Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2021/2022

[Turkey Tom]

Too true. That miss took all the wind out of our sails.

Mooney has said that he was thinking about running through Hodge once he kicked the goal to start a half time brawl, and thus wasn't focused on kicking the goal.

I think that shows what the the attitude was that day. Just thought we had to turn up to win it. Anyway...bad memories.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

ex-saint Sam Fisher

Sam Fisher

Age

39

Ht

191cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.7

5star

K

11.7

4star

HB

7.0

4star

M

6.7

5star

T

2.0

4star

MG

220.2

3star

No current season stats available

D

18.8

5star

K

10.8

4star

HB

8.0

5star

M

6.2

5star

T

1.8

4star

is in jail on drug trafficking charges and faces a possible 25 years in jail. This is not some minor thing, he was allegedly smuggling drugs and money hidden in white goods across state borders as part of some syndicate according to the media.

 

[Catsace]

ex-saint Sam Fisher is in jail on drug trafficking charges and faces a possible 25 years in jail. This is not some minor thing, he was allegedly smuggling drugs and money hidden in white goods across state borders as part of some syndicate according to the media.

Usually the wet lettuce leaf of Victorian justice is nothing much to fear (unless you do 44 in a 40 zone, or say that you don't want to wear a mask when a pregnant Ballarat woman, or having the temerity to be delivering newspapers at 4am in East Geelong), but Jim Krakouer did get 10-11 years for a similar charge about 20-odd years ago. By Aussie drug charge standards that's about as high as anyone has ever gotten.

 

[And_ROOS]

Robbo trying to blame poor rule changes on "wokeness coming into the game" on footy360 last night is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

The people making these changes aren't people I would call "woke" its people who make changes, then have to make more changes year on year to offset the bad changes they bring in.

Really the best option is wind the rules back to about 2005, before they really ducked up with rule inclusions, and only add in the ones that worked. The ruck circle, the sliding in below the knees rule, the dump tackle, and adjust this dissent rule. If you put your arms out in frustration that should be ok. Its if you abuse the umpire or say shit to them.

 

[Vdubs]

This shows that there really is no other consistent team then Melbourne.

It’s theres to loose

and WCE

 

[Cataholic]

Robbo trying to blame poor rule changes on "wokeness coming into the game" on footy360 last night is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

The people making these changes aren't people I would call "woke" its people who make changes, then have to make more changes year on year to offset the bad changes they bring in.

Really the best option is wind the rules back to about 2005, before they really ducked up with rule inclusions, and only add in the ones that worked. The ruck circle, the sliding in below the knees rule, the dump tackle, and adjust this dissent rule. If you put your arms out in frustration that should be ok. Its if you abuse the umpire or say shit to them.

I want to qualify the following by saying I only briefly caught this comment as I channel surfed, but if I understood him correctly, his comment about wokeness referred to the seeming intent to eliminate, and knee jerk reaction to, physical contact.

He used some video clips to demonstrate the stupidity of umpires calling 'dangerous tackle' against tackles that clearly weren't.

He was imploring them to leave the rules alone, let it be the aussie contact sport it is, and explained that not everyone has the talent, physicality or courage to play it.

I reckon he has a fair point if my understanding - as above - is correct.

 

[Vdubs]

Had it not been for Mooney we would have won in 08...who's Melbourne's Mooney? Fritsch?

Neal - Bullen? Very good player, bit hot-headed?

 

[And_ROOS]

I want to qualify the following by saying I only briefly caught this comment as I channel surfed, but if I understood him correctly, his comment about wokeness referred to the seeming intent to eliminate, and knee jerk reaction to, physical contact.

He used some video clips to demonstrate the stupidity of umpires calling 'dangerous tackle' against tackles that clearly weren't.

He was imploring them to leave the rules alone, let it be the aussie contact sport it is, and explained that not everyone has the talent, physicality or courage to play it.

I reckon he has a fair point if my understanding - as above - is correct.

I agree but his use of the word wokeness was both stupid and cringe. A dissent rule to stop the bullshit happening at lower levels was the correct rule. And it should have EXPLICITLY been against verbal comments or hand signals like flipping the umpires off.

This isn't the usual terrible AFL rule. Its the right idea to curb an issue, implemented horribly.
Usually its a terrible rule born from a bad idea.

 

[Cataholic]

I agree but his use of the word wokeness was both stupid and cringe. A dissent rule to stop the bullshit happening at lower levels was the correct rule. And it should have EXPLICITLY been against verbal comments or hand signals like flipping the umpires off.

This isn't the usual terrible AFL rule. Its the right idea to curb an issue, implemented horribly.
Usually its a terrible rule born from a bad idea.

Trouble is, the umpires are running with the dissent rule to punish the slightest reaction, in a desire to do so because they can, not because they have to.

They've lost touch with the game, and its fans.

Their stupidly inconsistent interpretations of HTB, DOOB's, physical contact, dangerous tackles etc is a blight on the game and just as infuriating as the umps showboating 'dissent'.

