Review Round 2, 2019 vs Carlton

[PeacefulWarrior]

I think I have nailed the Duursma comparison. Andrew Embley

Yeah I said Embley to my mate yesterday aswell.
My mate told me to calm down.

 

[Janus]

Quarter 4

Rockliff 30 possession, 15 contested and 8 clearances to start the fourth quarter. And to think, some fools on this board were saying he was a shit pick up.

Lycett - what a beast. Wins his own ball and generates a centre clearance, then backs it up defensively - 2 inside 50s in one phase of play that results in a goal to Ebert.

Jonas...



Has Watts and Rockliff screaming for the handball receive in defensive 50 after the ball is under immense pressure and squirts out to Tommy. It was a simple give...the simplest. What does he do? A ****ing shit around the corner blind kick that ends back with a Carlton player. If the players wanted him as captain, I can see why the club said 'nah, we'll go with co-captains'.

Westhoff getting outmarked by Weitering every time because Westhoff was expecting Weitering to **** up and he always gave up front position was maddening.

People say Boak shouldn't have given the handball - it was a perfect play - it was just that Watts thought he had more time than he did. If you were being pedantic, Travis should have been moving with Watts as soon as he gave the handball and blocked for him, because Thomas was his opponent...but he wasn't to know that Jack was going to take so long to dispose of the ball. You know how there's now a rule about contact below the knees? Well, there should be a rule against tackling someone at full pelt in wet weather when you've got no control over how your body is going to slide into them - it's because Thomas was sliding along the wet grass that caused the injury. I also enjoyed Dunstall taking the opportunity to talk about some ****head Carlton player that no one cares about while Watts was getting onto the stretcher.

It's this game where you were really missing Dixon, because he would have taken Weitering to the cleaners, and Westhoff would have been free to do his thing. This is why I say we need Charlie back for the games where you know teams are going to have numbers back in congestion.

Butters willing the ball forward with karate kicks out of congestion resulted the ball getting to Duursma, who decided to play on from a free kick when there was nothing on. Youthful exuberance.

Nice handball at speed by Butters to Motlop for a goal. Seems to be an instinctive player - if you give him too much time to think he'll think himself into a poor decision. Probably best to keep him away from defence as much as possible in this system.

And as if to say, you haven't seen anything yet...the play of the game:

This is your future. Butters to Drew to Duursma. Imagine these players with 50 games under their belt. That play deserved a goal, and Motlop delivered.

Summary

I think you need to judge this game in two halves...and both of them ended up being a case where it took us about a quarter to work out what the opposition were doing and then adjusted accordingly. Adelaide Oval is a ground where you need to move the ball on quicker than the MCG - there's no time for kicks out to space on the wing...it's about who can operate in congestion and who can move the ball the quickest.

Carlton will win about 8-9 games this year if they play this way. They are playing a lot better, and I'm glad we don't have to play them again this year.

This play on at all costs and quick ball movement style will serve us well next week, because I think the Brisbane game is going to be a shootout.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

He said in his podcast this week that he also made the wrong coin toss call last week. You would think he would have learned.

I was saying the same thing all game.

It was a Cotchin like decision.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Janus]

I was saying the same thing all game.

It was a Cotchin like decision.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I don't think Jonas is the smartest decision maker out there. He needs Wines to do that shit for him.

In fact...I reckon Wines will be sole captain after this year. People like the idea of Jonas as captain, but the reality isn't that great.

 

[GremioPower]

Ollie Wines has the coin toss portfolio in the co-captains' duty statements. You can see why.

How is this not decided before the coin toss between players and coaches?
"If we win, let's pick 'side X'."

 

[rogerjames]

A fair bit of criticism about Bonners game but I thought he was critical to our defensive rebounding last night. He's a very important part of our defence imo.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

This is your future. Butters to Drew to Duursma. Imagine these players with 50 games under their belt. That play deserved a goal, and Motlop delivered.

Not quite. Duursma's kick need to go around 5m to the right for that. Would've ended up with Marshall then.

