Oppo Camp Non-Essendon Thread X

[Lance Uppercut]

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.

was a pretty ****ing spectacular leap though... don't you think? I sure do. Had he taken it, and maybe got another half a foot of lift - it genuinely would have been better than Moorcroft's

 

[Runk]

was a pretty ******* spectacular leap though... don't you think? I sure do. Had he taken it, and maybe got another half a foot of lift - it genuinely would have been better than Moorcroft's

You've been BAMBOOZLED by the commentary team at 7. Your opinion longer matters. Go directly to noob and do not collect 'likes.'

 

[DapperDon]

was a pretty ******* spectacular leap though... don't you think? I sure do. Had he taken it, and maybe got another half a foot of lift - it genuinely would have been better than Moorcroft's

it should have been a free against, didn't even get a finger on it.

 

[BrunoV]

On the topic of 7's coverage, I really like Nigel Carmody.

He knows the game, unlike most others on their coverage, and doesn't get carried away with the usual 7 bullshit.

The Sunday afternoon coverage at the moment is good (and **** me dead Hamish McLaughlan is even more unbearable than usual on In Rio Today - there is nothing genuine about him).

 

[Beerfish]

I think pretty much all the people they've brought in to cover the usual idiots have done a great job and been a real fresh breath of air.

 

[Pweter]

Commentating the footy being better than in jokes and banter between egotistical ex-players - who would've thought?

 

[BrunoV]

Commentating the footy being better than in jokes and banter between egotistical ex-players - who would've thought?

Know what you're saying but he's better than just commenting on the footy.

Unlike Dwayne Russell, for example, who misses large chunks of the action banging on about irrelevant side stories (and never shutting up about us missing 12 players), Carmody imparts little bits of knowledge about players as part of his call without missing/ignoring the play.

 

[DapperDon]

Commentating the footy being better than in jokes and banter between egotistical ex-players - who would've thought?

Don't forget Hame's creepy knowledge of all players girlfriends and or wives, that for some creepy reason, he feels he needs to tell us every single match.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

it should have been a free against, didn't even get a finger on it.

see, I disagree. I don't think you need to actually touch it, it needs to be "reasonable", and for mine it was a realistic attempt, without doubt. The ball was right there, he only missed it by a whisker. And you don't want to take that kind of slightly speculative leap out of the game. Hell, they let you put your hands on their shoulders if you actually take it, so...

 

[DapperDon]

see, I disagree. I don't think you need to actually touch it, it needs to be "reasonable", and for mine it was a realistic attempt, without doubt. The ball was right there, he only missed it by a whisker. And you don't want to take that kind of slightly speculative leap out of the game. Hell, they let you put your hands on their shoulders if you actually take it, so...

I might be wrong (hey, I usually am) but don't the rules say if you don't get a touch it's unrealistic?

Not for a second do I want to take that away, if he took it it would be GOAT or very close to it, but for it to make top 10 plays of the week when it was even really a play just feeds the media Cyril lovefest hatred. Just like that other one he almost took where we had Bruce pleading for it to be a mark as "it just should have been".

I am all for big speccys, which is why I love Joey going up all the time, but they still need to be legit marks before I jump for joy and say "wow what a play"

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I might be wrong (hey, I usually am) but don't the rules say if you don't get a touch it's unrealistic?

Not for a second do I want to take that away, if he took it it would be GOAT or very close to it, but for it to make top 10 plays of the week when it was even really a play just feeds the media Cyril lovefest hatred. Just like that other one he almost took where we had Bruce pleading for it to be a mark as "it just should have been".

I am all for big speccys, which is why I love Joey going up all the time, but they still need to be legit marks before I jump for joy and say "wow what a play"

pretty sure there's no rules about touching it? Only that the umpire must deem it a realistic attempt.

Totally also hate the soggy Cyril game the commentators love to play

 

[Beerfish]

pretty sure there's no rules about touching it?

There's always rules about touching it Lance..

 

[Summer Nights]

see, I disagree. I don't think you need to actually touch it, it needs to be "reasonable", and for mine it was a realistic attempt, without doubt. The ball was right there, he only missed it by a whisker. And you don't want to take that kind of slightly speculative leap out of the game. Hell, they let you put your hands on their shoulders if you actually take it, so...

