Toast Round 6 = Collingwood 90-77 Essendon

Remove this Banner Ad



Honestly, Whateley is that far ahead of the other commentators its not funny. Captures the moments better than anyone

That’s so true about Whateley capturing the moment better than anyone else.Meanwhile BT gets the players’ names wrong,miscalls the score,says the umpires are doing a superb job,and reads out pointless trivia facts about crowds while the play is going on in front of your eyes.
 
When Howe is ready he is picked without question.

And Cameron and Cox are both going to play so that makes AJ's spot tough. Imo the forward line has been spluttering because we havent had a Cox/Cameron down there and have been relying on Mihocek etc.

Adams was missed and Lipinski will play because he rolls through the midfield as well.
Sure, when he is fit again. My main point is that it will take him quite a while to regain his fitness and form from such a serious injury. IT wont just be plug and play. I wouldnt expect to see him until the end of the season
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sure, when he is fit again. My main point is that it will take him quite a while to regain his fitness and form from such a serious injury. IT wont just be plug and play. I wouldnt expect to see him until the end of the season
His fitness shouldn’t be an issue, he’s already on a running program to cover that. It’s just going to depend on how his nerves and ligaments recover in the mean time, as he said there was a bit of damage to them. If it was just the broken bones that were the issue, he’d be available to play already (his words).
 
Nothing captured on the vision at all for the two set shot behinds in the third quarter from Elliott and De Goey. Perhaps something when the vision was zoomed in on player preparing to kick, but certainly nothing as obvious as Lever who ran right up behind the player on the mark as Richmond player was kicking, the recent example you referred to. Note – ugh, what a silly pedantic rule that is.
When the ball is moving quickly the ump has an instant to make a decision, ditto with yourself viewing the replay on what to pause/slow down, so no need to be hard on yourself that myself and a couple of others mentioned a couple of things that caught our attention during the game. You certainly had made a very detailed assessment.

Regarding the above possible 50m I’ve checked the replay and it was Johnson’s behind in the first quarter. To the left of screen the ump hasn’t called play on. Unlike Lever he wasn’t directly behind, however he’s a similar distance behind the mark and appears to be well inside 10m of the side. I agree it’s a silly and pedantic rule, but no less technical than running past the side of the mark, which is paid regularly.

32317378-B5E7-4CD3-BCFE-80720A9D5E89.png


 
Last edited:
Jake Kelly, (on the right) should’ve been asked to move out.
Ironically, if he and Steele were standing together they probably would’ve both been asked to clear the area.
The one that baffles me the most is when the kicker is tackled or has his kick smothered from behind.
Thanks for posting that diagram barrackers I wasn’t aware it was only 5m at the rear, (some are way closer than that btw).
 
Hey did we get away with one with Mihocek blocking for Guinea Pig? I expected that to be called at the time and taken off us. Was it ok because it was within 5m? Someone with a better understanding of the rules than me, please?
 
When the ball is moving quickly the ump has an instant to make a decision, ditto with yourself viewing the replay on what to pause/slow down, so no need to be hard on yourself that myself and a couple of others mentioned a couple of things that caught our attention during the game. You certainly had made a very detailed assessment.

Regarding the above possible 50m I’ve checked the replay and it was Johnson’s behind in the first quarter. To the left of screen the ump hasn’t called play on. Unlike Lever he wasn’t directly behind, however he’s a similar distance behind the mark and appears to be well inside 10m of the side. I agree it’s a silly and pedantic rule, but no less technical than running past the side of the mark, which is paid regularly.

View attachment 1672170



that hastheumpstuffedup is a shocker against Collignwood. Said our game was umpired well. Flog of the highest order
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hey did we get away with one with Mihocek blocking for Guinea Pig? I expected that to be called at the time and taken off us. Was it ok because it was within 5m? Someone with a better understanding of the rules than me, please?
I think it was the correct call. Mihocek wasn't going to jump into his team-mates back to contest the mark so pulled out. There was no blocking, just that he slowed down realising Ginnivan had the mark.
PS: It was a cm-perfect kick to Ginnivan, by Ruscoe, I think.
 
And yet the AFL has previously warned players that a punch to the stomach will treated the same as to the head. So there was a shift in their stance on this. Time to let it go mate.
They haven't . Incidents get put into a rubrick that spits out a penalty. The rubrick gives a lesser penalty for hits to the body than to the head. And then when assessing impact they also give it a lower grading as it's less likely to cause injury - eg a head shot that left someone writhing on the ground in pain, but without concussion or any other injury, wouldn't be deemed low impact.
 
Hey did we get away with one with Mihocek blocking for Guinea Pig? I expected that to be called at the time and taken off us. Was it ok because it was within 5m? Someone with a better understanding of the rules than me, please?
Mihocek didn't deviate. He was lined up for the mark but left it for his teammate. He doesn't have to get out of the way, he just can't intentionally get in the way and move laterally to block him.
 
Hey did we get away with one with Mihocek blocking for Guinea Pig? I expected that to be called at the time and taken off us. Was it ok because it was within 5m? Someone with a better understanding of the rules than me, please?
The 5m doesn’t apply in marking or rucking contests. I guess the reason it wasn’t a block is that Mihocek was always between his opponent and Ginni. He was moving towards the ball and simply slowed down to allow the mark.
 
The 5m doesn’t apply in marking or rucking contests. I guess the reason it wasn’t a block is that Mihocek was always between his opponent and Ginni. He was moving towards the ball and simply slowed down to allow the mark.
Correct. There has been nothing wrong with Mihocek's actions in the history of the game.
 
Hey did we get away with one with Mihocek blocking for Guinea Pig? I expected that to be called at the time and taken off us. Was it ok because it was within 5m? Someone with a better understanding of the rules than me, please?


It was an interesting call. I'm assuming Mihocek is allowed to stop and doesn't have to get out of the way of his opponent. As long as he doesn't change path or look at his man it would be ok.
 
Hey did we get away with one with Mihocek blocking for Guinea Pig? I expected that to be called at the time and taken off us. Was it ok because it was within 5m? Someone with a better understanding of the rules than me, please?

I’ve been wondering about that one too. Mr Park thinks it was legal - Checkers was standing and didn’t go out of his way to block.

Edit: what T W Sherrin said above.
 
I’ve been wondering about that one too. Mr Park thinks it was legal - Checkers was standing and didn’t go out of his way to block.

Edit: what T W Sherrin said above.
peter daicos had a goal denied against Melbourne for a sheparding infringement that would have put us in front with seconds to go. Nothing to do with checkers, but I’m still filthy about it and needed to vent. :)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top