Autopsy Round 8 North Melbourne vs Collingwood

[DuckYeah]

His role (at our club) has been changed to suit his skillset and where we are.

Brad was convinced he could become the pacy goal kicking attackive mid we need and it didn't work.

Noble using his pace, evasion and excellent kicking from the other end of the ground, and it is working very well.

Not entirely, he was never hitting the goal in those years, he’d burn team mates with failing to do 1% ers and his kicking was atrocious. This year he has hit the goal, beamed passes and he puts in shepherds. He has been quite impressive.

 

[The Warlord]

Not entirely, he was never hitting the goal in those years, he’d burn team mates with failing to do 1% ers and his kicking was atrocious. This year he has hit the goal, beamed passes and he puts in shepherds. He has been quite impressive.

Because he was being played out of position and would lose confidence.

 

[Frogginton McPowell]

Yeh honestly at the game, shocked it was 'only' 22k, looked like 30k minimum, very puzzling...

No scanning when we went through either. This is more serious than just putting the wrong figure up on the scoreboard. Isn't there a "break even" crowd figure for us at Marvel with our s**t stadium deal designedto keep us poor for ever? Around low 20k's or something? The club needs to made aware of this

 

[The Warlord]

No scanning when we went through either. This is more serious than just putting the wrong figure up on the scoreboard. Isn't there a "break even" crowd figure for us at Marvel with our sh*t stadium deal designedto keep us poor for ever? Around low 20k's or something? The club needs to made aware of this

Club sent me a text or similar saying they were aware of scanning issues.

 

[barnrokn]

You’re giving him Marsellus Wallace soul?

 

[barnrokn]

You’re giving him Marsellus Wallace soul?

If it’ll get it done then yes

 

[DERRINALPHIL]

I have been an educator of cricket umpires so have a much more dispassionate attitude to umpiring generally. Now I could not find the 2021 written Laws and I would appreciate if someone more internet savvy could give me a link.

Here is the "sliding Law"

(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player, causing the opposition Player to take evasive action; (c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;

Here is something that no one will know about

17.1.4 Simultaneous Free Kicks: Unless otherwise stated in these Laws, where Umpires pay simultaneous Free Kicks to opposing teams, play will be restarted with a throw-up

I assume that this is to cover two umpires paying different decisions at the one contest but does it cover a situation where there are two transgressions of different different rules occurring at the same time. This is what happened in the goal square. Zeibel did transgress the sliding rules but

(i) Kicks or attempts to Kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury;

Did this occur? I will have to carefully watch the incident on replay.

So it appears to me two free kicks were payable so possible a ball up was the correct decision?

 

[DesertRoo]

I have been an educator of cricket umpires so have a much more dispassionate attitude to umpiring generally. Now I could not find the 2021 written Laws and I would appreciate if someone more internet savvy could give me a link.

Here is the "sliding Law"

(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player, causing the opposition Player to take evasive action; (c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;

Here is something that no one will know about

17.1.4 Simultaneous Free Kicks: Unless otherwise stated in these Laws, where Umpires pay simultaneous Free Kicks to opposing teams, play will be restarted with a throw-up

I assume that this is to cover two umpires paying different decisions at the one contest but does it cover a situation where there are two transgressions of different different rules occurring at the same time. This is what happened in the goal square. Zeibel did transgress the sliding rules but

(i) Kicks or attempts to Kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury;

Did this occur? I will have to carefully watch the incident on replay.

So it appears to me two free kicks were payable so possible a ball up was the correct decision?

How the afl can have two differing free kicks from the one incident is unacceptable..
the ambiguity is ruining this game, and the top brass are at fault.

 

[Elite Master]

Oldies like Hall and Campbell and honest battlers like Mahone and Menadue being our 'best' is quite a sad state of affairs. All we need is Turner and Walker to be included and wow - might be the worst batch of 'best players' any club has ever had in AFL history.

 

[scottywiper]

Best bit will be when TT goes for head high contact as the AfL decides it is time to drae a line in sand on it after Fritsch got off.

 

[Dirty_11]

No inner scrote,
But I’d question his intelligence if he came to a team that might not win a game this year..

Some might question his intelligence in turning down $1-1.1m a year to play alongside his twin brother. Carlton are going nowhere fast. I would say we could be very well closer to a flag than the Blues. Anyway, I just hope we are going to offer him something to seriously think about.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[shintemaster]

I have been an educator of cricket umpires so have a much more dispassionate attitude to umpiring generally. Now I could not find the 2021 written Laws and I would appreciate if someone more internet savvy could give me a link.

Here is the "sliding Law"

(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player, causing the opposition Player to take evasive action; (c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;

Here is something that no one will know about

17.1.4 Simultaneous Free Kicks: Unless otherwise stated in these Laws, where Umpires pay simultaneous Free Kicks to opposing teams, play will be restarted with a throw-up

I assume that this is to cover two umpires paying different decisions at the one contest but does it cover a situation where there are two transgressions of different different rules occurring at the same time. This is what happened in the goal square. Zeibel did transgress the sliding rules but

(i) Kicks or attempts to Kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury;

Did this occur? I will have to carefully watch the incident on replay.