I agree with you.

There is actually a problem with the rules that I don't think many people know about. The ONLY type of prohibited contact allowable in a marking contest is a push in the back where the attempt to mark is legitimate. The laws of the game actually don't allow a player to make contact with another player's shoulder, neck or head under any circumstance, not even in a marking contest where the infringing player is genuinely attempting to mark the ball.

Under a strict literal interpretation, a speccie on the shoulders would be a free kick against. Just another example of the rules being written poorly.

We need the speccie in the game but the attempt certainly has to be genuine and realistic. Was Cyril's? Probably.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

As it happens I'm doing a survey for the AFL on potential rules changes right now. Most is the usual junk about zones or player numbers, but occasionally they throw in some next-level bullshit:

A power-play is where a team temporarily has a greater number of player’s on-field than their opponents. As an example, the first or last 5 minutes of a quarter may be specified as power-play periods for one of the teams.

Please indicate your level of support for the implementation of power-plays in AFL matches:

 

[BrunoV]

As it happens I'm doing a survey for the AFL on potential rules changes right now. Most is the usual junk about zones or player numbers, but occasionally they throw in some next-level bullshit:

Was there an option:

"I am sending anthrax in the mail"

 

[Mercurial89]

I might be wrong (hey, I usually am) but don't the rules say if you don't get a touch it's unrealistic?

Not for a second do I want to take that away, if he took it it would be GOAT or very close to it, but for it to make top 10 plays of the week when it was even really a play just feeds the media Cyril lovefest hatred. Just like that other one he almost took where we had Bruce pleading for it to be a mark as "it just should have been".

I am all for big speccys, which is why I love Joey going up all the time, but they still need to be legit marks before I jump for joy and say "wow what a play"

Yeah im with Lance I think Cyril's was realistic.

The ones I want to see paid are when someone goes early and takes the guy out of the play completely, doesn't lay a finger on the ball and allows the ball to go past. Cyril's was "in the contest"

I agree that its annoying that a "non mark" gets replayed a lot but in this case it was pretty spectacular.

 

[lamaros]

As it happens I'm doing a survey for the AFL on potential rules changes right now. Most is the usual junk about zones or player numbers, but occasionally they throw in some next-level bullshit:

I choose to believe they only put that question in so they can then completely ignore any other feedback from anyone who gives it any support.

 

[BrewSmackerVeiny]

As it happens I'm doing a survey for the AFL on potential rules changes right now. Most is the usual junk about zones or player numbers, but occasionally they throw in some next-level bullshit:

Good lord, I have the same survey. That's one of the stupidest proposals I've ever seen. I told them as much.

 

[Lord Nicholson]

Don't forget Hame's creepy knowledge of all players girlfriends and or wives, that for some creepy reason, he feels he needs to tell us every single match.

And babies. He and Basil Whasisface couldn't stop talking about babies.

Mind you, when it was Denis and Bruce they were talking about Downton Abbey, so...

 

[ezard15]

As it happens I'm doing a survey for the AFL on potential rules changes right now. Most is the usual junk about zones or player numbers, but occasionally they throw in some next-level bullshit:

FFS

 

[EnolaGay]

From: Sportsfan

Stray thoughts
- Joel Selwood only needs 10 more free kicks to crack the 600 mark for his career. To put that into perspective Selwood already holds the AFL record since the statistic was first recorded. Former Western Bulldogs midfielder Scott West is the next best with 584, although he played 324 games compared to Selwood's 224.

 

[Beerfish]

From: Sportsfan

Stray thoughts
- Joel Selwood only needs 10 more free kicks to crack the 600 mark for his career. To put that into perspective Selwood already holds the AFL record since the statistic was first recorded. Former Western Bulldogs midfielder Scott West is the next best with 584, although he played 324 games compared to Selwood's 224.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Don Won]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You mean

¯\_ _/¯
(ツ)

 

[EnolaGay]

I wonder if they'll have a banner for him for his 600th?

 

[Beerfish]

You mean

¯\_ _/¯
(ツ)

It was a shrug gag but yeah that is better.