The Finals - Week 1

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Shuey has every right to try to break the tackle.... up to the tackler not to go high.
Polec should have aimed for the hips. Simple.

Sloppy tackle. Free kick every day.

Sure, Shuey has a right to break a tackle, but if in the act of trying to break that tackle, he forces what was a legal tackle into a high tackle, he should forfeit the right to a free, unless it's clearly reckless.
Tackle started legal and looked to be reasonable and not reckless. Shuey raised his arm causing the tackle to slip high (whether he was trying to slip the tackle or deliberately trying to draw high contact is irrelevant). Play on.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Ball knocked out in the tackle is my favourite...to my knowledge the only rule in the book is incorrect disposal, very seldomly used and it frustrates the hell out of me that they make a black and white rule and turn it into all shades of grey.

It's not that hard

Closely followed by 'he made a genuine attempt' when no contact is made with the ball. Well that's alright then, let's just reward mediocrity. I don't care if it was a genuine attempt, the player made a brilliant tackle and forced an error of incorrect disposal.

 

[ODNBlue]

Yep. If you don't dispose of it by handball or by foot, and you had a prior opportunity... done.

Personally, I hate this 'it's holding the ball because he didn't make a genuine attempt' bullshit. The attempts are pantomine mostly and genuine rarely. How about we just apply the 'did he have prior opportunity' rule and if not, ball up. If knocked out without prior opportunity, play on. If prior opportunity and ball is not disposed of by handball or by foot, holding the ball.

Simples.

 

[Wickzki]

If losing Jeremy Cameron wasn't enough they've now announced Mumford's done for the year

http://m.gwsgiants.com.au/news/2017-09-11/mumford-injury-update


At this stage GWS and West Coast are playing to see who gets flogged by more the following week. Therefore, there's a distinct possibility that Richmond pull a Richmond and choke.

 

[Jimmae]

Actually, what you said is that Shuey "just shrug[ged] the tackle without lifting the arm". Jimmae, lying again to win an argument on BF.

While we can all adjust our point of view on the fly to save face from time to time, rest assured that this was an error of omission, you (presumably) massive flog.

He didn't use his arm to grip or push Polec's arm. Polec ****ed up and made a second motion, then caught him high. Enjoy your day.

 

[mediumsizered]

All i know is the players were told if you lift your arms up in a tackle and the tackle slips high because of a deliberate arm raise dont expect a free . Players such as Shuey have been doing it for years . Have we not woken up to them ? Seems not . Did you notice Robbie Grays reaction/arm raising straight after the free ? He knew exactly what Shuey was up to as he's another one of the culprits that use this tactic ...

In the early stages of this season the umpires were quite strict with this interpretation.

As the season went on the interpretation became less strict, to the point that I came close to breaking a TV when watching Rhys Mathieson win a number of free kicks for high tackles when we played Brisbane.

Just to confirm the interpretation has been eased right back, Scott Selwood was paid a free kick on Friday night after pushing his shoulder into a Richmond player who was about to lay a tackle.

 

[Iamcarlton]

In the early stages of this season the umpires were quite strict with this interpretation.

As the season went on the interpretation became less strict, to the point that I came close to breaking a TV when watching Rhys Mathieson win a number of free kicks for high tackles when we played Brisbane.

Just to confirm the interpretation has been eased right back, Scott Selwood was paid a free kick on Friday night after pushing his shoulder into a Richmond player who was about to lay a tackle.

Yes the over emphasis on certain rules and interpretations in the first half of season then the relaxing of same rules in second half of season has been going on for years . And drives me nuts every year . The umpiring fraternity just cannot find a happy medium where they umpire certain rules the same from start to finish of the season .

 

[mediumsizered]

Yes the over emphasis on certain rules and interpretations in the first half of season then the relaxing of same rules in second half of season has been going on for years . And drives me nuts every year . The umpiring fraternity just cannot find a happy medium where they umpire certain rules the same from start to finish of the season .

I don't blame any of these changes in interpretations on the umpires officiating the games. These changes must be coming from the umpires' hierarchy/the AFL.

 

[Moody Blue]

I don't blame any of these changes in interpretations on the umpires officiating the games. These changes must be coming from the umpires' hierarchy/the AFL.

