General MFC discussion

[Topkent]

I think we have short memories sometimes. Oliver had 17 touches in his first game of footy before running out of steam and his skills are slick as in traffic! Give him a couple of pre-seasons and more confidence at AFL level and I can see something crossed between Pendlebury and a wrecking ball.

This wasn't ment to be about Oliver at all I already said that

 

[Proper Gander]

This wasn't ment to be about Oliver at all I already said that

I think saying no disrespect to Oliver was what sort of set this off. Though I can work out what you are saying.

I think in future its best if you qualify that in another dimension where Clayton Oliver doesn't exist and isn't available to be drafted... then you can mention any draftee you like that you wish we had picked. Only then I would probably start arguing about the Weed I guess.

 

[harry000]

I think saying no disrespect to Oliver was what sort of set this off. Though I can work out what you are saying.

I think in future its best if you qualify that in another dimension where Clayton Oliver doesn't exist and isn't available to be drafted... then you can mention any draftee you like that you wish we had picked. Only then I would probably start arguing about the Weed I guess.

**** Francis.. Hulett is da man

 

[schmuttt]

Round 23 finalized, we play Geelong at 1:45 on Saturday afternoon.

 

[LeverPuller]

Kicking in danger as well. It has just been stricken from the record even though it hasn't been stricken from the record.

Except for that one case a year where a Dee gets pinged
Happened v Collingwood Rd4 this year IIRC

 

[d33my]

Round 23 finalized, we play Geelong at 1:45 on Saturday afternoon.

That's fairly civilised actually.

Apart from the in Geelong part.

 

[Higgs Boson]

The problem isn't the umpires, it's the rules. Rules in any sport should be - so far as possible - clear and objective, so that the umpire knows what to look for and to penalise it accordingly. The deliberate rule is the exact opposite of what a rule should be: it rests purely on the umpire's ability to make a subjective interpretation about what the "intent" of the player is. With the Dom Tyson one, the only person in the world who could possibly know what Dom Tyson's intent was in that case is Dom Tyson. The mealy-mouthed equivocations that Hayden Kennedy gives us every week are nothing more than warmed-over rationalisations for rules that, regardless of the competency of the umpires, are literally impossible to adjudicate objectively. They're umpires, not ******* psychologists.

Holding the ball is another one. When a tackle is laid, and the umpire has to think about whether or not to pay holding the ball, think about the morass of horse shit the umpire is expected by the rules committee to wade through before making a decision. First he has to decide if the tackle was high, a decision which should be simple enough - namely, did the tackler's arm touch the guy's head or not? But no, it can't be that simple. If head-high contact was made because the tackle "slipped up" during the action of applying a tackle then apparently that's okay. The umpire also needs to decide if the guy being tackled "ducked", which involves tracking his knee movements at all times. Then, if the tackle is a legal one, the umpire needs to shift his hermeneutical finesse to the life circumstances of the guy with the ball. Firstly, did he have "prior opportunity"? That's a slippery concept that, so far as I'm aware, lacks any clear definition. Is it measured in steps, or seconds, or the number of neural signals that can take place between brain and hand? In any case, once he's made up his mind on this count, the umpire then has to jump back into his psychologist's armchair to decide if the player being tackled is making a "genuine attempt" to dispose of the ball or not. How are we to know that? Are we to read it on his face? If the ball does come free, the umpire then needs to adopt a evaluative stance vis a vis the player's execution of the basic skills of the game and decide if he "disposed of it correctly". This is objective enough when it comes to kicking, but deciding on the efficacy of a putative handball when there are ten pairs of hands around it is surely little better than guesswork. And, naturally, all of the preceding may or may not be moot if the player being tackled had "dragged the ball in" previously. So that's what, seven or eight factors the umpire needs to process in the space of a split second every time he adjudicates on the possibility of a "holding the ball" decision? Is it any wonder this throws up questionable decisions every week that drives us mad?

