Mega Thread Port Forum General AFL Thread Part 21

[TeeKray]

They had no records because they tried to cover their tracks. That seems the likely outcome to me.

Aside from Dank's stuff, the smoking gun is how massive (thick solid and tight, etc) they were and how they went from being a mediocre battler team to destroying everyone in one pre season, before their hamstrings collectively imploded. Jab Watson went from being a good honest battler to a Brownlow medallist.

They were on the good stuff mate, they didn't fail any test because they were using designer experimental sh*t.

Yeah I agree they were on the gear, no issue there, just talking about how the actual evidence stacks up from a legal standpoint.

 

[Steve Dore]

Not quite. Doping in cycling actually worked. ....

So you agree with Graham Cornes that it's only cheating if you win.

 

[Grave Danger]

More gambling ads on the footy - stand by for your ‘Crypto.com AFL Score Review’...

Crypto.com Signs a Five Year Deal with the Australian Football League

Cryptocurrency exchange Crypto.com has added the Australian Football League to the list of sporting institutions it has partnered with.

www.fxempire.com

 

[simba_]

i don't think there's any reason left to actually watch AFL

 

[philthy05]

i don't think there's any reason left to actually watch AFL

If we don’t watch sport we have to talk to people and do things.

 

[Grave Danger]

If we don’t watch sport we have to talk to people and do things.

I don't watch, I just have it on in the background whilst I BigFooty. With the sound down because I'm listening to moosic on YouTube.

 

[Doctor Feel]

i don't think there's any reason left to actually watch AFL

Certainly getting there. Such a shitty comp.

 

[OneGreatClub]

 

[Doctor Feel]

Oh boy here we go.

 

[sobrave]

Are 720s allowed like the one blicavs did in the goalsquare?

 

[Duckimus Prime]

All they had was a trail of some legal and some illegal supplements being sourced by Dank from overseas and compounded by a biochemist in Melbourne, with no evidence that any of that actually ended up at Essendon.

The evidence of them ending up at Essendon was that Dank had them and there was absolutely no other evidence that he had used them in any other business.

So he was either buying supplements and pouring them down the drain or injecting them into Essendon players.

Thats what "comfortably satisified" means, Essendon weren't able to provide any evidence to contradict the claim that they were used on the players.

"We're going to stop ignoring this part of the law for absolutely no reason".

Well until they decide that some big name players need to be able to try and break a tackle instead of disposing of the ball.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

Are 720s allowed like the one blicavs did in the goalsquare?

As with most rules in the afl, depends on the guernsey and situation.

 

[simba_]

there's no point of tackling existing if you have to immediately get rid of it as soon as someone starts to tackle you hey? this is basically how they turn it into touch/tag, i mean that's what it will be, get touched and throw it away like it's a hot potato. we always knew the league wanted to soften the game it's interesting seeing them play it out

 

[chiwigi]

Certainly getting there. Such a shitty comp.

there's no point of tackling existing if you have to immediately get rid of it as soon as someone starts to tackle you hey? this is basically how they turn it into touch/tag, i mean that's what it will be, get touched and throw it away like it's a hot potato. we always knew the league wanted to soften the game it's interesting seeing them play it out

There’s barely anything resembling ‘tackling’ anyway.
Cleaning up the rules so they can actually be applied is a good idea.
Though this method won’t end well.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

They tried this interpretation years ago. I vaguely recall some guy barely hanging onto a rampaging Stewie Dew as he charged through the centre, unleashed a 60m drop punt and had it called back because he was "Holding the ball".

Prepare yourself for at least 4 rounds of touch football, unless you're Port and then it will be more like 8 rounds.

 

[bomberclifford]

They tried this interpretation years ago. I vaguely recall some guy barely hanging onto a rampaging Stewie Dew as he charged through the centre, unleashed a 60m drop punt and had it called back because he was "Holding the ball".

Prepare yourself for at least 4 rounds of touch football, unless you're Port and then it will be more like 8 rounds.

I seem to recall that happening to Daniel Motlop as well. The player literally only laid a hand on him as he bounced the ball while running and he was pinged for incorrect disposal.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I seem to recall that happening to Daniel Motlop as well. The player literally only laid a hand on him as he bounced the ball while running and he was pinged for incorrect disposal.

The AFL loves testing out its new toys on us.

Byron Pickett 6 weeks for bumping a guy in a trial game who played the next week.

The Primus rule.

edit Just remembered the sliding into a pack on your knees to win the ball rule, or basically the Francou rule.

 

[TeeKray]

I don't even know why you'd bother announcing that to be honest. Interpretations are always changing and it's pretty easy if you follow the game closely to pick up on what interpretations are loosening and tightening, often within one weekend of games.

 

[snozulu]

They are always better off changing the rules and interpretations during the season as there is less confusion that way.

 

[VineValerian]

Oh boy here we go.

Yep.
No rule changes this as season.
Next minute........

 

[Grave Danger]

They want to reward the player that hangs back until someone else wins the ball.

 

[Doctor Feel]

They want to reward the player that hangs back until someone else wins the ball.

Has been then case for years. That's why numbers around the footy has been key.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I seem to recall that happening to Daniel Motlop as well. The player literally only laid a hand on him as he bounced the ball while running and he was pinged for incorrect disposal.

That Motlop one, I think you are talking about, was the one at the SCG in 2008 and I'm still pissed off with the decision, and have discussed it with a few umpires at amateur league level over the years.

He was on the run towards the Randwick end goal, on the camera side of the SCG, about 60m from goal, had already bounced the ball once, a swans player came at him from side on, Mots saw him, accelerated a bit more, bounced the ball for a second time, because he knew the swans player wasn't going to stop him and he had come to the end of his 15m distance, the swans player jumped at Mots as he bounced the ball, got hold of his jumper with one hand for a split second, it didn't stop Mots and he was done for holding the ball.

The fact that Mots was barely touched as he was bouncing the ball, didn't mean he had incorrectly disposed of the ball, as bouncing the ball, the player is deemed to still be in possession by the rule.

I was absolutely pissed off at the game. I'm sure I drop the F bomb and maybe even the C bomb at the game.

This rubbish that we have to reward the hard working tackler is why it was paid a holding the ball decision and we have had years of rubbish interpretations. It's like the cliche driven crap that we have to reward hard working Australians with tax cuts. What about rewarding the bloke who got to the ball first and is making the play?

When I started playing footy, the rulebook all around Oz said the tackler had to re.ta.rd the player with the ball. Re.tarding the player with the ball, meant a ball and all tackle, or if the tackle meant the player went to ground and hitting the ground caused the ball to spill out, then that too was holding the ball.

I don't know if it was political correctness that the word re.ta.rd was removed from the rule, like big footy, but if its not a ball and all tackle, (even if the player has had the ball for 10 seconds, and the tackle is a slapping of the arms and/or ball of the attacking player by the defender and the ball spills free), then it should be play on, not holding the ball free paid.

 

[JimmyBC]

The tackler should be rewarded more but as we know with the AFL they'll go full lolly with it.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

there's no point of tackling existing if you have to immediately get rid of it as soon as someone starts to tackle you hey? this is basically how they turn it into touch/tag, i mean that's what it will be, get touched and throw it away like it's a hot potato. we always knew the league wanted to soften the game it's interesting seeing them play it out

The plus side is these stupid laws often dont last. Chances are it happens in the first two rounds and ruins a bunch of games, then by round 5 or so we are back to normal unless they need to pull one out of their asses late in the season to rig a game