At least the AFL (coaches and officials) have worked out that bagging umpires after a game is no longer acceptable. After seeing the after match performance of two Rugby League coaches (one of them who was suspended for 12 months for supplements experimentation) on the weekend, it just shows how far they have to go.

 

[Sector 7G]

Pretty happy with the way the * bruise free footy where soft players and game style got pulled apart by the Swans.
On BF some of their more prolific posters are now questioning where they are going after such a monumental reality check.

Can't see them making finals next year on the back of the following:

• Made the finals off the back of a generous draw playing 4 bottom 6 teams twice. Will get a tougher draw next year
• Of the banned players only Hurley, Hooker, Heppell and possibly Bellchambers deserve a spot on the list.
• The much of the youth that was supposed to be superior to Carlton's hasn't made the progress they were expecting with Worsfold questioning Francis's desire to be an AFL footballer (we heard the same thing from our coaches re Jaksch) and the lack of progress from Laverde (did have a bad run with injuries) and Langford. Redman and Morgan were always speculative and haven't shown much.
• List cloggers stopped their 1st year players apart from McGrath getting senior level exposure.

 

[mediumsizered]

At least the AFL (coaches and officials) have worked out that bagging umpires after a game is no longer acceptable. After seeing the after match performance of two Rugby League coaches (one of them who was suspended for 12 months for supplements experimentation) on the weekend, it just shows how far they have to go.

The behaviour of NRL coaches is disgraceful. That this is still happening indicates the NRL don't see it as a major issue, they are just happy to collect the fines.

The response of Ken Hinkley to Power's loss on Saturday night was a stark contrast to that of his NRL counterparts.

 

[ESKIE]

Pretty happy with the way the * bruise free footy where soft players and game style got pulled apart by the Swans.
On BF some of their more prolific posters are now questioning where they are going after such a monumental reality check.

Can't see them making finals next year on the back of the following:

• Made the finals off the back of a generous draw playing 4 bottom 6 teams twice. Will get a tougher draw next year
• Of the banned players only Hurley, Hooker, Heppell and possibly Bellchambers deserve a spot on the list.
• The much of the youth that was supposed to be superior to Carlton's hasn't made the progress they were expecting with Worsfold questioning Francis's desire to be an AFL footballer (we heard the same thing from our coaches re Jaksch) and the lack of progress from Laverde (did have a bad run with injuries) and Langford. Redman and Morgan were always speculative and haven't shown much.
• List cloggers stopped their 1st year players apart from McGrath getting senior level exposure.

Add Worsfold coaching in there as well, I don't think he is that good

 

[Moody Blue]

Add Worsfold coaching in there as well, I don't think he is that good

Agreed. Richardson is not the guy to take the Saints to the next level. Don't be surprised to see Hinkley coaching them in 12-18 months.
Melbourne would not want a repeat of 2017, otherwise Goodwin will come under enormous pressure. Buckley on his last chance at Collingwood. Their list is pretty ordinary. He may have done better moving to the Gold Coast. IF GWS & Geelong go out in straight sets, then Cameron & Scott are going to go under the microscope. The AFL want a flag in West Sydney.

 

[Gethelred]

When you have current players on footy shows saying it wasnt free i think that decides it...

Why?

You think being on footy shows, or having played in the 80/90's, means that their opinion is more likely to be true? With respect to the greats of the game, those who have left the game and been out or in the media for 5 years or more are as relevant to things like this as we are, as the only advantage they have is obtained via their connections in the industry. Everything else is publicly available; the rule change/umpiring directive to disallow any free where the player brings high contact on themselves, and the footage of the free kick.

Watch the footage, read the rule. I think that, under the rules, it wasn't a free kick - I do, though think it's a terrible rule which puts too much onto an umpire with time constraints - but my point here is that I came to that conclusion.

Don't rely on the testimony or support of others to make your view/opinion more powerful.

 

[Iamcarlton]

Why?

You think being on footy shows, or having played in the 80/90's, means that their opinion is more likely to be true? With respect to the greats of the game, those who have left the game and been out or in the media for 5 years or more are as relevant to things like this as we are, as the only advantage they have is obtained via their connections in the industry. Everything else is publicly available; the rule change/umpiring directive to disallow any free where the player brings high contact on themselves, and the footage of the free kick.

