Agree, more so over the shoulder (which can be interpreted as holding the man) and affected Thilthorpe from marking the ball.
Review Good/Bad vs St Kilda - Rd 13
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Agree, more so over the shoulder (which can be interpreted as holding the man) and affected Thilthorpe from marking the ball.
- May 14, 2017
- 11,384
- 12,733
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- West Adelaide
I have thought about it, at the time, after replays shortly afterwards and other replays and still-frames since. I don't think Mackay has a case to answer, even if several posters are hoping (some seriously/ some jokingly) he gets weeks just so that he cannot be selected
. I didn't say he bumped Clark, but that it was a collision more accidental than deliberate. Both had eyes on the ball, or either/both would have braced for impact.Sorry, but I've missed your point entirely. What? What's the problem?
Another poster (can't remember who) put up a still frame with Mackay having a hand on the ball and one foot on the ground.
It certainly looks like he's going for the ball, which would be my interpretation (upon which we agree).
P.S. someone also suggested that the momentum of the Crows player behind Clark (edit: looks like Berry) exacerbated the collision by pushing him into it. Meat-in-the-sandwich. I'm just not comfortable talking about someone's 'intention', which involves mind-reading.
Last edited:
- May 14, 2017
- 11,384
- 12,733
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- West Adelaide
Absolutely
(and the Umpire explained it).The free was there; it was no 'gimme' or 'soft' free.
This!!!!
Goal line umpiring is absolutely deplorable across the board. Umpires are usually gutless to pay free kicks in the square on the goal line for either defenders or for the forwards. So for the umpire to blow the free and voice that explanation you could see it caught everyone off guard. It was great, and the umpire was 100% correct. The AFL need to stop this anything goes crap on the goal line. So hopefully this is a sign that umpires are going to start calling clear frees.
For the record shepherding defenders from marking the ball on the goal line is the worst thing in football to not be called. You see it so often. Yet 10 metres out from goal its a free. It's bs.
On SM-N981B using BigFooty.com mobile app
- May 14, 2017
- 11,384
- 12,733
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- West Adelaide
Isn't there something about "if the ball is within 5 metres ..."?
Fogarty and Thilthorpe both hared around after that overhead kick, with Fogarty clearly shepherding the Saints defender away from the ball (which he may have marked if he'd been given room to dive?).
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
I remember that season
The Port fan at our showdown who was sitting near me stormed off in the 4th as I was taking so many shots at Ryder and his incompetence that day.
Ryder was flashier, went for a run with the ball, and kicked a few more goals.
But in the ruck and actual benefit to the team, Jacobs shat all over him.
Dirty Bird
Pokémon Master
any shepherd or obstruction beyond 5m is meant to be a free
very rarely paid. (Yeah, 0-2 a game, but it should be closer to 20 a game if they go to the letter of the law)
But on that incident, is it 5m on a 2 dimensional plane or 5m on a 3 dimensional plane.
If 2 dimensions, the shepherd was legal
if 3 dimensional? Probably a free St Kildas way tbh.
News just said he will only get 3 weeks.
- May 10, 2016
- 16,259
- 13,252
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
If Mackay gets suspended they may as well shut the game down and just call it "Touch Footy." Players know the risks when they go out on the field and you can't legislate against an accident. So we have coaches telling players to go hard at the ball and the AFL saying you can't. Which is it? The incident wasn't a concussion which is what they are worried about but even if it was it was a pure accident. So if Mackay is punished he is being punished for protecting himself against injury while going for the ball. Should Mackay be blamed for the opposition player not protecting himself in an effective manner? Are they going to give a player games if there's a collision and a opposition player breaks a collarbone? Hypocrit organisation. Any effective lawyer should get this injustice thrown out in 10 mins.
Last edited:
- May 14, 2017
- 11,384
- 12,733
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- West Adelaide
I wish I could remember the game this year where O'Brien was pushed forward towards an oppo player and from memory his knee came into contact with the bloke's head. Can anyone recall that, please?
I'm pretty sure the bloke was concussed, but nothing came of it report/tribunal-wise.
I think the Mackay clash with Clark was accidental, even if Mackay came in at speed. It's extremely unfortunate that Clark's jaw was broken, but it's a contact sport. Tbh, I was surprised it was Mackay who's not known for a hip-and-shoulder bump; in fact, it's usually him getting bumped out of the way.
If he's suspended at all, it will be ridiculous.