 

[Powerstufff]

Everyone at the ground thought it was a goal

For the good reason it was. Well Monday morning and I still haven't seen the televised game yet but if that was touched it'll take a pretty good camera shot to convince me.

 

[Powerstufff]

A fair bit of criticism about Bonners game but I thought he was critical to our defensive rebounding last night. He's a very important part of our defence imo.

There's some detailed analysis by Janus elsewhere on this thread which somehow looks typed live. From my memory it's especially of defensive stuff in the 1st quarter. Bonner and DBJ feature in a lot of ****-ups but DBJ in particular has a lot of Janus-styled redemptions.

 

[Lagooner]

For the good reason it was. Well Monday morning and I still haven't seen the televised game yet but if that was touched it'll take a pretty good camera shot to convince me.

We were a victim of the initial (and probably wrong) call. If the ump had called a goal instead there’s no way it could be overturned based on the footage, but since it was called a behind and there were hands in the vicinity of the kick you couldn’t conclusively say that it definitely wasn’t touched (despite no obvious touch on the footage).

For me it’s even more annoying because it just feels like one of those calls they make to keep the game “interesting.”

 

[Cheesey Mac]

Happy to take the win and run in what became trying conditions. Carlton were really competitive and I don't think they'll be quite the easy-beats they have been in years gone by, even still I never really felt that threatened when they hit the front in the 3rd quarter (where as in recent years gone by I'd probably have been a lot more worried/angry... I don't know if this is me watching with lower expectations or I just trust us more this season for some reason, but I really felt like we were still in control). It felt like we took a little longer to adjust to the rain, but that might hold us in good stead for the weekend in Brisbane (I had a brief look at the forecast and it said chance of rain... I may need to pack my raincoat this week).

Rocky and Boak were good again through the middle, and Scotty Lycett again showed his value in what would have to be one of his best individual games for a few years. The young guys played great games again, especially liked the passion from Butters after his goal, but Rozee, Drew and Duursma all had some great pieces of play.

Feel horrible for Jack Watts, was playing some great footy and it is a horrible injury to be lost to. You could see straight away that he was in strife, and hopefully he can get back in a relatively strong manner through his surgery and rehab.

Also managed to not spend a cent inside the Adelaide Oval, bought food and beverages from the supermarket at substantially less than the highway robbery prices at the AO and brought them in... Operation 'Avoid Giving the SMA Money' is off to a strong start for me, although the name isn't very original

Roll on Round 3

 

[Janus]

We were a victim of the initial (and probably wrong) call. If the ump had called a goal instead there’s no way it could be overturned based on the footage, but since it was called a behind and there were hands in the vicinity of the kick you couldn’t conclusively say that it definitely wasn’t touched (despite no obvious touch on the footage).

For me it’s even more annoying because it just feels like one of those calls they make to keep the game “interesting.”

This is the second time Carlton players have conned the umpires by claiming something was touched when it wasn’t. I thought the AFL would have learned by now that those campaigners are pathological liars.

That being said - I reckon this was a product of the Josh Jenkins farce from last year. Now the AFL review system will err on the side of the defensive team if there’s any doubt at all.

Not that it mattered anyway - like I said, Butters scored a goal 40 seconds later anyway, so it was 7 points instead of 6.

 

[LFC2010]

We were a victim of the initial (and probably wrong) call. If the ump had called a goal instead there’s no way it could be overturned based on the footage, but since it was called a behind and there were hands in the vicinity of the kick you couldn’t conclusively say that it definitely wasn’t touched (despite no obvious touch on the footage).

For me it’s even more annoying because it just feels like one of those calls they make to keep the game “interesting.”

Twice we've been robbed by the video reviewer in the box at AO. We all know that ball hit the post in the showdown last season.
Do the AFL (like cricket) let people know who is in the box reviewing these decisions? I think it's time they do if they don't.

 

[FishingRick04]

The conditions stopped a bigger margin and it allowed Carlton to stay in the game.

The conditions are a good precursor for Brisbane which is always slippery.