Watch the footage, read the rule. I think that, under the rules, it wasn't a free kick - I do, though think it's a terrible rule which puts too much onto an umpire with time constraints - but my point here is that I came to that conclusion.

Don't rely on the testimony or support of others to make your view/opinion more powerful.

Agree entirely about the rules being tinkered with constantly and making the job of the umpires harder . I guess it comes back to are we happy with players like Selwood Shuey and Mathieson using the tactics they do to win free kicks . I know im not and whilst the Shuey one didnt look glaringly like he was playing for a free ive no doubt that was his intention . Under the rules that cover high tackles and was changed this year it was NOT a free kick . And lastly i did say current players voicing their opinion not past .

 

[Gethelred]

Agree entirely about the rules being tinkered with constantly and making the job of the umpires harder . I guess it comes back to are we happy with players like Selwood Shuey and Mathieson using the tactics they do to win free kicks . I know im not and whilst the Shuey one didnt look glaringly like he was playing for a free ive no doubt that was his intention . Under the rules that cover high tackles and was changed this year it was NOT a free kick . And lastly i did say current players voicing their opinion not past .

Which current players jeopardised their positions by making an opinion that disagrees with the official AFL ruling?

 

[Sector 7G]

Agree entirely about the rules being tinkered with constantly and making the job of the umpires harder . I guess it comes back to are we happy with players like Selwood Shuey and Mathieson using the tactics they do to win free kicks . I know im not and whilst the Shuey one didnt look glaringly like he was playing for a free ive no doubt that was his intention . Under the rules that cover high tackles and was changed this year it was NOT a free kick . And lastly i did say current players voicing their opinion not past .

Umpires need to be on the look out for the signs of causing the free. See a player throw their head back like Shuey did, then 90% of the time they are playing for the free and it should be playon/holding the ball. At least Selwood tries to break the tackle and keep going when he causes the free and thus doesn't annoy me the the extent of Shuey/Matheson

 

[Iamcarlton]

Which current players jeopardised their positions by making an opinion that disagrees with the official AFL ruling?

I heard Lewis disagree with the decision and another whos names has escaped me . Would have liked to have heard from the AFL as we do on occasions when controversial decisions occur but sadly weve heard nothing .

 

[Gethelred]

I heard Lewis disagree with the decision and another whos names has escaped me . Would have liked to have heard from the AFL as we do on occasions when controversial decisions occur but sadly weve heard nothing .

The AFL have come out and supported the umpire's decision. Have a look:
https://www.google.com.au/url?q=htt...ghPMA4&usg=AFQjCNF2fnyY9GROJBGV79EfNKuNVNR-JQ

But then, the party line is to support the umpires anyway. The offending umpire has been dropped since.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Port had the ball in hand from a free kick with 1.30 to go, played on and turned it over.

Keep possession and run the clock and it was over.

They totally screwed the pooch.

 

[thylacine60]

you just got to the end of the replay, numbers?

 

[footyfan1978]

I just watched it today.
Absolute mental morons to lose that final on their home patch.
Did not beat a final 8 side all year.
Talk about downhill skiers.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

you just got to the end of the replay, numbers?

Just get annoyed with the carry on about the free.

Swampies kept WC to 2 goals in 90 minutes, and let them get 3 more in the last 5 and a bit minutes.

Any coach worth his salt would have had 7/8 behind the ball at the end of the first extra time period and the game is as good as over.

Hindsight hey.....

 

[Gethelred]

It's one thing to say a free was a bad free, and it played a role in the result. It's quite another to say that Port lost that game well before that point.

Just because Charlie Dixon kicked like Cas on a good day doesn't mean that giving a grub like Shuey the match to win for diving is fair. There isn't really an argument, other than to wish people'd stop talking about it.

Shut up, self.

 

[Azul]

Shoe-E was involved in 3 free kicks in those 2 minutes. Let's just say he and the umpires know each other's game.

But if you watch carefully, the reason Port lost was that the mercurial Chad Wingard's trusty left foot failed him twice in a minute.