Opinion Cameron Guthrie

[FredLeDeux]

Cam Guthrie- 1 Free For, ZERO against.Dangerfield- 1 Free For, 2 against.Says it all, really. Do you think the umpires would have sat back and watched illegal tactics and let them go?

All the tackles were obviously legal, because they didn't get penalised.
So how come Guthrie didn't get 15 free kicks for holding the ball?

 

[Teriyakicat]

All the tackles were obviously legal, because they didn't get penalised.
So how come Guthrie didn't get 15 free kicks for holding the ball?

Must've forced the ball to be released, I'd guess, Fred- not many frees are paid for HTB these days, I don't think- just the obvious chase downs but not many at stoppages.

 

[Partridge]

Must've forced the ball to be released, I'd guess, Fred- not many frees are paid for HTB these days, I don't think- just the obvious chase downs but not many at stoppages.

There were two I can clearly remember, one where Dangerfield had gotten clear and was kicking on his left - and McCarthy bumped him perfectly as he kicked it and it went on the full. The second was where Guthrie let go just as the ball spilled loose. That was when Healy had a cry that his new favourite player was being rewarded for simply being out there.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Must've forced the ball to be released, I'd guess, Fred- not many frees are paid for HTB these days, I don't think- just the obvious chase downs but not many at stoppages.

 

[Teriyakicat]

There were two I can clearly remember, one where Dangerfield had gotten clear and was kicking on his left - and McCarthy bumped him perfectly as he kicked it and it went on the full. The second was where Guthrie let go just as the ball spilled loose. That was when Healy had a cry that his new favourite player was being rewarded for simply being out there.

Didn't they replay that second incident more than once? Or have I just seen it on the replay a couple of times? That release was excellent timing by Guthrie.

I've noticed that a lot of players seem to be hanging on longer than is legal, these days, but not getting penalised by the umpire.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Must've forced the ball to be released, I'd guess, Fred- not many frees are paid for HTB these days, I don't think- just the obvious chase downs but not many at stoppages.

Oops- just realised that this was a trick question.
The answer is that Guthrie couldn't have got 15 HTB frees because he only made 11 tackles!

 

[AM]

Cam Guthrie- 1 Free For, ZERO against.Dangerfield- 1 Free For, 2 against.Says it all, really. Do you think the umpires would have sat back and watched illegal tactics and let them go?

As with many umpiring calls it depends on the emphasis at the time.

Rarely does a year go by when, at some stage, there isn’t an outcry about ball players being infringed in ways not strictly in accordance with the rules thereby not allowing them fair access to the pill.

It happens quite often on this board particularly in relation to Sel.

When the outcry is loud enough a stricter interpretation by the umpires usually ensues.

So the answer to your question is ‘yes’, umpires do allow infringements to go unpenalised when they are in lenient mode.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

But do they? To me it gets greatly - severely - overrated in the press. What's Lewis going to do exactly? No one is going to take him out off the ball. Mitchell has been tagged by us very successfully for years and Ling never ended up unconscious. If Guthrie can do his job he'll be fine.

Ling went to either Hodge or Mitchell every single time once he'd become the premier shut-down man in the game. And I honestly can't remember him ever failing to towel his man up. Nor can I remember Lewis doing anything about it.

 

[FredLeDeux]

As with many umpiring calls it depends on the emphasis at the time.

Rarely does a year go by when, at some stage, there isn’t an outcry about ball players being infringed in ways not strictly in accordance with the rules thereby not allowing them fair access to the pill.

It happens quite often on this board particularly in relation to Sel.

When the outcry is loud enough a stricter interpretation by the umpires usually ensues.

So the answer to your question is ‘yes’, umpires do allow infringements to go unpenalised when they are in lenient mode.

They officially announced that they will be doing so more than usual this year, and they have done so up til now, to generally popular acclaim. With the exception of Mr Cardiac Cornes.

 

[AM]

They officially announced that they will be doing so more than usual this year, and they have done so up til now, to generally popular acclaim. With the exception of Mr Cardiac Cornes.

And a Mr Smith.

http://bit.ly/1h086Sh

 

[Teriyakicat]

As with many umpiring calls it depends on the emphasis at the time.

Rarely does a year go by when, at some stage, there isn’t an outcry about ball players being infringed in ways not strictly in accordance with the rules thereby not allowing them fair access to the pill.

It happens quite often on this board particularly in relation to Sel.

When the outcry is loud enough a stricter interpretation by the umpires usually ensues.

So the answer to your question is ‘yes’, umpires do allow infringements to go unpenalised when they are in lenient mode.

