Opinion Non-Crows AFL 10

[MatthewB]

Browsing through Reddit and came across a post that GWS and Sydney are strongly considered for granting a cost of living allowance.

Like Sydney don’t get a leg up at all…..

its for the coaching soft cap, not for the players salary cap

 

[MatthewB]

didnt see that coming at all

 

[Southerntakeover]

We're far too comfortable with the league changing how the game is officiated mid season.

 

[FullyBigKPro]

didnt see that coming at all

As soon as a few big Vic clubs started to also whinge and make noise about it, bang - it gets an 'interpretation change'.

When we got costed games and a finals chance last year with sh*t umpiring non-calls all we got was a pat on the head and a flimsy apology from Dill McDillface.

 

[FullyBigKPro]

Browsing through Reddit and came across a post that GWS and Sydney are strongly considered for granting a cost of living allowance.

Like Sydney don’t get a leg up at all…..

But.. But all the Sydney Influencer/Instagram girlfriends love it up there and absolutely will not consider moving from there??

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

We're far too comfortable with the league changing how the game is officiated mid season.

Remember when Kevin Bartlett and Eddie Maguire tried to make the rules of Australian Rules Football heritage listed or something, so that they couldn't be changed?

 

[MarcusP2]

Remember when Kevin Bartlett and Eddie Maguire tried to make the rules of Australian Rules Football heritage listed or something, so that they couldn't be changed?

They don't change the actual rules. They just change 'interpretations' on a whim.

This is a back to the future thing, it used to be if you went 360 without handballing you'd be pinged. Now you could do 720 double backflip before you need to get the ball away.

 

[jackster83]

But.. But all the Sydney Influencer/Instagram girlfriends love it up there and absolutely will not consider moving from there??

Cost of dermal filler allowance.

 

[Scorpus]

Had to laugh that the very first example they showed of what should now be holding the ball involved none other than Lachlan Sholl

 

[Mostyn]

The "no one wants to live in Adelaide" theory comes crashing down when you look at how Port has been able to retain quality players and trade in quality non-SA born players.

Part of our problem is our conservative culture and part of is our horrendous facilities.

The complete opposite is true.

Port has retained some top level Vic players (Boak) in the same way we have (Sloane). But most clubs retain the players they want to retain, that doesn't mean much.

But neither of us have been able to attract decent non-SA players.

Dixon was from Cairns, so that was a smart player to target, as was Ryder who needed physical distance from a crime scene. They're okay selections.

But the rest have been from the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Punchy Bassett]

Had to laugh that the very first example they showed of what should now be holding the ball involved none other than Lachlan Sholl

Lol every single example involved a non Victorian club

 

[Scorpus]

The complete opposite is true.

Port has retained some top level Vic players (Boak) in the same way we have (Sloane). But most clubs retain the players they want to retain, that doesn't mean much.

But neither of us have been able to attract decent non-SA players.

Dixon was from Cairns, so that was a smart player to target, as was Ryder who needed physical distance from a crime scene. They're okay selections.

But the rest have been from the bottom of the barrel.

Aliir was a pretty good pickup and he was from Queensland/WA/Kenya

 

[FR0GGY]

Had to laugh that the very first example they showed of what should now be holding the ball involved none other than Lachlan Sholl

I laughed more in the fact that at the point they said it should be now holding the ball is what I would have expected already.

 

[DJ75]

Had to laugh that the very first example they showed of what should now be holding the ball involved none other than Lachlan Sholl

This might be the worst 'clarification' I've seen.

1. Sholl is tackled as soon as he collects the ball. At what point does he have an opportunity to dispose of the ball? Prior opportunity no longer required? Meanwhile the vision says this will 'now' be called holding the ball - only we can see in the footage that the umpire did (I would say incorrectly) call holding the ball, even though Sholl actually DID correctly dispose of the ball.

2. Lachie Neale tackled as he took possession (before even). Had zero prior opportunity. When was his chance to dispose of the ball? Umpire also already paid this holding the ball (incorrectly). So actually no change in the rules?

3. Chesser could have been paid holding the ball. Whilst he was immediately tackled, he made no attempt to dispose of the ball. This should be called if we are no longer requiring prior opportunity.

4. Rowell is tackled, taken to ground and then throws the ball. Play on is called. That is not a legitimate handball - otherwise known as the Cripps.

5. Hayward immediately tackled, disposes of the ball by a handball. Play on. Yeh no shit. How is that a useful example?

Meanwhile, are the VFL just saying that these rules will only apply for non-Victorian teams. Couldn't find a single example of a Victorian player being caught with the ball?

I genuinely think the AFL is the worst organisation in Australia. Utter incompetence and corruption.