Here in the Czech Republic I occasionally play Aussie Rules with a team largely made up of Czech players. Many of them have been playing for many years, and still aren't able to grasp the basics of the rules. Every time we play in a tournament with teams from Germany or Austria, there are dozens of points in every game where a team concedes a free kick because the players genuinely aren't sure what they can and can't do from moment to moment, and because nobody (including the umpire) is capable of coherently explaining it to them. And if playing the game involves first mastering the nonsensical psychobabble I mentioned above, then what chance does the average Central European have? It's a shame, because they really love the game, but then when I try to explain the holding the ball rule using all the requisite jargon like "prior opportunity", their eyes glaze over and I ask myself, why does it have to be this way? I mean even something simple like, "the other team has taken a mark - where can I stand"? I'm not even sure if I know what the rules are here myself. Don't step past the point where the mark was taken seems like a good place to start, but then it's difficult explaining why sometimes the umpires give them a chance to step back and sometimes don't. You're not allowed to be within 10 metres of the guy with the mark, and you're certainly not allowed to touch him, but that rule seems to be flexible if you're chasing your opponent round. Even the simplest things are needlessly over-officiated. There is absolutely no reason for this, and all it's going to do is prevent the expansion of the game outside of the AFL's little bubble. AFL must be the only sport in the world which requires a 10 minute program every week to explain the rules of the game to people who have been watching it for decades.

My solution? Thanks for asking. First, fire the rules committee into the sun. Overseeing the rules of a sport should not be a paid, full-time position. Then, give the responsibility for writing the rules to a body independent from the AFL business unit. This would serve to protect the integrity of the rules, and will prevent the AFL from fiddling with the rules, adding a new layer of Byzantine opacity, every time they feel the need to artificially engineer a more appealing spectacle. Finally, simplify the rules to make them as clear and objective as possible. Make it so that they can be explained to a German guy in five minutes. Exile anyone who talks of "interpretations".

Quality melt

 

[Sando22]

That's fairly civilised actually.

Apart from the in Geelong part.

We love it down there

 

[Deemanding]

Just another random observation...as far as I can recall, we've led at some stage in every match we've played this year. Even if it's literally been for a few minutes in the 1st quarter (i.e. Bulldogs and Swans games).

Probably haven't done that through an entire regular season since 2000?

(now that I've mentioned it, watch us get completely blown out of the water by Hawthorn or Geelong...)

Compare that to several games towards the end of last year where we conceded 8 goals+ before kicking our first.

 

[Djcjdees]

Just another random observation...as far as I can recall, we've led at some stage in every match we've played this year. Even if it's literally been for a few minutes in the 1st quarter (i.e. Bulldogs and Swans games).

Probably haven't done that through an entire regular season since 2000?

(now that I've mentioned it, watch us get completely blown out of the water by Hawthorn or Geelong...)

Compare that to several games towards the end of last year where we conceded 8 goals+ before kicking our first.

Yeah and without the stats to back this up, it seems like we've reversed our patterns in games. We seemed to used to barely be able to score in the first quarter. Now it seems like we have no problem in having 8 or 9 scoring shots straight out of the blocks. Problem is now it's the last quarter where we are struggling. Where we used to sorta put in a spirited 10 or 15 minute burst towards the end of the game to save the media getting on our backs for the next week (when we weren't getting utterly bashed all the time).

Conventional wisdom says this is all explained away by being an overwhelmingly young side, but I'm pretty sure we've all heard that before.

Thing is though, I've actually 'enjoyed' in a strange way our losses this year more than last year. I've enjoyed it because they hurt more. They hurt more because we've had our chances in almost every game this year. We are scoring pretty well and playing attractive footy when it comes off. You can actually see a plan in action and it has worked, albeit mostly against teams below us on the ladder, but as I said, weren't without our chances against North away, Hawks, radelaide, Saints on both occasions, West Coast and of course Essendon. Our spot on the ladder is round about where we should be I think. Obviously the essendon game was a horror result but give or take a spot or 2, we are about par. Turn that game and the West coast and north games around next year and we're on the fringes of the 8.

Enjoying losses because the hurt more. If that's not MSDS, I don't know what is.

 

[MUYB]

Our getting the score back a bit late in a game already over was mostly because a team that knows it has the win will apply less pressure in junk time.

