Toast Round 7 = Adelaide 58-59 Collingwood

[Mollythedolly]

It's his manner. You see any other umps holding their hand up to players like that?

How he does it is irrelevant. Probably a clearer sign to the player to stop than doing nothing and then pinging them.

 

[VinnieB]

Put aside footy tribalism and just enjoy the Pies

Traditionally, it's been easy to 'hate' Collingwood - a big club with a brash and vociferous fan base. But Craig McRae has the Pies playing a fit brand of footy everyone can enjoy - and we should, writes Rohan Connolly.

www.espn.com.au

 

[sideswipe]

How he does it is irrelevant. Probably a clearer sign to the player to stop than doing nothing and then pinging them.

No point discussing if you won't bother watching it. He put the hand up after he had paid the 50s.

 

[Gabbo64]

Agree, Fogerty had every right to attempt the front on spoil - as soon as he made contact above the shoulders it was a free.

Reckless, high contact, high impact. should get 2 weeks but won't even get cited.

 

[RobJD]

Reckless, high contact, high impact. should get 2 weeks but won't even get cited.

Won't get cited - it was a football action and in-play

 

[Gabbo64]

I’m not sure he took his eyes off the footy so not really reportable imho. Did get Murphy high though so should have been a free at a minimum.

Molly, I don't believe eyes on the ball has anything to do with it. You can have eyes on the ball all you like but if you recklessly make contact with the head then good night Irene.
Think big whack in the back of the head when spoiling from behind and mistaking the head for the footy.

 

[RobJD]

Honestly it should have simply been paid as a mark.

If Fogarty's arm didn't make contact with Murphy's head I wouldn't have paid the mark - Murph simply didn't control the ball for long enough. I Wouldn't have paid front on contact either (although I'm trying to look-up the rule regarding front on contact).

 

[sideswipe]

If Fogarty's arm didn't make contact with Murphy's head I wouldn't have paid the mark - Murph simply didn't control the ball for long enough. I Wouldn't have paid front on contact either (although I'm trying to look-up the rule regarding front on contact).

No such rule as "front on" contact. One of the (many) elements of "Prohibited Contact" is "makes high contact to an opposition player...with any part of their body". Safe to say that occurred.

 

[TradeDraft]

Take a look at the second 50 he threw on Stephenson yesterday. The first one was fair enough but the second was just over the top. Then showing him the hand.

AFL fans blow up at rare double 50-metre penalty: ‘Disgrace’

The decision from the ‘Razor Ray’ drew plenty of debate.

7news.com.au

Razor loves his Head on TV

 

[Big Bryza]

The best part was listening to how disappointed the fox commentary was, especially that w***er Lewis.

The campaigner was almost in tears on RSN this morning. Still tipping the Dees for the flag, those marshmallows haven't played a decent side yet.

 

[Big Bryza]

markov had some critically important touches in that last quarter ... rare you recruit someone who just gets the game plan from the get go - huge effort tonight

Yep the boy has something about him. He'll be the perfect sub come the latter stages of the year, if not still best 22.

He has played under Fly at Richmond VFL and knows exactly the role required of him. His elite speed suits our game style perfectly.

 

[RobJD]

Molly, I don't believe eyes on the ball has anything to do with it. You can have eyes on the ball all you like but if you recklessly make contact with the head then good night Irene.
Think big whack in the back of the head when spoiling from behind and mistaking the head for the footy.

Agree if it's a swinging arm that makes contact with the head (like Maynard last year) that's where it's easy to deem it as a reckless act. If it's deemed to be a football action, playing the ball and in-play, then it's difficult to call it reckless.

 

[Big Bryza]

The biggest irony with Lewis is he grew up barracking for us before being drafted to the Hawks.

You wouldn't know it listening to him.

Leigh Montagna syndrome

 

[Big Bryza]

Not his fault they put the kick ins in the disposals so 27 is what he had

People carry on as if Nick Daicos is the only player to take kick ins league wide. Hilarious stuff.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

If Fogarty's arm didn't make contact with Murphy's head I wouldn't have paid the mark - Murph simply didn't control the ball for long enough. I Wouldn't have paid front on contact either (although I'm trying to look-up the rule regarding front on contact).

It’s not front-on contact because he was trying to spoil the ball and had eyes on the ball. At least that’s my understanding.

It is high contact, because he broke Murphy’s nose in the same action.

 

[RobJD]

It’s not front-on contact because he was trying to spoil the ball and had eyes on the ball. At least that’s my understanding.

It is high contact, because he broke Murphy’s nose in the same action.

Agree - think I said as much earlier in the thread

 

[sideswipe]

my comment was more a smart arse comment on Ray's decision to award 50 against Stevo for ducking his head calling it dissent. Ash's protestations were just as bad.