So it appears to me two free kicks were payable so possible a ball up was the correct decision?

I don't see "forceful contact" in that play though...

 

[scottywiper]

The rule was brought in to stop people sliding into opponents. But it's such a cluster * of a rule that it's interpreted in ways never intended.

 

[DERRINALPHIL]

I have been an educator of cricket umpires so have a much more dispassionate attitude to umpiring generally. Now I could not find the 2021 written Laws and I would appreciate if someone more internet savvy could give me a link.

Here is the "sliding Law"

(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player, causing the opposition Player to take evasive action; (c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;

Here is something that no one will know about

17.1.4 Simultaneous Free Kicks: Unless otherwise stated in these Laws, where Umpires pay simultaneous Free Kicks to opposing teams, play will be restarted with a throw-up

I assume that this is to cover two umpires paying different decisions at the one contest but does it cover a situation where there are two transgressions of different different rules occurring at the same time. This is what happened in the goal square. Zeibel did transgress the sliding rules but

(i) Kicks or attempts to Kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury;

Did this occur? I will have to carefully watch the incident on replay.

So it appears to me two free kicks were payable so possible a ball up was the correct decision?

How the afl can have two differing free kicks from the one incident is unacceptable..
the ambiguity is ruining this game, and the top brass are at fault.

In the Laws of Cricket they have precedence written into the Laws. A no ball takes precedence over a wide. Bowled takes precedence over all other modes of dismissal.

Don't be too hard on the Law makers. Situations come up all the time in all sports that haven't happened before and need a new rule change to eliminate the problem. I can give examples going back two centuries in cricket. The width of the bat was due to an enormously wide bat brought out in a Hambleton match in the late 1700s

 

[scottywiper]

The rule was brought in to stop people sliding into opponents. But it's such a cluster fu** of a rule that it's interpreted in ways never intended.

Ironically two of the clearest examples of when it should be paid both went against North in finals.
Black had his legs taken out from under him late in ESS comeback final and Ess got free.
And then the Jacobs one at Subi by Master Margetts.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

The rule was brought in to stop people sliding into opponents. But it's such a cluster fu** of a rule that it's interpreted in ways never intended.

Adam Goodes knee first style.

 

[DesertRoo]

In the Laws of Cricket they have precedence written into the Laws. A no ball takes precedence over a wide. Bowled takes precedence over all other modes of dismissal.

Don't be too hard on the Law makers. Situations come up all the time in all sports that haven't happened before and need a new rule change to eliminate the problem. I can give examples going back two centuries in cricket. The width of the bat was due to an enormously wide bat brought out in a Hambleton match in the late 1700s

Time traveling vampires ruining sports since the 1700s..

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Start a r

Going back to the 1700s, Time traveling vampires ruining sports…

How for the life of me haven’t I noticed that absolute criminal belt he’s wearing the whole time this photo has been a thing.

 

[scottywiper]

Exactly

 

[hcd199]

I have been an educator of cricket umpires so have a much more dispassionate attitude to umpiring generally. Now I could not find the 2021 written Laws and I would appreciate if someone more internet savvy could give me a link.

Here is the "sliding Law"

(b) making forceful contact below the knees of an opposition Player or executing a forceful action towards the lower leg of an opposition Player, causing the opposition Player to take evasive action; (c) sliding knees or feet first into an opposition Player;

Here is something that no one will know about

17.1.4 Simultaneous Free Kicks: Unless otherwise stated in these Laws, where Umpires pay simultaneous Free Kicks to opposing teams, play will be restarted with a throw-up

I assume that this is to cover two umpires paying different decisions at the one contest but does it cover a situation where there are two transgressions of different different rules occurring at the same time. This is what happened in the goal square. Zeibel did transgress the sliding rules but

(i) Kicks or attempts to Kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury;

Did this occur? I will have to carefully watch the incident on replay.

So it appears to me two free kicks were payable so possible a ball up was the correct decision?

Link is here.

I was a cricket umpire for a couple of years, and happy to acknowledge I wasn't much good at it, but I think there's a difference between errors that arise from trying to apply the rules correctly and being a bit technical about it (and so "lacking feel/common sense"), and errors that bear little resemblance to any reasonable reading of the actual rule, and it's the latter that really bother me. The difficulty with umpiring in the AFL is often that the rules as written bear little resemblance to the rules they enforce, relying instead on specific indicators they're trained to look for - examples include "you weren't looking at the ball" for marking infringements (presumably a proxy for whether you're making the ball your "sole objective" or not...?), focusing on "under pressure" for deliberate rushed behinds (it's now part of the actual law, but it wasn't for quite some time), and pertinently here, the near-complete ignoring of the word "forceful" when it comes to contact below the knees. Ziebell certainly didn't slide into Cameron "knees or feet first", nor did he execute a "forceful action" towards his leg or really initiate the contact at all, so I maintain that this wasn't a free kick against us.

