Review Positives and Negatives vs Saints

[Snuffaluphagus]

“Cheated”? How is that cheating?

Thought it was a common term in footy, not necessarily a bad thing, in the game situation it was the right thing to do.

Cheating is basically not following your man to get an easy kick out the back if it gets turned over. Makes you look good despite taking a short cut and can backfire if your team mates dont win, ie "cheated."

Like I said, it was the right thing to do in this situation

 

[Square Peg]

Watch the ‘after the game’ segment on AFL.com.au

Schultz and Banfield cheated knowing the time left on the clock meant it wasn’t worth them pushing down into the defensive 50 so they gambled on sitting back in case we won the 50/50.

Good bit of play from them

Funny how holding your position and forward structure is now referred to by commentators as a gamble

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

Banfield had so much space in that last scoring passage. It looked like we had all the numbers on our forward flank. Maybe they committed so many to the contest to try and force a score?

Yes. There is some behind the goals vision that shows that a few Saints defenders were the “offensive side” of their Freo forward looking to go to the S.Hill contest at half-back.

Probably to either (a) be available for the backwards handball/kick if the ball got squeezed out to them from the contest or (b) plug a hole if we win the contest and try to move the ball thru the midfield (which obviously we did).

Some of them got stuck in no-mans land. Not able to get close enough to the contest to play a role, but the wrong side of the forward that they were standing.

So both Banfield and Schultz (and other Freo players) were able to stay goalside and weren’t noticed until too late.

The other thing that really helped was that we kept forwards back in our F50. Fyfe was in the goal square. Banfield (and someone else) were still inside the F50 at the beginning of the S.Hill contest.

So we stretched our forward structure to take up the whole ground. Which, of course, meant St Kilda had to stretch their defensive structure.

Which meant that Banfield and Schultz didn’t have to run back through congestion and had plenty of room to spread inside F50.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

Thought it was a common term in footy, not necessarily a bad thing, in the game situation it was the right thing to do.

Cheating is basically not following your man to get an easy kick out the back if it gets turned over. Makes you look good despite taking a short cut and can backfire if your team mates dont win, ie "cheated."

Like I said, it was the right thing to do in this situation

When an oppo forward, say Jamie Cripps from the Eagles, does it is “cheating” or being a “downhill skier”. When one of your own does it, it is “good forward craft”

 

[showemhowtorock]

I was just thinking the same about Serong. His stats are very good given he’s only playing 50-60% game time. He’s gonna be a star. A lot on this board wanted us to take Robertson but there’s a reason he slid to pick 22. I’m sure he’ll have an excellent career at Brisbane and I accept that they are a hard side to break into but we needed clean Ball use and I’m really happy with the pick of Serong. Remember Twomey had him at pick 3 all season in his phantom drafts only behind Rowell and Anderson - there was a reason for that too. Our much maligned recruiters have made some very good selections in recent years and it time they got the credit they deserved.

Serong at 3 & Young at 4!

Cal Twomey's 2019 Phantom Form Guide: September update

AFL.com.au's draft guru ranks the best young footy talent in the land

www.afl.com.au

 

[CapitalA]

Maybe. But Hawthorn routinely get away with what Sonny was massively penalised for with that 50m. Going over the mark is the Hawks standard MO.

Also in just about every game you often hear umpires yell out "back 2m" etc to the man on the mark. It was definitely a very harsh call that one, particularly when you consider the where's and the when's.

Nah Walters was way out of position there clearly Mundy is on the mark and Walters is like 3m forward and on the flank standing right in the protected zone

 

[Cesoir]

Nah Walters was way out of position there clearly Mundy is on the mark and Walters is like 3m forward and on the flank standing right in the protected zone

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Agree, that's why the "east-west" rule was brought in - to stop players blocking off the 45 degree arc like Sonny did. He knew he was in the wrong, it was just a rush of blood. Great thing was he redeemed himself immediately and effectively helped us win the game.

 

[Taylor]

Watch the ‘after the game’ segment on AFL.com.au

Schultz and Banfield cheated knowing the time left on the clock meant it wasn’t worth them pushing down into the defensive 50 so they gambled on sitting back in case we won the 50/50.

Good bit of play from them

I can't find it ?

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I can't find it ?

sorry 'the round so far'

The Round So Far

Leading reporter Riley Beveridge and Port Adelaide 300-gamer Kane Cornes pull no punches to set the agenda as the non-stop action of each round of football unfolds.

www.afl.com.au

 

[arsesmart]

Nah Walters was way out of position there clearly Mundy is on the mark and Walters is like 3m forward and on the flank standing right in the protected zone

I didn't say he didn't go over mark. I said it was inconsistently umpired across the board.

 

[salim malik]

Agree, that's why the "east-west" rule was brought in - to stop players blocking off the 45 degree arc like Sonny did. He knew he was in the wrong, it was just a rush of blood. Great thing was he redeemed himself immediately and effectively helped us win the game.

What's with all this fairness, If it goes against Freo IMO it's never a fair call.
If that call resulted in us losing the game all hell would of broken loose on here.

 

[CapitalA]

I didn't say he didn't go over mark. I said it was inconsistently umpired across the board.