I hate the current tagging tactics where the tagger stands behind the taggee (?) with his arms almost encircling his body but not touching. Then, as soon as the tagged player gets the ball, they get grabbed. (happens in defence as well, as I saw Lonergan do it to great effect) I actually enjoy watching good players strut their stuff but I hate the Cats losing- so I feel quite torn on the whole tagging issue. As it stands, unless the tagger is hanging on before his opponent has the ball, the umpires ignore it. If there's a grey area, they ignore it. I don't think Cam was dragging Dangerfield off the ball or anything illegal, which is why there weren't frees given against him. And if you look at all the taggers in the games these days, they are all doing what Cam did and they are all getting away with it.
I actually feel sorry for Cam in that he's been made the poster boy for something that has been going on now for years, which the umpires have chosen to not make a big deal of during that time. I hope the media scrutiny doesn't affect his game- and i wonder why Adelaide have chosen to make such a big deal of it now, as things like this are usually kept in-house by the footballers and coaches and only spotlighted by the media.

 

[AM]

I hate the current tagging tactics where the tagger stands behind the taggee (?) with his arms almost encircling his body but not touching. Then, as soon as the tagged player gets the ball, they get grabbed. (happens in defence as well, as I saw Lonergan do it to great effect) I actually enjoy watching good players strut their stuff but I hate the Cats losing- so I feel quite torn on the whole tagging issue. As it stands, unless the tagger is hanging on before his opponent has the ball, the umpires ignore it. If there's a grey area, they ignore it. I don't think Cam was dragging Dangerfield off the ball or anything illegal, which is why there weren't frees given against him. And if you look at all the taggers in the games these days, they are all doing what Cam did and they are all getting away with it.
I actually feel sorry for Cam in that he's been made the poster boy for something that has been going on now for years, which the umpires have chosen to not make a big deal of during that time. I hope the media scrutiny doesn't affect his game- and i wonder why Adelaide have chosen to make such a big deal of it now, as things like this are usually kept in-house by the footballers and coaches and only spotlighted by the media.

Fairly much agree although I’d respectfully suggest many here are seeing the tactics used on Dangerfield through blue and white eyes and had the same tactics been used on Sel would have been up in arms.

Talking Footy just showed a few grabs where Danger was clearly infringed after being first in. In one case a clear in the back while on the turf and another where he’d clearly disposed of the ball and was then crashed to the ground. Sel also gave him a hip while he was returning to his feet after a tackle while the ball was nowhere to be seen.

Fred and I aren’t in accord on the matter of the umpires being strict on prohibited infringements. I reckon as part of their often stated plan to not pay ‘incidental’ frees (as long as a piece of string as that is) players are being
r etarded sufficiently to be taken out of contests and it is becoming a strategy on the part of coaches to gain an advantage because they know the umpires are reluctant penalise them.

And while on the soapbox I’m not at all keen on the inordinate length of time umpires are letting scrimmages continue. As the season progresses it will cause player frustration and consequent MRP visits in my view.

There’s too much smoke being blown up Campbell’s arse at present by the media and fellow travellers. I’m all for the “pay ‘em as you see ‘em” approach when it comes to umpiring. All that is required is well schooled umpires.

 

[Teriyakicat]

Fairly much agree although I’d respectfully suggest many here are seeing the tactics used on Dangerfield through blue and white eyes and had the same tactics been used on Sel would have been up in arms.

Talking Footy just showed a few grabs where Danger was clearly infringed after being first in. In one case a clear in the back while on the turf and another where he’d clearly disposed of the ball and was then crashed to the ground. Sel also gave him a hip while he was returning to his feet after a tackle while the ball was nowhere to be seen.

Fred and I aren’t in accord on the matter of the umpires being strict on prohibited infringements. I reckon as part of their often stated plan to not pay ‘incidental’ frees (as long as a piece of string as that is) players are being
r etarded sufficiently to be taken out of contests and it is becoming a strategy on the part of coaches to gain an advantage because they know the umpires are reluctant penalise them.

And while on the soapbox I’m not at all keen on the inordinate length of time umpires are letting scrimmages continue. As the season progresses it will cause player frustration and consequent MRP visits in my view.

There’s too much smoke being blown up Campbell’s arse at present by the media and fellow travellers. I’m all for the “pay ‘em as you see ‘em” approach when it comes to umpiring. All that is required is well schooled umpires.

I recall seeing Selwood knocking Dangerfield over but, at the time, thought it was Selwood protecting one of his young players. Can't recall why, just now, but that was my take at the time.

Umpires are still on the 'don't pay too many frees' wagon at the moment. Yes, being ******ed is very common but is let go most of the time- whether it's being held back from entering a contest or whether it's a player being held down instead of being released after a tackle, allowing the opposition to get numbers ahead of the ball. Sometimes the umpires need to spend a few weeks just blowing and blowing, to let the players and coaches know that it's going to continue until the players go back to playing without those infringements.

