The Fireman Kornes and Ringo Rucci jumbo thread

Pea Nut

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 9, 2013
9,682
11,239
AFL Club
Adelaide
So Kornes has shown once again why he’s an idiot.

His latest brainwave is that Kern would be a perfect fit at Carlton:

“Came in and won a final in his first year, 2014”

“Shown he can get the best out of young players” yeah right besides the last 3 he’s wasted a **** load of high picks and not many have developed under him

Then went on to highlight he’s been there 7 years, they missed finals from 11-4, this year its win loss, very inconsistent.

So how would he be a perfect fit for Carlton? He’s failed at Port you flog, you’ve just pointed it out!

The rest of the panel just nod. Why dont they call out his opinions?
Sounds like Kornes wants to make sure he keeps his mate in a job. He would be the last guy Carlton need if they actually want to succeed. If we wanted to keep doing pick swaps with Carlton he should definitely go there.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

chazwazza

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 15, 2012
7,446
11,604
Thebarton
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Sturt Football Club
So Kornes has shown once again why he’s an idiot.

His latest brainwave is that Kern would be a perfect fit at Carlton:

“Came in and won a final in his first year, 2014”

“Shown he can get the best out of young players” yeah right besides the last 3 he’s wasted a s**t load of high picks and not many have developed under him

Then went on to highlight he’s been there 7 years, they missed finals from 11-4, this year its win loss, very inconsistent.

So how would he be a perfect fit for Carlton? He’s failed at Port you flog, you’ve just pointed it out!

The rest of the panel just nod. Why dont they call out his opinions?
Worse was yesterday morning when he suggested Adelaide might throw the Gold Coast game to help ensure we get pick 1. Went on to suggest it would be a concern for the AFL and it’d be a bad look for the competition.
F*** me.
 

BringbacktheBiff2005

Club Legend
Jun 10, 2005
1,021
1,790
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide, Norwood,
Did anyone watch AFL360 last night and listen to Chris Scott saying that the Talia v Dangerfield contest was a clear free kick to Danger? He went on to say that ANY front on contact is a free kick. Now I am sure that if you keep your eyes on the ball and run back with the flight then you are fine. Does anyone else find his thoughts on this absurd?

From his logic, the iconic marks of Nick Riewoldt and Jono Brown would be free kicks against.

Robbo tried to pull him up but Chris Scott was adamant he was right that no player can make front on contact.

Please tell me he is wrong!!!????
 

BringbacktheBiff2005

Club Legend
Jun 10, 2005
1,021
1,790
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide, Norwood,
Did anyone watch AFL360 last night and listen to Chris Scott saying that the Talia v Dangerfield contest was a clear free kick to Danger? He went on to say that ANY front on contact is a free kick. Now I am sure that if you keep your eyes on the ball and run back with the flight then you are fine. Does anyone else find his thoughts on this absurd?

From his logic, the iconic marks of Nick Riewoldt and Jono Brown would be free kicks against.

Robbo tried to pull him up but Chris Scott was adamant he was right that no player can make front on contact.

Please tell me he is wrong!!!????
Rules of the game:

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.
 

Pea Nut

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 9, 2013
9,682
11,239
AFL Club
Adelaide
Did anyone watch AFL360 last night and listen to Chris Scott saying that the Talia v Dangerfield contest was a clear free kick to Danger? He went on to say that ANY front on contact is a free kick. Now I am sure that if you keep your eyes on the ball and run back with the flight then you are fine. Does anyone else find his thoughts on this absurd?

From his logic, the iconic marks of Nick Riewoldt and Jono Brown would be free kicks against.

Robbo tried to pull him up but Chris Scott was adamant he was right that no player can make front on contact.

Please tell me he is wrong!!!????
Of course he's wrong. By that logic it actually should have been a free kick to Talia as Danger made front on contact with Talia, and Talia was closer to the ball. I haven't seen the segment, but knowing Scott he would have trying to deflect away from something else. That's his style.
 

kirky

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 29, 2000
10,414
7,054
AFL Club
Adelaide
Worse was yesterday morning when he suggested Adelaide might throw the Gold Coast game to help ensure we get pick 1. Went on to suggest it would be a concern for the AFL and it’d be a bad look for the competition.
F*** me.
Was just a deflection from the point Port were insipid against the Bulldogs.

Would be concerned if this was a Port Showdown but it isn’t so reasonably confident of a win.
 

