Autopsy Roast & Toast vs Saints, Changes for Essendon

[theflea]

We do not condone violence at the RFC





















Officially

 

[GoTigers2015]

RICHMOND V ST KILDA
10 Caddy (Rich), 8 Cotchin (Rich), 4 Gresham (StK), 4 Rance (Rich), 2 Martin (Rich), 2 Vlastuin (Rich)

Cotch is now only 6 off the lead
LEADERBOARD
51 — NAT FYFE (FREM)
46 — PATRICK CRIPPS (CARL)
45 — TRENT COTCHIN (RICH)
45 — MAX GAWN (MELB)
42 — JACK DARLING (WC)
40 — JACK MACRAE (WB)
40 — TOM MITCHELL (HAW)
36 — ANDREW GAFF (WC)
34 — RORY LAIRD (ADEL)
33 — DUSTIN MARTIN (RICH)
33 — STEELE SIDEBOTTOM (COLL)

 

[Tiger_4_Life]

For those saying Essendon play a bruise free outside game, they have been an absolute tackling machine the past two weeks.
They have brought the manic pressure that we have made our trademark.

Great challenge for the group, I'm sure dimma and co and laying down the challenge at every team meeting and stressing the opportunity to the team to show them how it's really done. Going to be great and could really set the platform or the slide for our year.

 

[GoTigers2015]

Nank this week's unsung hero

Richmond: Toby Nankervis

The battle between Toby Nankervis and Tom Hickey was an intriguing one but the Richmond big man was a class above, collecting 19 disposals — at 84 per cent efficiency — nine marks and four inside 50s as the Tigers proved too much for the Saints.

 

[Turka]

Ahhhh Grasshopper, faith. Believe and it shall be granted.

He's a pretty good mortal enemy... (thumbs up)

 

[shaky]

I thought Dimma was great in his presser. Called the officials out as the amateurs they are. I’m showing my age here but I remember back in the 70s/80s a show called World of Sport had a segment called “What’s your decision” where they brought in umpires to the show to explain contentious decisions from the day before. The umpires were on a hiding to nothing but at least they had the guts to come in and show that they were human and they made mistakes. Fair play, move on. Today we have a ridiculous protection of umpires where they are not accountable for there poor decisions. As for the review system we have a nameless faceless person/s making important decisions and more often than not getting it wrong. How the Higgins goal was overturned is beyond me. Let’s make this clear. It was paid as a goal and under the current rules it needs to be overwhelming evidence to overturn the original decision. It’s either an agenda to even the comp or pure incompetence. I know it’s not life or death but you go to the footy to see a fair contest and we are just not getting it at the moment. Don’t bother emailing the AFL with any queries though. I sent an email to Stephen Hocking 3 weeks ago for an explanation on a few issues however I am yet to receive a reply.

I know where he lives if that helps?

 

[biaseddustyfan]

3 incidents = ban was removed

good change

if cotch didn't own that weak campaigner in the prelim it wouldn't have happened either

thank you lord cotchin

 

[shaky]

Correct call. You can clearly see the ball hasnt completely passed the flag sticking out at an angle - and we are all well aware now that the flags are an integral structural component of the goal post

at least they’re consistent


****** in the head but consistent lol

Exactly. The whole thing is, from the goal umpires position he would be looking up at the ball from an angle where he wouldn’t see any padding on the post so the ball would appear over the line.
Correct decision.
However he doesn’t have the conviction to make the call and gets a review. New camera angle shows the player touching the ball with a bit of it behind the padding, or even the sticks as you say.
Called a behind. AFL say correct decision.

If the goal umpire had called goal and the ball went back to the centre, chances are they wouldn’t have been able to review it quick enough, ball up, goal stands.

 

[Grrr]

Exactly. The whole thing is, from the goal umpires position he would be looking up at the ball from an angle where he wouldn’t see any padding on the post so the ball would appear over the line.
Correct decision.
However he doesn’t have the conviction to make the call and gets a review. New camera angle shows the player touching the ball with a bit of it behind the padding, or even the sticks as you say.
Called a behind. AFL say correct decision.

If the goal umpire had called goal and the ball went back to the centre, chances are they wouldn’t have been able to review it quick enough, ball up, goal stands.

What is this nonsense about goal post padding. The ball has to go over the line, in any part of the ground, including the goals. The goal posts without padding are the width of the line, so why the hell have they introduced goal post padding as a measure. It is nonsensical.

 

[tony__montana]

What is this nonsense about goal post padding. The ball has to go over the line, in any part of the ground, including the goals. The goal posts without padding are the width of the line, so why the hell have they introduced goal post padding as a measure. It is nonsensical.

In typical afl way, they introduced it to justify a previous bullshit decision and have opened up Pandora’s box bc of it.

 

[Livonski]

What is this nonsense about goal post padding. The ball has to go over the line, in any part of the ground, including the goals. The goal posts without padding are the width of the line, so why the hell have they introduced goal post padding as a measure. It is nonsensical.

