Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Thread X

[raskolnikov]

there's some salty salty tears over at the richmond board

I love how they're blaming the umpires. No amount of biased umpiring could have caused that capitulation.

 

[ezard15]

lol there are so many enjoyable comments to read on the richmond board but this one takes the cake "We're never going to change are we, biggest joke in the AFL "

ROFL

 

[ezard15]

I love how they're blaming the umpires. No amount of biased umpiring could have caused that capitulation.

They were going on about how good they are and how dangerfield chose the wrong club etc at three quarter time. Some dude going on about how shite the cats are and sucked in you hand baggers. then as you read on they start turning on Dimma, each other and saying things like "we are going to choke again" to also blaming the umpires and the AFL. LOL Priceless

 

[eth-dog]

Bad umpiring got them within a goal

 

[gillon]

I'll be interesting in seeing how well Melbourne do next year. They have high expectations and if they fail to deliver Goodwin could take a lot of the blame.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Rory Atkins

Weren't Essendon linked to taking him in the draft?

 

[Drummer_19]

Adelaide are masterful at taking dumps on shit teams. I'm not sure how good they'll be tho in finals when teams wont let them cheat out the back as much.

 

[Seagrave_Holmes]

Dale Thomas, does he even lift?

 

[eth-dog]

Adelaide are masterful at taking dumps on shit teams. I'm not sure how good they'll be tho in finals when teams wont let them cheat out the back as much.

Nail. Head Hit.

 

[Eleven 38]

excellent, better head on over there and read them.

I have a few richmond mates that have made some really annoying comments over the last few years so I've had two great wins today.

I really am a very petty, slightly vindictive person, but I also have my flaws

My Richmond mate said last night "I hate 17 AFL clubs, sometimes I hate 18" I think today would be one of those days he hates 18.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Adelaide are masterful at taking dumps on shit teams. I'm not sure how good they'll be tho in finals when teams wont let them cheat out the back as much.

Lucky there is no offside rule in the AFL just like the soccer.

 

[Alfred E Neuman]

Still catching up on these results. Wow. Richmond must've really shat the bed in the fourth.

 

[Zach Package]

Probably not a bad result for Richmond.

They win that game and the go back into 'nothing to see here' mode and nothing changes.

Markov looks a real find too

 

[Mercurial89]

He also ticked off a deliberate out of bounds paid against Bulldog Lin Jong in the dying minutes of the Dogs' three-point win over Collingwood on Friday night.

"You can see Dean takes a few seconds to weigh his options up and then decides there's less (benefit of the) doubt given to the players this year.

"I understand Luke's point, (but) these are hard decisions that need to be made in the pressure of the game.

"Some of these decisions aren't clear cut – not 100 per cent right or zero percent wrong."

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-15/umpires-admit-error-on-deliberate-rushed-behind-call

Wait...Shouldn't we be aiming for a game where a decision is either be right or wrong? Isn't this the whole problem we have in the AFL that we have "interpretation" where one week it is paid and one week it is not?
The idea that they are accepting of this and using it as some kind of justification....

That deliberate was a horrendous decision and it could have cost the Dogs the match. Everyone at the ground knew it was Jong's intention to tap it to the player that was streaming past. Everyone except the umpire of course.

Im glad they have cleared up their stance on Connors soccer behind. His was a mistake to not be called and Gleeson's was the correct call. At least that is something.

 

[quotemokc]

"Kennedy was "comfortable" with a similar incident minutes later involving Bomber Marty Gleeson because the rushed behind was "much closer to the goalline.""

Does the rule actually say anything about distance to the goal or only pressure? As far as I am concerned, if you are under pressure you should be allowed to rush the ball from 50 (not that you would)

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Does the rule actually say anything about distance to the goal or only pressure?

Neither.

The defender merely gets "the benefit of the doubt" as to whether it was deliberate, which wouldn't justify even a fraction of the rushed behinds permitted every week.

 

[Mercurial89]

"Kennedy was "comfortable" with a similar incident minutes later involving Bomber Marty Gleeson because the rushed behind was "much closer to the goalline.""

Does the rule actually say anything about distance to the goal or only pressure? As far as I am concerned, if you are under pressure you should be allowed to rush the ball from 50 (not that you would)

Neither.

Yeah im pretty sure it came out that Pressure isn't even mentioned. I think that came from the umpiring DVD they send to the clubs at the start of the year, so in true AFL fashion they keep the rule vague and then add interpretation and provisos on top.

I totally understand the McKenna one, I think under what we have seen this year that should have been paid deliberate. The Gleeson one though I think was umpired correctly even though its a horrible look.

The funny one about McKenna is im still not sure he really wanted to rush it, im pretty sure he wanted to kick it up to himself and then turn and run and just stuffed it up.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

excellent, better head on over there and read them.

I have a few richmond mates that have made some really annoying comments over the last few years so I've had two great wins today.

I really am a very petty, slightly vindictive person, but I also have my flaws

Cop it from my Richmond mates for years.

Going to be fun watching us shoot passed them up the ladder next year.

 

[ezard15]

Cop it from my Richmond mates for years.

Going to be fun watching us shoot passed them up the ladder next year.

I was thinking the exact same thing today. They will go on about how unfair it is and that we have benefited from cheating etc ROFL.

 

[ezard15]

My Richmond mate said last night "I hate 17 AFL clubs, sometimes I hate 18" I think today would be one of those days he hates 18.

They really are a hateful bunch, richmond supporters.

 

[yaco55]

Think a free for deliberately rushing the ball over the goal line, should be paid,from where the offence took place, rather than from the goal line.

 

[Pweter]

Think a free for deliberately rushing the ball over the goal line should be paid, from where the offence took place, rather than from the goal line.

Since it's not paid a behind, that's 100% logical.

 

[Nomulus]

I am so sick of Cyril's NON marks making the AFL top 10 plays of the week. For ****'s sake, just because the commentator's soggy biscuit Cyril jumps high in the air, a dropped mark is not a bloody highlight.

 

[Summer Nights]

Since it's not paid a behind, that's 100% logical.

It's logical but from the goal line is more disincentive to rush them, which is a good thing IMO. The problem is consistency of applying a free kick.

 

[JDavey]

I am so sick of Cyril's NON marks making the AFL top 10 plays of the week. For ****'s sake, just because the commentator's soggy biscuit Cyril jumps high in the air, a dropped mark is not a bloody highlight.

But did you even look how high CYRIL RIOLI got?! Come on mate!