I am saying he wasn't on the mark at all Mundy was. Not that he went over the mark.
Look at it again Mundy is like miles away (where he should be) in comparison to where Walters was standing.

 

[Belnakor]

Yes. There is some behind the goals vision that shows that a few Saints defenders were the “offensive side” of their Freo forward looking to go to the S.Hill contest at half-back.

The Shill contest was what made the goal, he was under huge pressure tackled and handled over his shoulder straight to our player. The Saints players were already running forward when they saw the contest.

 

[Johnny Dalmas]

The Shill contest was what made the goal, he was under huge pressure tackled and handled over his shoulder straight to our player. The Saints players were already running forward when they saw the contest.

Yes. Hill was outstanding in that play. Won the ball, but then agressively went staight through the middle. Often you will see a player try to go for a sideways or backwards handball in that situation because its "safer". What it does is give the opposition some precious few seconds to turn around and start playing defence.

 

[Sully90]

Yes. Hill was outstanding in that play. Won the ball, but then agressively went staight through the middle. Often you will see a player try to go for a sideways or backwards handball in that situation because its "safer". What it does is give the opposition some precious few seconds to turn around and start playing defence.

The more I rewatch that passage (and it's been alot of times now), the more I really appreciate what Hill did there. Usually he tries to burn off at an angle to try and create a play by foot. It was a pretty out of character aggressive handball that in the end was a risk that paid off. Kudos.

 

[arsesmart]

I am saying he wasn't on the mark at all Mundy was. Not that he went over the mark.
Look at it again Mundy is like miles away (where he should be) in comparison to where Walters was standing.

Mundy was running off and Walters came in. It seemed a simple swapping over. But as I say it's more about the inconsistent interpretation by the umpires.

 

[Cesoir]

What's with all this fairness, If it goes against Freo IMO it's never a fair call.
If that call resulted in us losing the game all hell would of broken loose on here.

Haha, I'm with you mate - there were half a dozen calls I was pissed off with on the weekend, all probably due to purple eyes. The 50 though, I just looked at it and went "that's dumb Sonny".

I can be magnanimous, we won

 

[Cesoir]

Mundy was running off and Walters came in. It seemed a simple swapping over. But as I say it's more about the inconsistent interpretation by the umpires.

I don't know how to do all that fancy stuff with gifs and things, but I just replayed it and this is the problem - Mandy is manning the mark and Walters turns around and stars guarding it well in front and to the side of where the mark was. You can see Sonny is effectively stopping him from playing on into the corridor which is why the east-west rule came in. Jones actually stopped and pointed Walters out and Mundy THEN turned around and ran back to help defend.

 

[Sully90]

I don't know how to do all that fancy stuff with gifs and things, but I just replayed it and this is the problem - Mandy is manning the mark and Walters turns around and stars guarding it well in front and to the side of where the mark was. You can see Sonny is effectively stopping him from playing on into the corridor which is why the east-west rule came in. Jones actually stopped and pointed Walters out and Mundy THEN turned around and ran back to help defend.

View attachment 911452

Yeah I'm not sure why it's still a debate. Both 50s we copped are 50s that get paid every week and have been for a while now. The Walters one was especially textbook.

 

[stax on the mull]

Walters and Jones started alongside each other at the bounce so I think in Walters' mind he was gaurding the mark.

 

[arsesmart]

I don't know how to do all that fancy stuff with gifs and things, but I just replayed it and this is the problem - Mandy is manning the mark and Walters turns around and stars guarding it well in front and to the side of where the mark was. You can see Sonny is effectively stopping him from playing on into the corridor which is why the east-west rule came in. Jones actually stopped and pointed Walters out and Mundy THEN turned around and ran back to help defend.

View attachment 911452

Again, not saying it wasn't there, but that they'll apply it differently. There are different interpretation possibilities.

 

[Belnakor]

The more I rewatch that passage (and it's been alot of times now), the more I really appreciate what Hill did there. Usually he tries to burn off at an angle to try and create a play by foot. It was a pretty out of character aggressive handball that in the end was a risk that paid off. Kudos.

The game on the weekend showed how much we missed Hill on the HBF over the past 2 years. He rarely misses a kick, makes the right plays and keeps his man quiet.

 

[anchor man]

After fielding a backline of short people and winning.I don't see many negatives coming out of that result.
So many have stood tall down back this year with basically all our talls and key defenders out.
A great team effort.

 

[FreoRicci]

The Shill contest was what made the goal, he was under huge pressure tackled and handled over his shoulder straight to our player. The Saints players were already running forward when they saw the contest.

That’s the Hill IQ we know. Under huge pressure, a little deft handball opened the play. Kept his composure and instinct. But that step to instigate the smother then kick beautifully to Acres was an amazing play by SonSon.

 

[Hob07]

Hey guys trying to figure the 7 players involved in the passage of play that led to our last goal, but the 2nd player in the chain has me stumped.
Hill handballs to ?, ? Handballs to Aish, Aish handballs Walters, Walters kicks Acres, Acres handballs Banfield, Banfield kicks Schulz, Schulz goals.