Review Autopsy vs North Melbourne

[Fossie 32]

Correct decision. It wasn't the arm-chopping, it was the front-on contact without having eyes on the ball.

Please stop you are sounding like norf supporters...

Haven't seen a replay but I thought he got the ball

 

[Libba39]

Haven't seen a replay but I thought he got the ball

Does not matter if he made front-on contact and didn't sight the ball.

 

[Fossie 32]

Does not matter if he made front-on contact and didn't sight the ball.

And thought he sighted the ball - would be hard to get it otherwise

 

[Libba39]

And thought he sighted the ball - would be hard to get it otherwise

They will pay it against the defender 8 times out of 10.

 

[Bazza Bulldog]

We will be back up before then.
I'm not bleeding i'm disappointed sure.
We are rebuilding but have shown plenty and with luck could be 2-2
More than i'm amused because the Dogs aren't as good as they think they are.
Plus the players have been drinking the bathwater.

I suppose it has been a while since '99

 

[Dogs_r_barking]

Our game plan is post structuralist. We deconstruct the opposition, use sleight of hand, flip the paradigm, simulate magic and waves of chaos ball until they psychology melt. Bev's bookshelf : Deleuze, Foucault, Nietzsche, atm.
#bevsbookshelf

While using the football truths of inexperience, scarce resources and a rookie coach into irreconcilable and contradictory meanings in true Derrida irreducibility, showing texts cannot go past a certain point.

 

[the conch]

While using the football truths of inexperience, scare resources and a rookie coach into irreconcilable and contradictory meanings in true Derrida irreducibility, showing texts cannot go past a certain point.

I've been thinking about Bev's irreducibility. And the team, the way we play. What makes this team special.
No one gave us a chance. Outsiders every final. All those injuries and deficiencies.

 

[Easton Thighs]

Haven't seen a replay but I thought he got the ball

This rule has always made no sense to me. Why can't you make front on contact if you end up spoiling the ball? In Murphy's case it seems inconclusive but I'm talking the rule in general. Why is it adjudged different from coming from the side or back? Yet more often than not from what I've witness umpires give a free kick. Is it in the rule book or is it one of those made up 360 deg. tackle thing the media/umpire seems to go with?

 

[jdz101]

Our set routine from the opposition kick-in seems to require some tweaks aswell...too many times norf just made one 2-on-1 situation with a handpass in the pocket and were able to run the ball all the way to the 50 and kick it onto the wing. We used to be able to lock teams in and get repeat stoppages on the 50 meter line or just inside. Not a lot of that happening at the moment.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I've been thinking about Bev's irreducibility. And the team, the way we play. What makes this team special.
No one gave us a chance. Outsiders every final. All those injuries and deficiencies.

That's why they are still seeking to explain our success in lame and ignorant terms of free kicks, AFL conspiracies and #sobrave. They are unable to comprehend the irreducible complexity of what took place under Bevo's master plan.

 

[darthbards]

Does anyone think that North and Geelong tend to use very similar tactics against us?
It seems to me the twin coaches might discuss the opposition amongst each other. Not sure if this seems to happen with any other clubs or if anyone has noticed something in this regard with the Scotts.

 

[ivan rassmussen]

Does anyone think that North and Geelong tend to use very similar tactics against us?
It seems to me the twin coaches might discuss the opposition amongst each other. Not sure if this seems to happen with any other clubs or if anyone has noticed something in this regard with the Scotts.

I've noticed the Scott's are a pair of whinging turds when talking to the media, although to give credit to Bwad, he handled the chat with young Zane well post-match. Maybe he needs a young kid next to him at every post-match!

 

[Chicago1]

So us winning by 3 points has been the highlight of my weekend. The Cubs got swept by the Pirates. I've spent most of my weekend packing. I've ignored that it's Easter Sunday. At least the weather's been beautiful the past few days. Too bad I haven't left the house since Thursday.

I'm officially worried about my first match back against Richmond. Of all of the teams...

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Ziebell has been cleared.

What a bloody joke.

So what happened to the AFL's dialogue that "if you choose to bump when you have an alternative, you suffer the consequences of your action"?

That late, illegal hits to unprotected players to the severity that can break ribs are now an acceptable part of the game?

If the shoe was on the other foot North fans would be calling for blood. Ridiculous.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

The correct call for mine.

I'm more concerned by how LeCras can get away with a fine.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The issue for me is what that, going by the MRP points system, there didn't seem to be some sort of middle ground.

Either the bump was considered a fair part of the game and it was fully cleared. Or the bump was considered at least intentional (no "careless" about choosing to bump) and of course the force of impact was either high or severe. In other words, the MRP only had the choice of giving him at least a 2 game suspension, or completely overlooking the suspension. There was really no middle ground in giving him a reprimand or 1 game suspension according to the MRP system.

Which is kind of ridiculous, because whilst I agree it never should be at least a 2 game suspension, you can't go around bumping players late and unprotected with such force that it breaks ribs, and that shouldn't be given a stamp of endorsement by the MRP, and even a reprimand would give that message. But the MRP's hands were tied.

 

[compact72]

Only bit I didn't like that his eyes weren't on the ball and could of used a more affective way than a cheap sniper. What happened to smothering the ball?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Only bit I didn't like that his eyes weren't on the ball and could of used a more affective way than a cheap sniper. What happened to smothering the ball?

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

In today's game of rebounding, an errant kick that is intercepted is often more valuable than a ground-level scramble or stoppage caused by a smothered ball. Bumping the player off the kick is fair game and I don't think the bump was late enough to label it dirty.

 

[maddog37]

I just thought that if you jumped off the ground to bump you were in trouble with the mrp.

 

[Tulip]

I just thought that if you jumped off the ground to bump you were in trouble with the mrp.

Only if you make contact with the head.

 

[Fossie 32]

The issue for me is what that, going by the MRP points system, there didn't seem to be some sort of middle ground.

Either the bump was considered a fair part of the game and it was fully cleared. Or the bump was considered at least intentional (no "careless" about choosing to bump) and of course the force of impact was either high or severe. In other words, the MRP only had the choice of giving him at least a 2 game suspension, or completely overlooking the suspension. There was really no middle ground in giving him a reprimand or 1 game suspension according to the MRP system.

Which is kind of ridiculous, because whilst I agree it never should be at least a 2 game suspension, you can't go around bumping players late and unprotected with such force that it breaks ribs, and that shouldn't be given a stamp of endorsement by the MRP, and even a reprimand would give that message. But the MRP's hands were tied.

So they're saying it's ok to break a guy's ribs like that. What if it was a bit worse? Fractured sternum? Where do they draw the line, anywhere? This sucks.

 

[Mingo]

I'm fine with the Ziebell call. Don't want to see those getting weeks

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[ABitWoofy]

Ziebell has been cleared.

What a bloody joke.

So what happened to the AFL's dialogue that "if you choose to bump when you have an alternative, you suffer the consequences of your action"?

That late, illegal hits to unprotected players to the severity that can break ribs are now an acceptable part of the game?

If the shoe was on the other foot North fans would be calling for blood. Ridiculous.

Disagree. Correct decision made. The mistake was not getting a free down field/ 50m penalty.

 

[Dav1d]

I thought Zak Jones hit on Cloke was worse IMO
Jumped & went for Clokes head

The Ziebell hit should have at least been a downfield free though

 

[ABitWoofy]

So they're saying it's ok to break a guy's ribs like that. What if it was a bit worse? Fractured sternum? Where do they draw the line, anywhere? This sucks.

Contact with the head. Thought this was and always has been quite clear.