BringbacktheBiff2005

Club Legend
Jun 10, 2005
1,021
1,790
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide, Norwood,
Of course he's wrong. By that logic it actually should have been a free kick to Talia as Danger made front on contact with Talia, and Talia was closer to the ball. I haven't seen the segment, but knowing Scott he would have trying to deflect away from something else. That's his style.
That's the thing I couldn't work out as he was adamant about the rule. His quote was, "I don't like it, but that's the rule. It was a clear free kick to Danger"

Bizarre that an AFL coach doesn't know the rules

On SM-G965F using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bonkers000

Club Legend
Mar 5, 2015
2,390
2,670
AFL Club
Adelaide
Did anyone watch AFL360 last night and listen to Chris Scott saying that the Talia v Dangerfield contest was a clear free kick to Danger? He went on to say that ANY front on contact is a free kick. Now I am sure that if you keep your eyes on the ball and run back with the flight then you are fine. Does anyone else find his thoughts on this absurd?

From his logic, the iconic marks of Nick Riewoldt and Jono Brown would be free kicks against.

Robbo tried to pull him up but Chris Scott was adamant he was right that no player can make front on contact.

Please tell me he is wrong!!!????
Any front on contact is a free kick in today’s game. I’d argue it wasn’t front on though, as they both came in from the side. What made it look like front on contact was talia twisting his body to face the goals, as you would when trying to take a chest mark with your arms out stretched.
 

Dudersaurus

Team Captain
Oct 7, 2018
314
486
AFL Club
Adelaide
Any front on contact is a free kick in today’s game. I’d argue it wasn’t front on though, as they both came in from the side. What made it look like front on contact was talia twisting his body to face the goals, as you would when trying to take a chest mark with your arms out stretched.
Actually looked at the rules. Marking contest rules:

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.



The only thing that looks like a rule regarding "front-on contact" is (e) prohibited contact, or maybe (f) rough contact.



17.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT
17.3.1 Spirit and Intention
A Player who makes the football their sole objective shall be provided every
opportunity to do so.
17.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player makes
any of the following Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player:
(a) executes a tackle that is not legal;
(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back;
(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the
shoulders) with any part of their body;
(d) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football;
(e) executes an illegal Shepherd;
(f) Charges an opposition Player;
(g) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by hand, arm,
foot or leg;
(h) kicks or attempts to kick an opposition Player;
(i) Kicks or attempts to Kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury;
(j) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by hand, fist,
arm, knee or head; or
(k) bumps or makes forceful contact to an opposition Player from
front-on when that Player has their head down over the football.

The only thing that looks like "front-on contact" is (k) but that is not relevant to marking contests.

7.7 ROUGH CONDUCT
17.7.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition
Player which is likely to cause injury.
17.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player
engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the
circumstances is unreasonable, which includes but is not limited to:
(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;
(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;
(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

Nothing regarding frontal collision in marking contests.

Unless someone can educate me, there doesn't actually seem to be a rule at all.
 

kirky

Brownlow Medallist
Dec 29, 2000
10,414
7,054
AFL Club
Adelaide
Sounds like Kornes wants to make sure he keeps his mate in a job. He would be the last guy Carlton need if they actually want to succeed. If we wanted to keep doing pick swaps with Carlton he should definitely go there.
No. Kane wants Hinkley gone so the Power can entice Clarkson back. That is what Kane is thinking.
 

Pea Nut

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 9, 2013
9,682
11,239
AFL Club
Adelaide
No. Kane wants Hinkley gone so the Power can entice Clarkson back. That is what Kane is thinking.
Really ?? What gives you that idea ?? Or why could Kornes have that idea ?? To many it seems as though Kane looks out for his mate Kern at every opportunity that he gets.
 

Morning_Fog

Premiership Player
Jun 24, 2018
3,180
3,131
AFL Club
Adelaide
Did anyone watch AFL360 last night and listen to Chris Scott saying that the Talia v Dangerfield contest was a clear free kick to Danger? He went on to say that ANY front on contact is a free kick. Now I am sure that if you keep your eyes on the ball and run back with the flight then you are fine. Does anyone else find his thoughts on this absurd?

From his logic, the iconic marks of Nick Riewoldt and Jono Brown would be free kicks against.

Robbo tried to pull him up but Chris Scott was adamant he was right that no player can make front on contact.

Please tell me he is wrong!!!????
IMO, he is wrong because Talia never took his eyes off the ball.

Rules of the game:

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.
17.5.1 - Daniel Talia did not take his eyes off the ball and due to this, the rule 17.5.1 comes into play.

As soon as any player takes his eyes off the ball, his intent to spoil, or mark the ball is removed from the contest and his sole intent is removed.
 

Bonkers000

Club Legend
Mar 5, 2015
2,390
2,670
AFL Club
Adelaide
Actually looked at the rules. Marking contest rules:

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.



The only thing that looks like a rule regarding "front-on contact" is (e) prohibited contact, or maybe (f) rough contact.