 

[Mostyn]

Aliir was a pretty good pickup and he was from Queensland/WA/Kenya

Aliir was dropped twice in 2020 by the Swans, and with a year left on his contract they seemed pretty okay with him leaving.

 

[DJ75]

I laughed more in the fact that at the point they said it should be now holding the ball is what I would have expected already.

And in the footage you can clearly see the umpire DOES pay holding the ball.

 

[Scorpus]

This might be the worst 'clarification' I've seen.

1. Sholl is tackled as soon as he collects the ball. At what point does he have an opportunity to dispose of the ball? Prior opportunity no longer required? Meanwhile the vision says this will 'now' be called holding the ball - only we can see in the footage that the umpire did (I would say incorrectly) call holding the ball, even though Sholl actually DID correctly dispose of the ball.

2. Lachie Neale tackled as he took possession (before even). Had zero prior opportunity. When was his chance to dispose of the ball? Umpire also already paid this holding the ball (incorrectly). So actually no change in the rules?

3. Chesser could have been paid holding the ball. Whilst he was immediately tackled, he made no attempt to dispose of the ball. This should be called if we are no longer requiring prior opportunity.

4. Rowell is tackled, taken to ground and then throws the ball. Play on is called. That is not a legitimate handball - otherwise known as the Cripps.

5. Hayward immediately tackled, disposes of the ball by a handball. Play on. Yeh no shit. How is that a useful example?

Meanwhile, are the VFL just saying that these rules will only apply for non-Victorian teams. Couldn't find a single example of a Victorian player being caught with the ball?

I genuinely think the AFL is the worst organisation in Australia. Utter incompetence and corruption.

Sholl has both hands free and chooses not to handball. It's clearly holding the ball

In the Neale one he has one hand free so that's also clearly holding the ball because he elects not to kick

But yeah it's stupid to point out decisions that were already being paid

 

[Velvet George]

didnt see that coming at all

Finally a good decision and they didn’t just implement the change without warning, now watch us cop a shafting

 

[Twist_of_Lemon]

Cost of dermal filler allowance.

Cost of buccal fat removal allowance.

 

[bigman]

Is it just me but is there a different set of rules for the Carlton Captain "Cripper". He constantly throws the ball but never gets called. He only has to get touched and a free is given and he hardly ever gets caught holding the ball even though he seems to hang onto the aggat for an eternity. It has been been driving me crazy this year and last season in particular. Mind you Ill give him a leave pass Thursday night.

 

[DJ75]

Sholl has both hands free and chooses not to handball. It's clearly holding the ball

In the Neale one he has one hand free so that's also clearly holding the ball because he elects not to kick

But yeah it's stupid to point out decisions that were already being paid

The Sholl one there is a split second where he has his arms free (his arm is held, then free, then held again), but as soon as he moves them to handball, one is pinned. He moves then to kick. Not sure what else he can do.

No Chance Neale can dispose of that ball. Ridiculous decision.

 

[DJ75]

Is it just me but is there a different set of rules for the Carlton Captain "Cripper". He constantly throws the ball but never gets called. He only has to get touched and a free is given and he hardly ever gets caught holding the ball even though he seems to hang onto the aggat for an eternity. It has been been driving me crazy this year and last season in particular. Mind you Ill give him a leave pass Thursday night.

Cripps is the golden child. Untouchable. He genuinely throws the ball everytime he is tackled. Never a proper handball.
JHF and Reid are heading the same direction - apparently you can try and barge through every tackle and that's ok.

 

[MarcusP2]

Had to laugh that the very first example they showed of what should now be holding the ball involved none other than Lachlan Sholl

Sholl has both hands free and chooses not to handball. It's clearly holding the ball

In the Neale one he has one hand free so that's also clearly holding the ball because he elects not to kick

But yeah it's stupid to point out decisions that were already being paid

Maybe pointing out that these are good decisions?

However they should have put Curnows on to see when they should have called HTB because that's actually the controversy.

 

[MarcusP2]

The Sholl one there is a split second where he has his arms free (his arm is held, then free, then held again), but as soon as he moves them to handball, one is pinned. He moves then to kick. Not sure what else he can do.

No Chance Neale can dispose of that ball. Ridiculous decision.

Neale doesn't have to dispose of it legally, he had to ATTEMPT to. Just holds the ball expecting a ball up. By the rule he should have tried to kick it as a minimum.

 

[Scorpus]

The Sholl one there is a split second where he has his arms free (his arm is held, then free, then held again), but as soon as he moves them to handball, one is pinned. He moves then to kick. Not sure what else he can do.

No Chance Neale can dispose of that ball. Ridiculous decision.

Pinning one arm to prevent a handball but still allowing a kick, then either preventing the kick or forcing a drop/illegal disposal, is a textbook tackle and should be holding the ball every single time