled to ground and was on his back, he THREW the ball in an attempt to kick it. It is illegal disposal. Just picture it in that determined brain of yours for one second.

 

[Spook]

This is quite embarrassing, frankly.

Your determination to argue in favour of the holding the ball rule/interpretation has seen you make an argument that isn't there.

I am, once again, referring to a specific incident from the game in question. The fact the player was brought to ground (on his back) is central to the issue. Because we aren't discussing holding the ball. We are discussing incorrect disposal. There was an argument that said player had prior opportunity (in which case it should've been holding the ball), but AGAIN for the sake of the argument we will suggest he did not.

DURING his attempt to kick the ball, while being on his back, he literally threw the ball and missed it with his foot. Yes, I understand he made an attempt and hence the holding the ball rule may not be applied. But in this circumstance (a very rare, strange set of circumstances), the player genuinely threw the ball into the air and with a distance of over a metre and had a fresh air swing at it. It's a throw. It's incorrect disposal.

Your rant, once again, is irrelevant. I agree a player drops the ball onto boot on every kick. Thank you for enlightening me. I also have no problem if there's no prior in a player's attempt to kick he drops the ball (again, this is nowhere near the argument being made despite your insistence on making it). But in this exact example, when the player was tackled to ground and was on his back, he THREW the ball in an attempt to kick it. It is illegal disposal. Just picture it in that determined brain of yours for one second.

Wtf are you on about, why can't he throw the ball onto his foot while trying to kick it? He is attempting to kick the ball. Do you want a free kick for someone trying to kick it?

Yes he THREW the ball onto his foot, attempting to kick it, that makes it a KICK.

You sound like a hack journo looking for 1 incident in 10,000 the write 8 paragraphs about it and then blame the rules and say it must be changed or interpreted correctly. If you like footbAll for football and understand the game and have ever played the game you would realise just how embarrassing your argument is.

I take it you never played footy since Auskick

 

[okeydoke7]

Wtf are you on about, why can't he throw the ball onto his foot while trying to kick it? He is attempting to kick the ball. Do you want a free kick for someone trying to kick it?

Yes he THREW the ball onto his foot, attempting to kick it, that makes it a KICK.

You sound like a hack journo looking for 1 incident in 10,000 the write 8 paragraphs about it and then blame the rules and say it must be changed or interpreted correctly. If you like footbAll for football and understand the game and have ever played the game you would realise just how embarrassing your argument is.

I take it you never played footy since Auskick

You do know this was a game thread? That we were discussing and reacting to a game (which was umpired poorly BTW)? And that my initial post was in direct response to a particular incident?

You clearly haven't seen the incident that the two of us were commenting on. If you had you would understand what i'm saying.

No idea what that bold crap is on about.

I love and understand and play the game and have completely agreed with every single point you have made about holding the ball/prior opportunity/attempting to dispose.

I will repeat for what feels like the 100th time, that that has nothing to do with the one moment we were referring to. Where the player blatantly and obviously threw the ball over a metre and high in he air when trying to get it to boot (not in the usual way that players would). The same as when a players throws the ball in their attempt to handball (when arm pinned for example).

We were talking about a throw. That you haven't seen, obviously.

You continue to go on about making an attempt and holding the ball. Not relevant.

 

[Spook]

Where the player blatantly and obviously threw the ball over a metre and high in he air when trying to get it to boot (not in the usual way that players would). The same as when a players throws the ball in their attempt to handball (when arm pinned for example).

We were talking about a throw. That you haven't seen, obviously.

Well now I know you don't understand the game or the rules when you start comparing throwing the ball to try and kick it with throwing the ball when hand balling it..... I rest my case after that argument

 

[davis_756]

How is a midfield tagged any different to a Zac Dawson or Simon Prestigicomo type defender who average no more than five possessions per game and whose sole goal is to stop their opponent? These types have been a part of the game for 100 years.

The difference is defenders probably give 3-4 frees away during a game and their opponents the same, midfield taggers break the rule at every stoppage and rarely get penalized.

 

[ilikepotatoes]

The difference is defenders probably give 3-4 frees away during a game and their opponents the same, midfield taggers break the rule at every stoppage and rarely get penalized.

And this means it's ok to call them dirty? Not their fault the umpires are stupid.

 

[davis_756]

And this means it's ok to call them dirty? Not their fault the umpires are stupid.

I don't know about you but I couldn't intentionally cheat like they do, a defender might hang on out of desperation but they don't get intentionally go out of their way to cheat.

If it was up to me more frees would be paid until they stop, unfortunately you would need another 3 umpires around to go close to seeing everything.

 

[ilikepotatoes]

I don't know about you but I couldn't intentionally cheat like they do, a defender might hang on out of desperation but they don't get intentionally go out of their way to cheat.

If it was up to me more frees would be paid until they stop, unfortunately you would need another 3 umpires around to go close to seeing everything.

But you can hit them right, the cheating dirty jumper holders? That's ok.

 

[davis_756]

But you can hit them right, the cheating dirty jumper holders? That's ok.

Players like Crowley are no better then Lance Armstrong, both exists in their sports by cheating their way to the top and prevent others who are more talented and unwilling to cheat from the limelight they deserve. You might try and distinguish between the two but I won't, all cheats are the same and deserve to be punished for their actions.

Obviously the gist of king hitting them is to punish that action which is preferable to the way things currently stand, ignoring it makes you no better then the cheats themselves.

 

[The Speaker]

Players like Crowley are no better then Lance Armstrong, both exists in their sports by cheating their way to the top and prevent others who are more talented and unwilling to cheat from the limelight they deserve. You might try and distinguish between the two but I won't, all cheats are the same and deserve to be punished for their actions.

Obviously the gist of king hitting them is to punish that action which is preferable to the way things currently stand, ignoring it makes you no better then the cheats themselves.

lawl

 

[ilikepotatoes]

Players like Crowley are no better then Lance Armstrong, both exists in their sports by cheating their way to the top and prevent others who are more talented and unwilling to cheat from the limelight they deserve. You might try and distinguish between the two but I won't, all cheats are the same and deserve to be punished for their actions.

Obviously the gist of king hitting them is to punish that action which is preferable to the way things currently stand, ignoring it makes you no better then the cheats themselves.

That's ridiculous, and you know it.
I hope you're trolling, for your sake.

 

[calaisking]

Players like Crowley are no better then Lance Armstrong.

Post of the year

 

[davis_756]

That's ridiculous, and you know it.
I hope you're trolling, for your sake.

This is the kind of head in sand attitude shared by many cycling fans, rather then face facts that 99% of their heroes are cheats they in fact actively support it by forbidding it to be spoken about.

What do you actually think about Taggers in general? Ignoring your own of course

 

[ilikepotatoes]

This is the kind of head in sand attitude shared by many cycling fans, rather then face facts that 99% of their heroes are cheats they in fact actively support it by forbidding it to be spoken about.

What do you actually think about Taggers in general? Ignoring your own of course

If they infringe pay a free kick, do not king hit them.
Pretty simple really.

 

[jayvee]

The difference is defenders probably give 3-4 frees away during a game and their opponents the same, midfield taggers break the rule at every stoppage and rarely get penalized.

Murphy got 7. Crowley got 1. Logic sounds legit..

If anything, Crowley gets over-penalised. Standard issue really for the AFL umps little navy blue bum boys - most free kicks for, and the least against, while only winning 6 games. Interesting. Murphy almost doubled the entire Freo count when they played the Bullies..