Review Cats defeat demons by 28 points

[JohnZ]

if I remember rightly you guys played Sydney, we sort of had the wood on Sidders that year in general, I reckon we could have gone on and beaten Sydney, who knows from there. but weren't good enough the game a week or so earlier,

It's funny that year. You had the wood on the Swans, we had the wood on the Doggies. Reckon we might've matched up in the GF if smith kicks that goal.

 

[year of the cat]

I know he isn't an ideal match up but unfortunately we aint stacked for tall defenders and IMO we get more out blitz in the middle than we do in defence. Our only two tall full time defenders are SDK and Kolo, and I think that Kolo's ten extra Kg's on SDK are gonna be just as handy as some height in a contested situation. playing into space on a lead, I agree Mckay would murder Kolo.

I’d be starting DeKoning on him and hoping his athleticism would allow him to play off him a little allowing him to avoid a 1 on 1 wrestle. Henry takes Curnow. It will require a bit of team defence though. Stewart not being available will possibly hurt us more against Carl than it did against the Demons.

 

[Pollywaffle]

Gary Rohan did that too to a couple of Melbourne players on Thursday night. I’d prefer if all of those were frees to the player who had his legs taken out.

Yep. I was surprised he didn’t get the whistle for a couple of those.
I think the umps seem more lenient on that stuff if it is an attempted smother rather than just an attack on a 50/50 ball?

 

[Cataholic]

Gary Rohan did that too to a couple of Melbourne players on Thursday night. I’d prefer if all of those were frees to the player who had his legs taken out.

If they punish those incidents you penalise a player's genuine intent and desperation for the ball.

To me the contact to the legs by Rohan was purely accidental.

For mine you just punish the moments a player goes for the player and takes the legs .......the intent is reasonably obvious when it happens I reckon.

Imo.

 

[cats_09]

If they punish those incidents you penalise a player's genuine intent and desperation for the ball.

To me the contact to the legs by Rohan was purely accidental.

For mine you just punish the moments a player goes for the player and takes the legs .......the intent is reasonably obvious when it happens I reckon.

Imo.

Such as a few weeks back when the player took out SDKs legs and the only intent was to take out SDK - there was no genuine play on the ball

 

[Cataholic]

Such as a few weeks back when the player took out SDKs legs and the only intent was to take out SDK - there was no genuine play on the ball

Yep, the intent is pretty clear on nearly every occasion it happens I reckon.

 

[00VicWard001]

If they punish those incidents you penalise a player's genuine intent and desperation for the ball.

To me the contact to the legs by Rohan was purely accidental.

For mine you just punish the moments a player goes for the player and takes the legs .......the intent is reasonably obvious when it happens I reckon.

Imo.

It’s fine line - but I’d hate to see a player truly hurt.it’s like a bump where someone’s head gets hit. The intention isn’t to concuss him - but if it happens - it’s a suspension.

 

[Cataholic]

It’s fine line - but I’d hate to see a player truly hurt.it’s like a bump where someone’s head gets hit. The intention isn’t to concuss him - but if it happens - it’s a suspension.

I understand what you're saying, and I concur - if a player deliberately takes the legs out then it should be a suspension because it's malicious.

But it IS a contact sport that sees a lot of play at ground level, and the purpose of the game is to get possession of the ball. That will inevitably see accidental contact to someone's legs from time to time as desperation and timing don't quite mesh. It's an inherent risk.

We're already seeing players being encouraged to concede possession and wait for a player to straighten up with the ball before tackling or initiating contact.

I really don't want to see players take a short step and halt their attack on a ground ball for fear of being pinged for contact to the legs. They start applying automatic free kicks, or suspensions for that incidental contact, and we'll see players mill around it, rather than getting it, like a mob of curious cows.

 

[Gunf]

I understand what you're saying, and I concur - if a player deliberately takes the legs out then it should be a suspension because it's malicious.

But it IS a contact sport that sees a lot of play at ground level, and the purpose of the game is to get possession of the ball. That will inevitably see accidental contact to someone's legs from time to time as desperation and timing don't quite mesh. It's an inherent risk.

We're already seeing players being encouraged to concede possession and wait for a player to straighten up with the ball before tackling or initiating contact.

I really don't want to see players take a short step and halt their attack on a ground ball for fear of being pinged for contact to the legs. They start applying automatic free kicks, or suspensions for that incidental contact, and we'll see players mill around it, rather than getting it, like a mob of curious cows.

If they start giving free kicks for smothers that take the legs it wont be long before they do it for marks that concuss players as well and * me that would be horrible.

 

[Cataholic]

If they start giving free kicks for smothers that take the legs it wont be long before they do it for marks that concuss players as well and * me that would be horrible.

Pandora's Box

 

[Play it Sam]

Pandora's Box

That's cricket.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

It never ceases to amaze me listening to the footy media as they slowly talk themselves out of rating this win against Melbourne. Immediately after the game, they're all on board Geelong. Then over several days, they slowly talk themselves out of that position and find reasons to diminish the victory to nothing more than an aberration. Especially as the Geelong haters in the media get to work with changing the narrative.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

It never ceases to amaze me listening to the footy media as they slowly talk themselves out of rating this win against Melbourne. Immediately after the game, they're all on board Geelong. Then over several days, they slowly talk themselves out of that position and find reasons to diminish the victory to nothing more than an aberration. Especially as the Geelong haters in the media get to work with changing the narrative.

