Review Dogs beat Pies 99-51

Remove this Banner Ad

I believe it was, but it's an incredibly inconsistently applied rule. 360 in a tackle and they can call it, but rarely ever see it actually called

My opinion No

Fair call for mine. Took too long.

Happy to see those given but in terms of last night's game, inconsistent with other calls so, based on that, wrong call!
I think it was very harsh. 9 times out of 10 umpires let that go.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I need BigFooty to resolve a family dispute. Richards caught HTB in the first term…was it the right decision?

I thought he handball(Ed) it in time.

The umpire said he had prior and didn't dispose of it "straight away".

Given some of the others that weren't paid, particularly late, I thought he was very stiff.

Did you win?
 
I believe it was, but it's an incredibly inconsistently applied rule. 360 in a tackle and they can call it, but rarely ever see it actually called
I think the rule is really clear.

If you get spun 360 before handballing it and you're a bona fide big club star (Selwood, Dangerfield, Buddy, Pendles, Petracca, maybe even Bont) then it's clearly play on.

However if you get spun 360 before handballing it and you're a non-A grade scrubber it's clearly "BALL!"

I don't know what's so hard about that.
 
Yeah I got the feeling that Scott really got messed up by covid.
Quite likely, but it puts the blame back on MC and maybe the medical staff.

Why did they select him when we've seen this play out multiple times within our own club already this year? I can think of JUH and Libba to start with. There may well be more. It's also happened often enough elsewhere.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I thought he handball(Ed) it in time.

The umpire said he had prior and didn't dispose of it "straight away".

Given some of the others that weren't paid, particularly late, I thought he was very stiff.

Did you win?
Nobody won. Although my wife did pay for dinner tonight and that was the loser’s punishment. So I guess that was her inadvertently admitting defeat.

She was adamant it was HTB. I thought it was very harsh.
 
50/50 for mine, happy to see it paid or let go but what I want is consistency, if that’s the rule then fine but pay it every time not randomly.

Then again whilst writing this I’ve had a bit of a change of thought - the “problem” of htb in the afls eyes is we want to speed up the game and get rid of the “rolling maul” - I’d rather see players take their time under pressure and hold onto possession and find a target, that’s skill. We don’t want players to start disposing of it hot potato style because they know they’ll get pinged.

The issue is the blatant incorrect disposals that go unpaid. I’d MUCH rather see the constant dropping of the ball in a tackle penalised, there was at least 10+ occasions last night a player literally dropped the ball but hey balls our, play on. That’s the much uglier issue with the rule right now.

So play on for mine
The one I don’t like is that if you appear to not hear the umpire yell “touched, play on” and claim the mark then the prior doesn’t count and the player doesn’t get pinged. De Goey getting done on Friday was the exception to the rule but you hardly ever see it.

Duryea (I think) got done last week after he slipped and the umpire said “It’s unfortunate you slipped but it’s still prior”. Why is the standard not similarly “It’s unfortunate you didn’t hear me say play on but it’s still prior”.
 
My change for next week:

OUT: McComb
IN: Lipinski

It's actually disgusting we are giving McComb a chance instead of keeping Lipinski. Disgusting probably an understatement.
LOL we got him with 2nd pick in the rookie draft and used the points we got for lipinski on Darcy. Disgusting post and that’s definitely an understatement
 
Mcomb has just horrible disposal
And composure. Cannot carry that when playing the top teams. He’s honeychurch mark 2. Buku was great, a genuine second target. Forward line over coming years is going to be monstrous with Naughton, JUH, Weightman and Buku.
WTF does this board have to have negative pile ons? McComb wasnt great but it was his 4 th game
 
Sweet played his role tonight, and didn't look out of place. Two Ruck structure a possibility? Timmy the primary and Sweet to chop out. Just need someone to convince Bevo
No we dont

The problem with this theory is that English now rucks about 80% of the game so what position are you playing Sweet in for that time? He was ok on Friday night but did very little around the ground to suggest he could hold down another position when not in the ruck.

if you could play him exclusively just for the 20% and replace him with someone else then maybe but by playing both he and English you are effectively putting us one player down

Two rucks work where they can both play other positions but Sweet cant do that. Better off waiting for Darcy to come on
 
Or perhaps you will get the reality check. Sweet helped us a lot tonight. He's not ever going to be a star but he is very competitive and doesn't let the opposition dominate the centre-bounces or boundary throw-ins. Bevo has completely mismanaged the ruck situation.
Bullshit
 
Yep nailed it, our perception as a supporter base right now is so warped on what to expect from a ruckman, there’s about 5 gun rucks in the league and every other one is just a cog in the team. That’s all we’re asking! Anyone expecting Sweet to go out there and take 5 contested marks and have 50 hit outs, that’s just not realistic.

His work around the stoppage was that of a natural ruckman (whose not 40 yo and can run), his impact on the contest went a lot further than hit out stats and disposals, and played a big part in the reason we went 15-7 from centre clearances & 43-27 in clearances total. That’s what he’s there to do, let’s bring English in alongside him and allow him to do what he does better than any other tall in the game, without the burden of bashing & crashing at every stoppage around the ground. Tim will have 25 touches 10 marks and 2 goals next week if we don’t burden him with a role that he’s still just not that that good at
Yep but only two clubs made the GF last year and one of them did it without a 2nd rate ruckman taking a spot in the side. A 2nd ruck has to be able to play other positions and Sweet at this stage cannot do that
 
Sweet is going to get found out against the likes of Gawn and the top end ruckman however 80% of the time against other sides he will be serviceable. Based on tonight I think he deserves a good run at it and if he can play like that it offers more than Martin offers. Obviously it allows Tim a chance to pinch hit forward and help naughts as well.

Baku... I love the fact he takes the ball at the highest point... might not mark everything but makes defenders nervous! He is a good kid and has a crack!

West, can make good decisions with the ball but boy he comes across as his s**t don't stink. Can't take to him but deserves another go...

McComb... great effort to get to this level but your kicking is not up to standard. It's been over a few games now so it needs to be looked at! I don't think he offers what we need.

Cleary.... good first game kid.... need to bulk up but you were composed and did what you had to do!

McNeill....sorry mate, you offered nothing... you dont get front and square and get in the space of the leading forward.... cant see how he hold his spot at the moment but I guess it's hard to bring other people in!

Scott.... struggled tonight I though, didn't have the urgency that you usually have defensively....

Good win boys!
Scott maybe still recovering, cause he certainly looks tired?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top