Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
It was weird too, I think TV makes things seem so much worse and dramatic but at the game, I wasn't nervous, I was excited. Even when they'd get within a goal I thought in that last quarter it was "We've got this."
Thats the broadcast deal for ya
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Okay, 50cm then, is that supposed to be a free? Trying to figure out the rule. I've always thought it was about intent. Would hate to receive a free kick for that personally.
Given the alleged habits of exeutives.... I reckon they they could organise that
Umm... no. Ch7 have the rights to 3 games each round, and I believe they can choose which games to cover. For most of the season, they have chosen to broadcast the Thurs & Fri games and one of the Sunday games. It is Ch7's choice - not the AFL's.
That contest against Naicos at their CHF was pretty good.
I think they kind of go into a different mode when they're down in the rooms after the game. Like they're visiting relatives and they're on their best behaviour. I think in the heat of the moment during a game, that's a more real representation of how they really think.
Not sure thats correct at all
Believe it or not, at 3/4 time I was walking back to the living room from the kitchen with a cuppa and I felt strangely calm, for no good reason I can think of.
Me, too.
I wouldn’t get to concerned about it some get carried away with the little knowledge they haveTwo posters whom I respect but often disagree with (no problem) have suggested that Murphy was not garbage/invisible last night and that he actually did an effective job on Daicos, below:
I played footy but only to B-Grade Amateur level and the modern game has a lot of nuances (zoning/structure/set plays etc) that I admit freely I have little knowledge of eg yesterday I saw one of our blokes take possession and give a handball off to a teammate on his blindside! I thought "How tf did he know his mate was even there?" (OK, talking/calling but also because they've trained that positioning so often, yeah?).
Anyway, while a lot of those things get past me, I think I understand footy on an ok level, and can see when someone has had an impact <== ie I see it. I notice it.
I did not notice Murphy yesterday and I am not cracking wise about "he does things nobody (but Nicks) notices".
Except for a couple of clangers he was invisible to me.
I was not "at the match", so that might be why.
Yes, Keane and Worrell were amazing, but who was the "we" you're talking about?
Murphy?
I did not see it.
AND
Mate, plenty of players "didn't affect the game as [they] could have" eg it wasn't Thilthorpe's best game.
Thilthorpe was scragged and harassed and double-teamed all night. Fly got Moore and others to do a number on Thilthorpe, but it was clear to me that Thilthorpe still had impact:
1) when he was rucking, plus obvious follow-up pressure acts, and
2) often brought the ball to ground when being crashed into on two sides in marking packs, then
3) stood up in the last for that strong contested mark (when most needed) and goal, without which we would have lost.
I wanna believe you blokes about Murphy, but I cannot remember seeing a single thing --- not even one --- that Murphy did that was impactful on last night's game, or indeed upon Daicos to keep him quiet.
Should I watch the replay and look harder? <== seriously.
I'm willing to concede that I could well be wrong and that I might have missed a lot (or all) of what Murphy did because I watched on TV which misses broader-picture events away from the central action.
In fact, I'd love it if Murphy had a job to do and did it, effectively. Great! if that was the case.
I just didn't see it, although I was looking for Murphy whenever possible.
eg Hugh Bond had low numbers but I remember at least three of his tackles as being impactful at crucial times --- gets a tick from me.
Zac Taylor was ineffective (and subbed out because of it) but he gets a Mulligan from me on the back of recent games (Murphy does not).
Murray had poor numbers, but I remember one of his defensive marks at a crucial moment (I have no numbers on spoils, 1%-ers, pressure acts etc).
Murphy, nada; I cannot recall a single moment when I thought "Oh, good one Murph".
I didn't see Murphy "by [Daicos'] side continually", in fact I hardly saw him at all. I do remember the play-on/slip/htb and a few ineffective late attempts but he struck me as being ... looking for the right words ... a bit lost/ poor positioning/ off the action.
Another poster (sorry, don't remember who it was) pointed out that Murphy had 9 pressure acts for an entire game. Channel 9 showed (and praised) a kid for GWS do 4 pressure acts, one after another, in about 10 seconds of play.
Murphy's stats for a full game were comparable to Schoenberg's for a single quarter.
So, serious question (not a set-up, not a trap) what did Murphy actually do that got your approval?
I'd be happy to watch the game again, just to see what you saw.
That's OK... you can feel free to be wrong.
Thats got nothing to do with why they arent showing Saturday games..... which was the original point
Thanks.
That says everything to me about Murphy ie "judging Murphy" on his mediocre record and recent ineffectiveness.
You're right; I didn't see that and will look for it when I watch the replay.
I didn't see that either and will look for it when I watch the replay, cheers.
They have 3 games each week. At the start of the season they chose to broadcast the Thurs, Fri and one of the Sunday games. This was their (Ch7's) choice. It is not, and never has been, mandated by the AFL.
They did yes, the AFL told Fox they couldnt have Thursdays and Fridays
I think it’s for situations where you are stopping the efficient restart of play. For example to let players get in position or similar. Not for taking actual seconds off the clock.