Depends who you listen to. Montagna is on record as saying that if we played Melbourne in a GF next week at the MCG we'd still win.

 

[00VicWard001]

I understand what you're saying, and I concur - if a player deliberately takes the legs out then it should be a suspension because it's malicious.

But it IS a contact sport that sees a lot of play at ground level, and the purpose of the game is to get possession of the ball. That will inevitably see accidental contact to someone's legs from time to time as desperation and timing don't quite mesh. It's an inherent risk.

We're already seeing players being encouraged to concede possession and wait for a player to straighten up with the ball before tackling or initiating contact.

I really don't want to see players take a short step and halt their attack on a ground ball for fear of being pinged for contact to the legs. They start applying automatic free kicks, or suspensions for that incidental contact, and we'll see players mill around it, rather than getting it, like a mob of curious cows.

I agree with everything you’re saying. I guess that’s why we have so much contention over free kicks within game or suspension outside of games. Unless it’s a pure punch or obvious attempt to hurt someone - it’s so grey and everyone has a view and opposing view.’

 

[iameviljez]

If they punish those incidents you penalise a player's genuine intent and desperation for the ball.

To me the contact to the legs by Rohan was purely accidental.

For mine you just punish the moments a player goes for the player and takes the legs .......the intent is reasonably obvious when it happens I reckon.

Imo.

Gary Rohan should have lifelong immunity from that rule...

But in all seriousness, it's a silly rule, in so far as that it does not alter player behaviour in the slightest.

 

[Cataholic]

I agree with everything you’re saying. I guess that’s why we have so much contention over free kicks within game or suspension outside of games. Unless it’s a pure punch or obvious attempt to hurt someone - it’s so grey and everyone has a view and opposing view.’

Yep, and that's part of what keeps the game alive within fans and their discussions at the pub, bbq's etc

 

[Cataholic]

Gary Rohan should have lifelong immunity from that rule...

But in all seriousness, it's a silly rule, in so far as that it does not alter player behaviour in the slightest.

I believe that a deliberate taking of the legs is, thankfully, a rare occurrence in our game, but in the event it does, the ump needs the authority to sanction it imo.

 

[iameviljez]

I believe that a deliberate taking of the legs is, thankfully, a rare occurrence in our game, but in the event it does, the ump needs the authority to sanction it imo.

I don't think it generally happens with ill intent when the ball is on the ground, like what happened to Rohan. That was just going in hard for a ground footy. Tunnelling when a player is in the air, that happens.

 

[Finknottle]

Depends who you listen to. Montagna is on record as saying that if we played Melbourne in a GF next week at the MCG we'd still win.

And on Footy Classified both Matthew Lloyd and Grant Thomas picked Geelong to beat Melbourne. Thomas has been on the Geelong bandwagon all year.

 

[STPer18]

Coaches votes:
8 Cameron Guthrie (GEEL)
8 Mitch Duncan (GEEL)
8 Patrick Dangerfield (GEEL)
2 Christian Petracca (MELB)
2 Tom Atkins (GEEL)
1 Clayton Oliver (MELB)
1 Mark Blicavs (GEEL)

 

[cats_09]

I don't think it generally happens with ill intent when the ball is on the ground, like what happened to Rohan. That was just going in hard for a ground footy. Tunnelling when a player is in the air, that happens.

This looked pretty deliberate from Weightman

 

[iameviljez]

This looked pretty deliberate from Weightman

View attachment 1444408

Looks to me like Weightman went in lower, and got there first. Under the rules of the game, yes, free kick every day of the week - but IMO it shouldn't be.

 

[cats_09]

Looks to me like Weightman went in lower, and got there first. Under the rules of the game, yes, free kick every day of the week - but IMO it shouldn't be.

Except it's the exact opposite of how you described it

SDK was there first, Weightman arrived late and while he did go lower, all he did was take out Sam's legs and thankfully for all involved there was no serious injury - at the time there was calls for Weightman to be suspended, such was how many deemed the actions by Weightman to be dangerous & what we don't want to see in the game

There were some comparing it to the Rohan/Taylor incident

 

[standupand]

Coaches votes:
8 Cameron Guthrie (GEEL)
8 Mitch Duncan (GEEL)
8 Patrick Dangerfield (GEEL)
2 Christian Petracca (MELB)
2 Tom Atkins (GEEL)
1 Clayton Oliver (MELB)
1 Mark Blicavs (GEEL)

I guess the midfielders must have really got on top, for both teams...?

 

[Footy Smarts]

Coaches votes:
8 Cameron Guthrie (GEEL)
8 Mitch Duncan (GEEL)
8 Patrick Dangerfield (GEEL)
2 Christian Petracca (MELB)
2 Tom Atkins (GEEL)
1 Clayton Oliver (MELB)
1 Mark Blicavs (GEEL)

Guthrie incredibly stiff. Duncan and Danger were both very good but their ball use wasn't great. Guthrie was dominant and kicked 2 great goals including the key goal of the match. I actually thought it was one of the more dominant performances I've seen.