Non-Lions discussion 2022

[martinson]

The Saints have spent an awful lot of juice.

If Collingwood can't come back and win it from here you'd have to have serious concerns about them.

 

[Grasshopper17]

People will think I’m taking the piss here but serious question…

How is Mason Cox

46

Mason Cox

Age

33

Ht

211cm

Wt

110kg

Pos.

F/R

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.7

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

3.5

3star

M

4.0

4star

T

1.6

4star

G

1.2

4star

D

6.0

1star

K

3.0

1star

HB

3.0

2star

M

2.3

2star

T

0.3

1star

G

1.0

4star

D

9.0

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.4

4star

G

1.8

5star

allowed to take ruck contests, particularly the centre bounce, when the umpire can’t see his eyes? Big O got penalised for looking at the Dogs ruckman late in the Semi Final last year… maybe he too should invest in some prescription goggles?

 

[dlanod]

How is Mason Cox allowed to take ruck contests, particularly the centre bounce, when the umpire can’t see his eyes? Big O got penalised for looking at the Dogs ruckman late in the Semi Final last year… maybe he too should invest in some prescription goggles?

Oscar got penalised because he stopped the Dogs' ruckman running at the ball and not getting a touch on the ball himself, which apparently has been defined as a block. Got nothing to do with where the eyes are.

 

[MSB ROYS]

So St Kilda, finally get ahead and then concede the next 3.

 

[dlanod]

Tune in for the last quarter hour - how are the Saints in this with their complete unwillingness to stick a tackle?

 

[Grasshopper17]

Oscar got penalised because he stopped the Dogs' ruckman running at the ball and not getting a touch on the ball himself, which apparently has been defined as a block. Got nothing to do with where the eyes are.

But the umpires are instructed that if the ruckman takes his eye off the ball and interferes with the other ruckman, then it's a free kick. Yet you are saying that even if both ruckman have their eyes on the ball, but one still blocks the other, it's still a free kick? I would dispute this.

 

[chopperduck]

wasting their chances the saints...

 

[martinson]

wasting their chances the saints...

They're tired.

 

[dlanod]

But the umpires are instructed that if the ruckman takes his eye off the ball and interferes with the other ruckman, then it's a free kick. Yet you are saying that even if both ruckman have their eyes on the ball, but one still blocks the other, it's still a free kick? I would dispute this.

No, that's not what I said.

If one blocks the other and does not get a hand on the ball the umpires have been paying that as a free kick at least all last year. Basically if you initiate contact and don't get a hand on the ball, chances are there's a free kick against you.

 

[luthor]

Crazy momentum shifts in this game.

As there were in the two preceding matches in this round.

Saints could still win this

 

[luthor]

Looks like DeGoey has earned permanent and automatic booing status.

I’m okay with this.

Racist

 

[FLVanLandingham]

Its the smothers that would kill you as a Saints fan... good golly

pretty fun game to watch all things considered

 

[martinson]

Crazy momentum shifts in this game.

As there were in the two preceding matches in this round.

Saints could still win this

It's a grungy game but you can't question the endeavour and the courage of the players out there tonight

 

[Hollow Knight]

The Goodes booing was 85 percent racist and 15 percent people who failed to read the room.

Just putting that on the record since I introduced the booing discussion.

No need to reply.

 

[Grasshopper17]

No, that's not what I said.

If one blocks the other and does not get a hand on the ball the umpires have been paying that as a free kick at least all last year. Basically if you initiate contact and don't get a hand on the ball, chances are there's a free kick against you.

I've had to reread this a couple of times haha. Fair enough, point taken. But it has been fairly well established (in fact we have even heard umpires say as much at times during games) that free kicks are more likely to be paid against players for such interference who shift their gaze to their opponent rather than the ball. Both in ruck contests and marking contests.

 

[chopperduck]

Holy crap the Saints are frustrating the watch

 

[luthor]

Worst "deliberate" decision of all time just paid against the Saints.

Mind boggling

 

[Hollow Knight]

Holy crap the Saints are frustrating the watch

I just knew they would let all that momentum dissipate at 3 qtr time. #SaintsFooty.

 

[dlanod]

I've had to reread this a couple of times haha. Fair enough, point taken. But it has been fairly well established (in fact we have even heard umpires say as much at times during games) that free kicks are more likely to be paid against players for such interference who shift their gaze to their opponent rather than the ball. Both in ruck contests and marking contests.

No doubt - if you signal your intent (e.g. looking at your opponent), the umpires are more likely to pay a free kick. But the signal of intent is not a prerequisite for the free kick.

 

[Elixuh]

They’re paying Hill, what 10 or 20k, per ineffective kick

 

[dlanod]

What I'm taking out of this game is that neither of these teams will be challenging for finals.

 

[martinson]

I've had to reread this a couple of times haha. Fair enough, point taken. But it has been fairly well established (in fact we have even heard umpires say as much at times during games) that free kicks are more likely to be paid against players for such interference who shift their gaze to their opponent rather than the ball. Both in ruck contests and marking contests.

True. How often do you hear the umps say you didn't have your eyes on the ball.

Doesn't make a huge amount of sense . It's not in any rulebook where your eyes have to be.

 

[Grasshopper17]

True. How often do you hear the umps say you didn't have your eyes on the ball.

Doesn't make a huge amount of sense . It's not in any rulebook where your eyes have to be.

I wonder if it's anywhere in those "interpretations". I think Section 5 is our rules guru... any input on this?

 

[FLVanLandingham]

ok Im fine with that being called a free for htb, but that missed call just before was absolute trash

 

[chopperduck]

That missed free kick to Hayes, doubled down into the HTB free was horrible