 

[manboob]

I'm quite happy for some off the ball action if it means the shitty display of over-umpiring that has been taking place for the last few years is over.

 

[catempire]

I actually have a love-hate relationship with taggers. Can't stand the sniping, scragging, cheating Steven Baker style of tactic which is basically to take any advantage within or outside the rules and to deliberately try to put your opponent off his game through illegal contact. But I love the close checking, disciplined, mentally tough, 99% legal task that Cameron Ling was able to do so often and that Guthrie executed to near perfection against Dangerfield.

To be clear, if Guthrie infringed - and I didn't see it if he did - there was no cheating involved ala Baker. His mission was to stay within arms length of Dangerfield - not an easy task in itself - and to lay a very heavy tackle on him whenever he got the ball. That is the type of tagger I'm proud to have in my team.

 

[AM]

I actually have a love-hate relationship with taggers. Can't stand the sniping, scragging, cheating Steven Baker style of tactic which is basically to take any advantage within or outside the rules and to deliberately try to put your opponent off his game through illegal contact. But I love the close checking, disciplined, mentally tough, 99% legal task that Cameron Ling was able to do so often and that Guthrie executed to near perfection against Dangerfield.

To be clear, if Guthrie infringed - and I didn't see it if he did - there was no cheating involved ala Baker. His mission was to stay within arms length of Dangerfield - not an easy task in itself - and to lay a very heavy tackle on him whenever he got the ball. That is the type of tagger I'm proud to have in my team.

To suggest "......Guthrie executed to near perfection....." against Danger is a big call. If a player has disposed of the ball dragging him to the ground after that act - free kick. Dropping into the back of a player on the ground - free kick. To mention a couple. Guthrie deserves a big tick for his game but I maintain there were occasions where he should have been penalised.

London to a brick had Sel been the recipient of some of those tactics many here would have been critical.

Baker and his ilk are snipers and can't and shouldn't be compared to the likes of Linga, Taylor Hunt, Guthrie et al. Baker's attack on SJ in the match where both were reported was a classic example of lax umpiring. Had the umpire who was within metres of Baker when he began hitting SJs recently broken hand warned Baker then free kicked him for any subsequent illegal acts it would have been nipped in the bud early on and the chances are neither would have got weeks.

Being an effective run with player is a skill and an important part of the game. However, when ball players are prevented from having a fair crack at the ball they should get the benefit of umpiring calls. Danger didn't on a number of occasions on Thursday.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Couldn't have said it better, AM, and I am personally going to be very annoyed when other sides, inevitably, look at what happened in our game, and start in on Selwood and Johnson because the umpires illegally fail to enforce the rules. Not least because both those two are more than likely to do a Greg Williams and get into strife for taking the law into their own hands.

 

[David the Cat]

In my opinion, SJ was perfectly justified in doing a "Greg Williams" on Baker ….. had it been Williams of course, Baker wouldn't have run off the field.

 

[FredLeDeux]

In my opinion, SJ was perfectly justified in doing a "Greg Williams" on Baker ….. had it been Williams of course, Baker wouldn't have run off the field.

Perfectly justified.
Actually, what he did give him didn't look like much on TV, but it did some fair old damage to Baker's face.
The point, however, is that Johnson got reported for it - and has been paying for that report almost ever since.

 

[catempire]

London to a brick had Sel been the recipient of some of those tactics many here would have been critical.

Maybe some would. Not me. Many, many times a tagger has got the better of Selwood of Ablett and done it within the rules and all I could do is sit back, frustrated that our bloke couldn't break the tag.

If other sides adopt Guthrie tactics, Selwood will have to cope. Because umpires aren't there to prevent a hard tackle or a ball player being crunched within the rules. We will have to suck it up and hope that Selwood can get away and that the mids around him offer good protection. This is nothing new.

 

[Partridge]

Perfectly justified.
Actually, what he did give him didn't look like much on TV, but it did some fair old damage to Baker's face.
The point, however, is that Johnson got reported for it - and has been paying for that report almost ever since.

He has? How?

 

[catempire]

He has? How?

Carryover points then bad record loading, etc. on subsequent reports.

 

[El Dubya]

He has? How?

I think Fred is referring to the carry over points, which then turn into more and more carry over points. But I'm willing to bet that your answer will be "Wouldn't matter if he didn't get suspended."

 

[Partridge]

I think Fred is referring to the carry over points, which then turn into more and more carry over points. But I'm willing to bet that your answer will be "Wouldn't matter if he didn't get suspended."

You bet correct.

 

[FredLeDeux]

You bet correct.

Wouldn't get suspended if he hadn't had the Baker points, especially for things he shouldn't have got suspended for anyway, eg the outrageous Sydney travesty, which then cost him the next time, etc, etc.