You can't block someone from a marking contest. You can, however, shepherd the ball if it's within 5m.
Which means that if Fogarty was blocking his opponent, his actions were illegal until the ball hit the ground - at which point they became legal.
It's either 0 or 3. If they decide he's guilty, it's negligent/high contact/severe impact, which is 3 weeks. However, they also have the option of deciding that it was an accidental collision, between two players competing for the ball. There is no suggestion that DMac opted to bump (unlike Dangerfield in R1), given that his eyes are always on the ball, and his arms are outstretched to the point where he gets at least one hand on the pill.
There are solid precedents for arguing the latter. There is also a strong push to punish players who make contact with the head.
It could go either way.
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Moderator
- May 24, 2006
- 77,205
- 151,299
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
- Moderator
- #614
Anyone watch Footy Classified last night?
Apparently Caro and Kane had a crack at Tim Membrey and Seb Ross for missing our game due to family reasons.
They're copping a bit of grief
Apparently Caro and Kane had a crack at Tim Membrey and Seb Ross for missing our game due to family reasons.
They're copping a bit of grief
The AFL are going to argue that it doesn't matter whether he was going for the ball or elected to bump.
Which flies in the face of every decision made up to this date.
It's looking like a test case.
We know that bumps, which result in head contact, have been outlawed. That's fair enough, given that the objective of the bump is the player - not the ball. This is why Dangerfield was rubbed out for his hit on Kelly.
The AFL will be on a very slippery slope though, if they rule that accidental contact between two players contesting the ball, is now outlawed as well.
Zero coaches votes for Brad.
- Moderator
- #618
I'm not surprised.
It was a classic Brouch performance, 30+ possessions with little to no impact on the game.
Comparison of AFLCA Votes and AFL Rating Points:
O'Brien & Steele not too far off the mark, but some of the others (most notably Wilkie)...
What this shows is the difference between what the statisticians think is important, and what the coaches really think is important.
| Player | Coaches | AFL Ratings |
| Jack Steele | 1 | 6 |
| Rory Laird | 1 | 28 |
| Paul Seedsman | 3 | 21 |
| Riley Thilthorpe | 3 | 10 |
| Reilly O'Brien | 3 | 1 |
| Callum Wilkie | 6 | 42 |
| Tom Highmore | 7 | 12 |
O'Brien & Steele not too far off the mark, but some of the others (most notably Wilkie)...
What this shows is the difference between what the statisticians think is important, and what the coaches really think is important.
Pretty much like a lot of posters here. ( no, not having a dig at you, generalisation.)Comparison of AFLCA Votes and AFL Rating Points:
Player Coaches AFL Ratings Jack Steele 1 6 Rory Laird 1 28 Paul Seedsman 3 21 Riley Thilthorpe 3 10 Reilly O'Brien 3 1 Callum Wilkie 6 42 Tom Highmore 7 12
O'Brien & Steele not too far off the mark, but some of the others (most notably Wilkie)...
What this shows is the difference between what the statisticians think is important, and what the coaches really think is important.
Two of the most useless footy presenters ever. Hope they're made to apologise.
I haven't watched the game yet (planning to watch the second half only!) but - it seems to me that Fog and TT were entitled to run back to the goal line, with the intention of marking/catching the ball and/or kicking it through, if it fell short. Simply being there isn't "shepherding" and it's not their problem if a Saints player wants to try to push past them while they are waiting for the ball to arrive. It's only if/when Fog/TT actively move to block a Saints player's path, that it's "shepherding". It's a fine line / grey area...
Why? They are right?
You can't just Pike out on your team when it's your last chance to push for finals for no good reason. One of them has 6 week old twins with no health issues there wasn't a medical emergency and the others wife is due in 3 weeks time there was no reason for either of those players to miss the game.
If you want to spend time with your new family take paternity leave don't pick and choose which games you will and won't play.
- May 14, 2017
- 11,384
- 12,733
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- West Adelaide
Interesting; means that Fogarty's block should have been a free kick to the Saints player ... ?
- May 14, 2017
- 11,384
- 12,733
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- West Adelaide
Yeah I watched it. Caro had a red-hot dig at them; Kornes followed, sheep that he is
. Lloydy stayed out of it, very fairly I thought, because he didn't know the emotional state of the players' partners.Family comes first.
I reckon the Saints lost that game because they ran out of gas, for whatever reason, and the Crows' pressure ran over them.