As for simultaneous free kicks, I don't think that applies here (you're right that it's really about multiple umpires separately paying things opposite ways) - if one umpire sees mutual infringements, they can simply call 'play on' and not blow the whistle at all, so no need to throw it up (common in marking contests, "both holding"). I don't think either side infringed here, to be clear - Cameron's entitled to kick for goal, Ziebell's entitled to smother, play on is the best call - but certainly there's more of a case for kicking in danger than for forceful contact below the knees.

 

[the flying ham]

Oldies like Hall and Campbell and honest battlers like Mahone and Menadue being our 'best' is quite a sad state of affairs. All we need is Turner and Walker to be included and wow - might be the worst batch of 'best players' any club has ever had in AFL history.

Ill bite, im sorry but this is a bullshit post. Some guys finally finding form and confidence, if others find it too we are trending in the right direction. Perhaps posters need to let go of their bias and tip the cap to guys who are putting in and finding form.

 

[DERRINALPHIL]

Link is here.

I was a cricket umpire for a couple of years, and happy to acknowledge I wasn't much good at it, but I think there's a difference between errors that arise from trying to apply the rules correctly and being a bit technical about it (and so "lacking feel/common sense"), and errors that bear little resemblance to any reasonable reading of the actual rule, and it's the latter that really bother me. The difficulty with umpiring in the AFL is often that the rules as written bear little resemblance to the rules they enforce, relying instead on specific indicators they're trained to look for - examples include "you weren't looking at the ball" for marking infringements (presumably a proxy for whether you're making the ball your "sole objective" or not...?), focusing on "under pressure" for deliberate rushed behinds (it's now part of the actual law, but it wasn't for quite some time), and pertinently here, the near-complete ignoring of the word "forceful" when it comes to contact below the knees. Ziebell certainly didn't slide into Cameron "knees or feet first", nor did he execute a "forceful action" towards his leg or really initiate the contact at all, so I maintain that this wasn't a free kick against us.

As for simultaneous free kicks, I don't think that applies here (you're right that it's really about multiple umpires separately paying things opposite ways) - if one umpire sees mutual infringements, they can simply call 'play on' and not blow the whistle at all, so no need to throw it up (common in marking contests, "both holding"). I don't think either side infringed here, to be clear - Cameron's entitled to kick for goal, Ziebell's entitled to smother, play on is the best call - but certainly there's more of a case for kicking in danger than for forceful contact below the knees.

One of my sons is a lawyer and a sports fanatic. He laughs at the appalling write up of the Laws of Footy. He reckons they need a lawyer on the committee and he would be available, at enormous expense, to do the job.

He's such an obsessive that if you yell "ball" at our place he will hand you a printed copy of that part of the Laws and ask what part of the Law are you appealing to.

Where in the Laws does it say that when mutual infringements occur the umpire can say play on?

Thank a lot for the link.

PS Any cricket umpire who reckons he wasn't good at it was always someone who could see mistakes in his performance that truly crap umpires miss. You learn lots by mistakes as long as you acknowledge them so I reckon you should put the white coat back on. You were probably very good.

PPS I notice that an umpire knows exactly where the Laws are to be found.

 

[Colbys Boots]

One of my sons is a lawyer and a sports fanatic. He laughs at the appalling write up of the Laws of Footy. He reckons they need a lawyer on the committee and he would be available, at enormous expense, to do the job.

He's such an obsessive that if you yell "ball" at our place he will hand you a printed copy of that part of the Laws and ask what part of the Law are you appealing to.

Where in the Laws does it say that when mutual infringements occur the umpire can say play on?

Thank a lot for the link.

PS Any cricket umpire who reckons he wasn't good at it was always someone who could see mistakes in his performance that truly crap umpires miss. You learn lots by mistakes as long as you acknowledge them so I reckon you should put the white coat back on. You were probably very good.

PPS I notice that an umpire knows exactly where the Laws are to be found.

Here is what I think a simultaneous free kick refers to historically - as I'm sure you remember from the old days, when there was just one umpire on the field, that umpire would often call for a ball up in a line ball situation. For instance, if a player is tackled, completely drops the ball and is dragged to ground. Was that holding the ball (incorrect disposal) or holding the man? The old umpires would just run in and bounce it rather than let one team or the other take advantage of the loose ball. And ever since they stopped doing that, teams have taken advantage if they are in a two-on-one situation of drawing a tackle and letting the ball spill so the second player can run off with the ball as the tackler is taken out of the play.

 

[Snake_Baker]

How the afl can have two differing free kicks from the one incident is unacceptable..
the ambiguity is ruining this game, and the top brass are at fault.

Did you not read my earlier postings of the deliberate layering of the rules to cover any and all interpretations?


IT EXISTS BECAUSE IT COVERS ALL THE BASES!!!!!!

 

[The Warlord]

The rule was brought in to stop people sliding into opponents. But it's such a cluster fu** of a rule that it's interpreted in ways never intended.

The rule was brought in because Gerard Healy had a massive crywank over Gary Rohan being injured by evil Lindsay Thomas.