Strategy STAND rule

[SunshineBoy]

I content that the rules changes were to help Dangerfield win a premiership!

He Dangerflop was involved in the changes with Chris Scott , and Gerard Wankley, it was told on 360 at the time I said why wankley he only played kick to kick in the backyard, and why all the scats and no other clubs involved? Then they have the gall to call Gilligan a good ceo,

A good ceo would have said the optics on this aren’t good Steve can we relook at this? But no he rubber stamped it , it shows no ethical integrity on his part and don’t get me started on his interest in betting companies

 

[Tigertimeonrepeat]

Any rule based on interpretation is not really a rule is it?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[tony__montana]

Any rule based on interpretation is not really a rule is it?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Correct which is why they need to shelve the “ball was knocked out in a tackle” interpretation for htb. You get nailed in a big tackle and the ball spills out, it’s htfb not play on. Same with prior opportunity, too much grey area, get rid of it.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

He Dangerflop was involved in the changes with Chris Scott , and Gerard Wankley, it was told on 360 at the time I said why wankley he only played kick to kick in the backyard, and why all the scats and no other clubs involved? Then they have the gall to call Gilligan a good ceo,

A good ceo would have said the optics on this aren’t good Steve can we relook at this? But no he rubber stamped it , it shows no ethical integrity on his part and don’t get me started on his interest in betting companies

letting Geelong try it out to make sure it suited them first before Whateley etc. starting spruiking it was corrupt.

 

[Marcel Proust]

“Arms out is 50, mate,”

 

[DickieKnee]

“Arms out is 50, mate,”

Ridiculous.

 

[dwwaino]

Watched a bit of last night's game while smashing down some take away. Degoey had the ball in a non-threatening position about 60m out on the boundary. A Brisbane player was following his man but went inside as his man ran around the boundary. Brisbane player in no way affects Degoey in any way whatsoever but gives away a 50m and a goal. How on earth does that penalty fit the crime?

Correct which is why they need to shelve the “ball was knocked out in a tackle” interpretation for htb. You get nailed in a big tackle and the ball spills out, it’s htfb not play on. Same with prior opportunity, too much grey area, get rid of it.

I don't get how this is so hard. First was there prior opportunity, yes or no? No, play on. Yes, did the player legally dispose of it? No, free kick. I don't know why it's so ambiguous when it's so straight forward.

 

[SunshineBoy]

letting Geelong try it out to make sure it suited them first before Whateley etc. starting spruiking it was corrupt.

Wankley was on the look of the game committee which introduced these rules

 

[DickieKnee]

Brisbane player in no way affects Degoey in any way whatsoever but gives away a 50m and a goal

It's happening way too often, goals resulting from very minor infringements and 50 metre penalties. Its ruining the game as a spectacle.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Watched a bit of last night's game while smashing down some take away. Degoey had the ball in a non-threatening position about 60m out on the boundary. A Brisbane player was following his man but went inside as his man ran around the boundary. Brisbane player in no way affects Degoey in any way whatsoever but gives away a 50m and a goal. How on earth does that penalty fit the crime?



I don't get how this is so hard. First was there prior opportunity, yes or no? No, play on. Yes, did the player legally dispose of it? No, free kick. I don't know why it's so ambiguous when it's so straight forward.

Spot fixing, easy peasy. Degoey will get a goal from a 50 meter penalty. Kaching, easy to manipulate, first the free then the 50 cash your chips in.

but that right it only happens in India

 

[SunshineBoy]

It's happening way too often, goals resulting from very minor infringements and 50 metre penalties. Its ruining the game as a spectacle.

Spot fixing

 

[DoItForCaptBlood]

Watched a bit of last night's game while smashing down some take away. Degoey had the ball in a non-threatening position about 60m out on the boundary. A Brisbane player was following his man but went inside as his man ran around the boundary. Brisbane player in no way affects Degoey in any way whatsoever but gives away a 50m and a goal. How on earth does that penalty fit the crime?



I don't get how this is so hard. First was there prior opportunity, yes or no? No, play on. Yes, did the player legally dispose of it? No, free kick. I don't know why it's so ambiguous when it's so straight forward.

On the 1st one... The rule I am happy with that one. Maybe DeGoey wanted to play on and especially the side open to goals, so I agree with that one. The player sometimes is boundary side or running 8.5 metres away and gets pinged though. Ridiculous.

The 2nd one I think the problem is the 'no prior' time length. Can someone confirm the official rule. I thought a heard 2 or was it 3 secs. That's what is inconsistent. Then was it knocked out? I think most want to see a tackle and the player drops or fresh airy on a kick get paid. But the no prior is different for different for certain umpires. Obviously immediately tackled, but for me, it is too long. Players can handball with 1 sec. There's the prior.