Aha, you bring up the bedrock of the wonderful concept of dissent. It is dissent if you complain about a decision that was made(like Stevo making high contact) but appealing for a decision to be made(like AJ asking for high contact) is not that. Makes perfect sense dontcha think?

 

[sr36]

I would say both sides generally speaking have an 11% chance from scoring from centre clearance. Each side generally would have basically a 1 in 10 chance of scoring from a centre bounce.

Now considering how s**t Adelaide was in this actual game at winning a centre clearance - if Sidebottom scores a goal I’d say if they had 11% chance at scoring then we’d have had somewhere between 20-30% chance at scoring from centre clearance based on us winning almost 2/3s of the centre clearances for the game (11 to 6).

Regardless, I think kicking the point was the right move even if not deliberate. It would be much more difficult having to go 167m thru traffic rather than travel 83.5m with 6-6-6 format with three key fwds and your opponent with a key defender out injured.

I think Kings analytics reiterate a valid point, and state something pretty obvious. We didn’t even really defend the kick in very well considering, had crows not panicked, they had 8 seconds from centre wing to hit one of three targets inside 50. And that kinda plays into the analytics.

Despite us flooding the middle and not manning up on the wing, crows still choked and we marked. So you don’t even need to defend perfectly and you still have a 99% chance of winning by doing the bare minimum.

Had we kicked the goal, your giving crows 21 seconds from centre bounce 83m from goal and 3 tall fwds to bomb too - plus time to rove off the pack or force a stoppage ins50 - quite easily could have seen a draw or perhaps just another point for the crows and pies win by 5 points. Crows could have even lost the clearance and rebounded off half back quickly into space with 21 seconds on the clock due to the 6-6-6.

If I were the crows, I’d have rather Sidebottom kicked it and had a crack at winning the centre clearance with the 6-6-6 rather having to go coast to coast vs 18 man defence.

Thats all the analytics is really saying, it’s a probability of scoring from each situation. And if a coach has that information on hand, they’d be crazy not teach the players about it. Because it helps simplify the game for the 18 guys out there and make smarter decisions.

Our bloke on the mark for the kick out was bizarrely asleep.

 

[sr36]

Molly, I don't believe eyes on the ball has anything to do with it. You can have eyes on the ball all you like but if you recklessly make contact with the head then good night Irene.
Think big whack in the back of the head when spoiling from behind and mistaking the head for the footy.

It's about the action. They're not looking to police accidents. They're looking to police particular actions.

 

[Gabbo64]

It's about the action. They're not looking to police accidents. They're looking to police particular actions.

IMO sr, they are trying to police reckless actions that impact the head. For example, there is no rule that states a sling tackle is illegal. There is no rule that mentions the force of a sling tackle. Ergo a sling tackle is legal at any force. The AFL has deemed it a reportable offence.
Happy to be corrected if I have this wrong.

 

[lyfsux]

Razor loves his Head on TV

He's umpiring games Dave so his head IS on TV

 

[sideswipe]

IMO sr, they are trying to police reckless actions that impact the head. For example, there is no rule that states a sling tackle is illegal. There is no rule that mentions the force of a sling tackle. Ergo a sling tackle is legal at any force. The AFL has deemed it a reportable offence.
Happy to be corrected if I have this wrong.

Sling tackles are caught under the Rough Conduct provisions - something like "rough conduct which in the circumstances is unreasonable, including... executing a dangerous tackle...". DT is not a defined term.

 

[neilk]

May not be quite what I expected?

17.5 MARKING CONTESTS
17.5.1 Spirit and Intention
The Player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a Mark shall be permitted to do so.

17.5.2 Free Kicks - Marking Contests
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Marking contest against a Player where the Player:
(a) pushes or bumps an opposition Player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to the Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark or spoil the football;
(b) holds or blocks an opposition Player;
(c) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player;
(d) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player;
(e) makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player; or
(f) engages in Rough Conduct against an opposition Player.

17.5.3 Permitted Contact
Contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if such contact is incidental and the Player is legitimately Marking, attempting to Mark, spoiling or attempting to spoil the football.

 

[Mollythedolly]

No point discussing if you won't bother watching it. He put the hand up after he had paid the 50s.

I have watched it. Stevo actually followed him and despite clear indications from RR to stop, continued to suggest the Melbourne player had ducked. It wasn’t until he re-enacted the ducking motion that RR gave the 2nd 50m. Absolutely nothing wrong with RR’s actions. Not sure how you think it wasn’t justified, it was clear dissent. I’ll leave it there.

 

[sideswipe]

I have watched it. Stevo actually followed him and despite clear indications from RR to stop, continued to suggest the Melbourne player had ducked. It wasn’t until he re-enacted the ducking motion that RR gave the 2nd 50m. Absolutely nothing wrong with RR’s actions. Not sure how you think it wasn’t justified, it was clear dissent. I’ll leave it there.

Like the way you like to leave things.