Cos if it hits the padding it’s a point.

 

[cairo tiger]

does anyone know what is up with meatball prestia?

missing link I reckon

 

[Wacko23Jacko]

If we stapled Astbury’s hand to the goal post does that mean the ball has to go passed his entire body before it can be called a goal?

 

[Tony Stark]

Think we should seriously look at Townsend in the midfield given that for one reason or another Miles is out of favour. Cotch and Dusty are good but continually doing the inside grunt work will be difficult to maintain for an entire season. Prestia evens the load but not until after the bye apparently and Caddy is showing his worth inside 50 so for the next three weeks its an opportunity to provide Townsend with a role of crash and bash to open things up in the middle.

The other advantage with Townsend is he can then go inside 50 and help Jack whereas Miles doesnt provide that dual role benefit.

I believe also that Graham has to be given license to get his own ball as i think we have seen that he can be a ball accumulator and has a good football brain so doesnt waste alot of possessions.

At the moment he plays a very negative stopping role but sometimes the best method of defense is attack. I beleive he can become the sort of player who gets tagged rather than the other way around. Am sure even Townsend again could be tried in a tagging role to free up Graham.

 

[Hoos]

If we stapled Astbury’s hand to the goal post does that mean the ball has to go passed his entire body before it can be called a goal?

And I bet nobody has even thought to ask them that question.

 

[Grrr]

Cos if it hits the padding it’s a point.

Yes that is so, but in the instance of a goal going over the line, it is against the way it has been umpired always. If it hits the padding, part of the post there is no other way to adjudicate, it has to be part of the post. The law of the game has always been the line and should remain so.
If the ball was dribbling over the line, would the ump refer to the width of the padding, no they would measure against the line. Inconsistent.
Just a little thing, but it pisses me off... a bit, not normally such a pedant.

 

[Livonski]

Yes that is so, but in the instance of a goal going over the line, it is against the way it has been umpired always. If it hits the padding, part of the post there is no other way to adjudicate, it has to be part of the post. The law of the game has always been the line and should remain so.
If the ball was dribbling over the line, would the ump refer to the width of the padding, no they would measure against the line. Inconsistent.
Just a little thing, but it pisses me off... a bit, not normally such a pedant.

Fair enough. If it dribbles over it’s just the line that matters. Through the air it’s the post plus the fat padding. I see and share your frustration but they cant guess the width of the post underneath the padding (obviously).

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Yes that is so, but in the instance of a goal going over the line, it is against the way it has been umpired always. If it hits the padding, part of the post there is no other way to adjudicate, it has to be part of the post. The law of the game has always been the line and should remain so.
Just a little thing, but it pisses me off... a bit, not normally such a pedant.

Does the boundary line pass through the middle of the posts?!? Why...if the posts now have padding on them?!?

 

[Livonski]

Does the boundary line pass through the middle of the posts?!? Why...if the posts now have padding on them?!?

Is the line as fat as the post padding? That would at least be consistent

 

[Tony Stark]

Is the line as fat as the post padding? That would at least be consistent

Essentially they have different rules subject to the distance of the ball off the ground, totally ridiculous.

Theoretically if Hickey had ridden on a players shoulder and touched the ball at exactly the same position between the posts then it would have been cleared as a goal immediately because it would have been touched higher than the level of the padding, sounds more ludicrous the more you examine the whole saga.

 

[17Dream]

In terms of umpiring errors, the key issue would be to avoid a preliminary final in Perth.
I was tidying my collection of papers.
Sunday September 24, The Sunday Age.
A great photograph on page one of Dusty, Rioli and Castanet celebrating the victory.
When we get Prestia and Rioli back in a few weeks' time, we will be near full strength.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

Essentially they have different rules subject to the distance of the ball off the ground, totally ridiculous.

Theoretically if Hickey had ridden on a players shoulder and touched the ball at exactly the same position between the posts then it would have been cleared as a goal immediately because it would have been touched higher than the level of the padding, sounds more ludicrous the more you examine the whole saga.

Exactly...AFL with their Rule changes on the run...with no imput from those that are directly involved...so now we have a cascaded effect of different scenarios for what constitutes and does not constitute a goal in relation to the goal posts and boundary line between the goal posts...and goal post padding!

 

[fightingfury]

does anyone know what is up with meatball prestia?

missing link I reckon

Won’t be back till the Geelong game at the earliest by the sound of it

 

[Grrr]

Does the boundary line pass through the middle of the posts?!? Why...if the posts now have padding on them?!?

Maybe the umps and the bloke up stairs can wear some X-ray glasses to make me happy. A line is a line is a line.

 

[4tune8]

Exactly...AFL with their Rule changes on the run...with no imput from those that are directly involved...so now we have a cascaded effect of different scenarios for what constitutes and does not constitute a goal in relation to the goal posts and boundary line between the goal posts...and goal post padding!

Yes, but add the flags and the padding to the post to determine the width? which is what happened in another review a few weeks back, again to our detriment.