17.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT
17.3.1 Spirit and Intention
A Player who makes the football their sole objective shall be provided every
opportunity to do so.
17.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player makes
any of the following Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player:
(a) executes a tackle that is not legal;
(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back;
(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the
shoulders) with any part of their body;
(d) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football;
(e) executes an illegal Shepherd;
(f) Charges an opposition Player;
(g) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by hand, arm,
foot or leg;
(h) kicks or attempts to kick an opposition Player;
(i) Kicks or attempts to Kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury;
(j) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by hand, fist,
arm, knee or head; or
(k) bumps or makes forceful contact to an opposition Player from
front-on when that Player has their head down over the football.

The only thing that looks like "front-on contact" is (k) but that is not relevant to marking contests.

7.7 ROUGH CONDUCT
17.7.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition
Player which is likely to cause injury.
17.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player
engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the
circumstances is unreasonable, which includes but is not limited to:
(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;
(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;
(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

Nothing regarding frontal collision in marking contests.

Unless someone can educate me, there doesn't actually seem to be a rule at all.
I have no doubt everything you’ve said is directly from the rule book. But what the umpires pay or interpret are different things. As I’ve understood it for the last 10-15 years is, facing the wrong way and touching the arms or jumping into a player is always a free kick.
 

Dudersaurus

Team Captain
Oct 7, 2018
314
486
AFL Club
Adelaide
I have no doubt everything you’ve said is directly from the rule book. But what the umpires pay or interpret are different things. As I’ve understood it for the last 10-15 years is, facing the wrong way and touching the arms or jumping into a player is always a free kick.
Yeah, but my issue was Scott's definitive statement that the action was clearly against the rules, and there was significant uncertainty from others. The actual rules don't back him up.
 
May 24, 2006
52,529
88,798
Car 55
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Redbacks, Sturt, Liverpool, Arizona
Yeah, but my issue was Scott's definitive statement that the action was clearly against the rules, and there was significant uncertainty from others. The actual rules don't back him up.
There are a few rules like the front on contact one that are accepted rules but not actually written anywhere.

"Pay the man in front" in a marking contest is another one. Doesn't actually exist.
 

dogs105

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 12, 2002
29,729
34,064
Edinburgh
AFL Club
Adelaide
Actually looked at the rules. Marking contest rules:

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.



The only thing that looks like a rule regarding "front-on contact" is (e) prohibited contact, or maybe (f) rough contact.



17.3 PROHIBITED CONTACT
17.3.1 Spirit and Intention
A Player who makes the football their sole objective shall be provided every
opportunity to do so.
17.3.2 Free Kicks - Prohibited Contact
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player makes
any of the following Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player:
(a) executes a tackle that is not legal;
(b) pushes an opposition Player in the back;
(c) makes high contact to an opposition Player (including the top of the
shoulders) with any part of their body;
(d) holds an opposition Player who is not in possession of the football;
(e) executes an illegal Shepherd;
(f) Charges an opposition Player;
(g) trips or attempts to trip an opposition Player, whether by hand, arm,
foot or leg;
(h) kicks or attempts to kick an opposition Player;
(i) Kicks or attempts to Kick the football in a manner likely to cause injury;
(j) strikes or attempts to strike an opposition Player, whether by hand, fist,
arm, knee or head; or
(k) bumps or makes forceful contact to an opposition Player from
front-on when that Player has their head down over the football.

The only thing that looks like "front-on contact" is (k) but that is not relevant to marking contests.

7.7 ROUGH CONDUCT
17.7.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be protected from unreasonable conduct from an opposition
Player which is likely to cause injury.
17.7.2 Free Kicks - Rough Conduct
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player when that Player
engages in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the
circumstances is unreasonable, which includes but is not limited to:
(a) executing a dangerous tackle on an opposition Player;
(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;
(d) using boot studs in a manner likely to cause injury.

Nothing regarding frontal collision in marking contests.

Unless someone can educate me, there doesn't actually seem to be a rule at all.
It's an "interpretation"...
 

GameofSloanes

Premiership Player
Oct 20, 2015
3,977
5,774
In a Galaxy Far, Far Away
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool
IMO, he is wrong because Talia never took his eyes off the ball.



17.5.1 - Daniel Talia did not take his eyes off the ball and due to this, the rule 17.5.1 comes into play.

As soon as any player takes his eyes off the ball, his intent to spoil, or mark the ball is removed from the contest and his sole intent is removed.
Did anyone apart from Chris Scott honestly think it was a free? I don't even think Danger would have
 

GameofSloanes

Premiership Player
Oct 20, 2015
3,977
5,774
In a Galaxy Far, Far Away
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool
I have no doubt everything you’ve said is directly from the rule book. But what the umpires pay or interpret are different things. As I’ve understood it for the last 10-15 years is, facing the wrong way and touching the arms or jumping into a player is always a free kick.
Nah, not true. Only a free if you aren't looking at the ball and look at the other player (even if just for a moment)
 
Top Bottom