We do seemed cursed in recent history with our weather conditions.

 

[Schulzenfest]

Curious as to whether those who don't think the ball was touched have watched a replay at all? At the ground I didn't think it was touched. After having watched the replay I could see that it was. You can definitely see Thomas' fingers snap back.

 

[Lagooner]

This is the second time Carlton players have conned the umpires by claiming something was touched when it wasn’t. I thought the AFL would have learned by now that those campaigners are pathological liars.

That being said - I reckon this was a product of the Josh Jenkins farce from last year. Now the AFL review system will err on the side of the defensive team if there’s any doubt at all.

Not that it mattered anyway - like I said, Butters scored a goal 40 seconds later anyway, so it was 7 points instead of 6.

They shouldn’t be erring on either side. Like video review decisions in other sports they need to just go with the field ump decision unless a clear mistake has been made. What we do need though is better tech to unblur the line between correct and incorrect.

Field umps making better decisions in the first place, calling what they see/hear and not what they’re told by those with an incentive to lie about it, would certainly help too.

 

[Lagooner]

Twice we've been robbed by the video reviewer in the box at AO. We all know that ball hit the post in the showdown last season.
Do the AFL (like cricket) let people know who is in the box reviewing these decisions? I think it's time they do if they don't.

Not sure. I agree they should publish who the “4th umpire” is if they already don’t.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

We were a victim of the initial (and probably wrong) call. If the ump had called a goal instead there’s no way it could be overturned based on the footage, but since it was called a behind and there were hands in the vicinity of the kick you couldn’t conclusively say that it definitely wasn’t touched (despite no obvious touch on the footage).

For me it’s even more annoying because it just feels like one of those calls they make to keep the game “interesting.”

They didn't even go umpire's call on that one. Called it a behind outright. So someone up in the review post saw something that they thought was convincing.

 

[Lagooner]

They didn't even go umpire's call on that one. Called it a behind outright. So someone up in the review post saw something that they thought was convincing.

They can’t change it unless they’re 100% convinced it was wrong though. Unfortunately bad calls are protected by bad tech atm.

 

[Lawnchair Larry]

The conditions stopped a bigger margin and it allowed Carlton to stay in the game.

The conditions are a good precursor for Brisbane which is always slippery.

We do seemed cursed in recent history with our weather conditions.

I dont think a bigger winning margin was in the offing.
Carlton played rather well except in the 2nd quarter, where they lost the game.
What they were down by at half time is approximately what they lost by.

 

[Harlott]

Yes definitely. There's something about that running style.

Much better on the left than Trigger though

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Less hospital balls than trigger

 

[Waspy79]

Curious as to whether those who don't think the ball was touched have watched a replay at all? At the ground I didn't think it was touched. After having watched the replay I could see that it was. You can definitely see Thomas' fingers snap back.

Did the touch happen before or after the ball left Butters boot? The visible finger snap is not the key point (unless you are Jason Dunstall).

My hunch is that the last thing to touch the ball was Butters boot and not a stray finger. Surely that makes it a goal?

 

[JUSTWORK]

Did the touch happen before or after the ball left Butters boot? The visible finger snap is not the key point (unless you are Jason Dunstall).

My hunch is that the last thing to touch the ball was Butters boot and not a stray finger. Surely that makes it a goal?

I thought it was pretty clear the last thing that touched the ball was Butters boot, May have been touched before it was kicked, definitely not after it was kicked.

Clear goal in my opinion.

 

[bringbackbucky]

Half-time came at a terrible time for us. As did the rain. I'm very much of the opinion that had it stayed dry we would've ran away with a convincing win...

 

[Powerstufff]

Half-time came at a terrible time for us. As did the rain. I'm very much of the opinion that had it stayed dry we would've ran away with a convincing win...

If you mean a bigger win well possibly. But it was convincing enough for me. A hard-fought game where we overcame several bursts of momentum from them and ended with a small but safe margin. No biting fingernails to be saved by a goal in the last 30 seconds etc.