Brad Scott has created the confusion and stupidity, but watch he and his AFL cohorts come out and say 'it's all good, nothing to see here'.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I want to qualify the following by saying I only briefly caught this comment as I channel surfed, but if I understood him correctly, his comment about wokeness referred to the seeming intent to eliminate, and knee jerk reaction to, physical contact.

He used some video clips to demonstrate the stupidity of umpires calling 'dangerous tackle' against tackles that clearly weren't.

He was imploring them to leave the rules alone, let it be the aussie contact sport it is, and explained that not everyone has the talent, physicality or courage to play it.

I reckon he has a fair point if my understanding - as above - is correct.

The word isn't "woke" though. It's not people demanding rights that make people uncomfortable that are asking for the changes.

On head high contact rules it's the lawyers, and on umpiring respect is the people trying to recruit for umpires at all levels of the game. Both of them putting forward changes for very practical reasons, though executed poorly.

 

[Cataholic]

The word isn't "woke" though. It's not people demanding rights that make people uncomfortable that are asking for the changes.

On head high contact rules it's the lawyers, and on umpiring respect is the people trying to recruit for umpires at all levels of the game. Both of them putting forward changes for very practical reasons, though executed poorly.

I'm agreeing with his sentiment, not his use of the term 'woke'.

From the bit I saw, he was essentially protesting, with some vehemence, that they're steadily destroying the heart and soul of the game.....and I strongly agree.

The umpiring on the weekend was a demonstration of pure incompetence, and a disconnect with the fans.

 

[Spearman]

Trouble is, the umpires are running with the dissent rule to punish the slightest reaction, in a desire to do so because they can, not because they have to.

They've lost touch with the game, and its fans.

Their stupidly inconsistent interpretations of HTB, DOOB's, physical contact, dangerous tackles etc is a blight on the game and just as infuriating as the umps showboating 'dissent'.

Brad Scott has created the confusion and stupidity, but watch he and his AFL cohorts come out and say 'it's all good, nothing to see here'.

Like the bolded very much

Disagree with others, some of the umps are paying it on a hair trigger. Others, we have seen, have not.
They are still trying to find some sort of balance and protocol in this new rule's FIRST SEASON. Give it time, it is a worthy cause.

 

[Cataholic]

Like the bolded very much

Disagree with others, some of the umps are paying it on a hair trigger. Others, we have seen, have not.
They are still trying to find some sort of balance and protocol in this new rule's FIRST SEASON. Give it time, it is a worthy cause.

They could find some balance by just employing some simple, commonsense.

All they have to do is discern the moment a perfectly normal overflow of emotion from a player becomes abusive.

There's a clear difference between the two.

I don't know if you watched the Hawthorn / Brisbane game, but that was as inept a display of umpiring as you would ever see. It was diabolical, and displayed a concerning lack of understanding around the most fundamental rules.

 

[Spearman]

They could find some balance by just employing some simple, commonsense.

All they have to do is discern the moment a perfectly normal overflow of emotion from a player becomes abusive.

There's a clear difference between the two.

I don't know if you watched the Hawthorn / Brisbane game, but that was as inept a display of umpiring as you would ever see. It was diabolical, and displayed a concerning lack of understanding around the most fundamental rules.

yeah, saw some of the hi(lo)lights. I admit its fairly petty, but that's what you with new rules; be overly to establish the new behaviors. We will continually get outraged by it. That one on the running too far was ridiculous. Eventually I think with so many umps on the field, the crew chief should be able to overrule some of those.
The sooner they can get subjectivity out of it the better.
Everyone wants just one thing: consistency. That's what AFL House should be working on.

 

[Partridge]

I agree but his use of the word wokeness was both stupid and cringe. A dissent rule to stop the bullshit happening at lower levels was the correct rule. And it should have EXPLICITLY been against verbal comments or hand signals like flipping the umpires off.

This isn't the usual terrible AFL rule. Its the right idea to curb an issue, implemented horribly.
Usually its a terrible rule born from a bad idea.

What bullshit happening at lower levels? Is there any actual evidence, or is just repeated ad nauseum until everyone believes it?

 

[Spearman]

its funny watching and listening to the bobble heads going off on the umping from last weekend. "Should be less black and white!" "Too much wokeness!" and so on. Next week it will be "There needs to more consistency!", "Too much subjectivity", "Protect the head at all costs!" etc.
This is a go at the populist reactionary media.
There were obviously some crap calls, really crap calls. But to call for it to be less black and white, right, there's a solution for success. Everyone will be in agreement on those calls. I hated those dangerous tackle calls, especially the rib tickler, gawd I loved that one. But again, lets face it, pro footy will end if there is ever a major lawsuit about CTE or some other brain injury. That rule could use a more nuanced interpretation IMO.
There are always going to be mistakes in umpiring. Simpler, more clear cut rules is still best reform.