 

[Quogorne]

Yeah and without the stats to back this up, it seems like we've reversed our patterns in games. We seemed to used to barely be able to score in the first quarter. Now it seems like we have no problem in having 8 or 9 scoring shots straight out of the blocks. Problem is now it's the last quarter where we are struggling. Where we used to sorta put in a spirited 10 or 15 minute burst towards the end of the game to save the media getting on our backs for the next week (when we weren't getting utterly bashed all the time).

Conventional wisdom says this is all explained away by being an overwhelmingly young side, but I'm pretty sure we've all heard that before.

Thing is though, I've actually 'enjoyed' in a strange way our losses this year more than last year. I've enjoyed it because they hurt more. They hurt more because we've had our chances in almost every game this year. We are scoring pretty well and playing attractive footy when it comes off. You can actually see a plan in action and it has worked, albeit mostly against teams below us on the ladder, but as I said, weren't without our chances against North away, Hawks, radelaide, Saints on both occasions, West Coast and of course Essendon. Our spot on the ladder is round about where we should be I think. Obviously the essendon game was a horror result but give or take a spot or 2, we are about par. Turn that game and the West coast and north games around next year and we're on the fringes of the 8.

Enjoying losses because the hurt more. If that's not MSDS, I don't know what is.

I'm pretty sure when Roos took over one of his aims was to fix our percentage.

At the time we were maybe in the 50's or low 60's. Each year it has gradually gone up. This year made a huge jump. Could be the Goodwin influence, could be players confidence in the game plan and each other.

I'm disappointed we have lost some of these close games. It hurts. But I'll take that over being happy that we didn't get smashed.

 

[LeverPuller]

I'm pretty sure when Roos took over one of his aims was to fix our percentage.

At the time we were maybe in the 50's or low 60's. Each year it has gradually gone up. This year made a huge jump. Could be the Goodwin influence, could be players confidence in the game plan and each other.

I'm disappointed we have lost some of these close games. It hurts. But I'll take that over being happy that we didn't get smashed.

Welcome to BF Quogorne
And I agree...the club was one of the top-10 worst ever at the end of 2013. We've improved a lot and we should continue to.

 

[rhaz]

1 more win than last year and our percentage remains above 100.

Tough run home but another win or two would be good.

 

[wowlace]

Heard that Sydney has offered Tmac a sizeable offer on a long term deal. In the region of 5m over 7yrs. Sydney must be doing ok financially to offer that to Tmac who is serviceable at best.

 

[MUYB]

At that price they can have him

 

[Crusty Demon]

Heard that Sydney has offered Tmac a sizeable offer on a long term deal. In the region of 5m over 7yrs. Sydney must be doing ok financially to offer that to Tmac who is serviceable at best.

See ya later TMac. No way would we or should we go close to matching that.

OUT - TMac
IN - Hurley (please)

 

[CWaffles]

Yep, dont need him at those figures.

 

[Tempy Tiger]

Dawes needs to be shot with a silver bullet, or have a wooden stake stabbed into his heart. He keeps rising from the dead. Actually he may need to be burnt as he moves eerily like a white walker.

 

[schmuttt]

Heard that Sydney has offered Tmac a sizeable offer on a long term deal. In the region of 5m over 7yrs. Sydney must be doing ok financially to offer that to Tmac who is serviceable at best.

700K+ a year, what the ****...

 

[PerfectFooty]

How does Sydney possibly have that money?

 

[Djcjdees]

How does Sydney possibly have that money?

Indeed. How do they go even close to that?

 

[Topkent]

Tmac did his best to cost us the game on the weekend, Letting Lynch get the ball in behind and stroll to an open 50 was diabolical

 

[rhaz]

Don't get too caught up from 1 post on Bigfooty... I'm not having a go at wowlace, but "I heard" isn't exactly concrete evidence that Sydney have offered him that much.

 

[schmuttt]

Tmac did his best to cost us the game on the weekend, Letting Lynch get the ball in behind and stroll to an open 50 was diabolical

Was far from his worst game but I know what you're saying. Mistakes like that and OMacs panic handball into the ground are the things that make me unsure if we could ever trust the McDonalds in a final.