Match Day Thread Rnd 15 V Melbourne. MCG 19.50 pm.

[chalbilto]

How about: Bugg the Grub.

[barry]

Spot on. The other decision that screamed "no footy sense" was the deliberate OOB against Rohan. The one thing he definitely DIDN'T want was for the ball to go OOB - he was backing himself in to burn off the Melbourne players who were running with him, if he put the ball out in front - but he just connected a too sweetly. I did my nut when that decision was paid, and some Melbourne supporting peanut behind me said "well who was he kicking to?" Groan. I was gratified when I got home and replayed the incident and found that the commentators said almost precisely what I had said to the Demon nitwit. Shame he won't have bothered to watch the replay and understand how lacking in footy sense both he and the umpire were.

I have no problem with rohans out of bounds call. He did kick it straight to the line with no other player in that direction. What his intent was is irrelevant.

But they also should have paid a free to is when gawn punched it directly out.

[Industrial Fan]

I have no problem with rohans out of bounds call. He did kick it straight to the line with no other player in that direction. What his intent was is irrelevant.

But they also should have paid a free to is when gawn punched it directly out.

???? Can only guess it would have been more "there" had it been McVeigh that kicked it

[barry]

???? Can only guess it would have been more "there" had it been McVeigh that kicked it

What's this @@@@?

[S.S. Bleeder]

Lewis hasn't been good for the Dees in mentoring tough and uncompromising play that is still respectful. His body language has been pretty ordinary at times. That can rub off on others in a team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think he's mentored them very well. He's taught them how to; duck into tackles to earn a free, take a dive when an opponent goes near them, coward punch them behind play, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

I have no problem with rohans out of bounds call. He did kick it straight to the line with no other player in that direction. What his intent was is irrelevant.

But they also should have paid a free to is when gawn punched it directly out.

His intent IS relevant. That's why they call it "deliberate". Otherwise, the rul would apply to the last person to touch it. Frankly, I would prefer that rule as the current interpretation isn't working.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Spot on. The other decision that screamed "no footy sense" was the deliberate OOB against Rohan. The one thing he definitely DIDN'T want was for the ball to go OOB - he was backing himself in to burn off the Melbourne players who were running with him, if he put the ball out in front - but he just connected a too sweetly. I did my nut when that decision was paid, and some Melbourne supporting peanut behind me said "well who was he kicking to?" Groan. I was gratified when I got home and replayed the incident and found that the commentators said almost precisely what I had said to the Demon nitwit. Shame he won't have bothered to watch the replay and understand how lacking in footy sense both he and the umpire were.

Correct. The two players arrived at the ball at a similar time. Rohan knew he had the leg speed advantage so kicked the ball into the open so he could use his leg speed to his advantage. He must have been 40m from the boundary, he kicked it along the ground, the ball could have deviated in any direction during that time.

[giant]

How about: Bugg the Grub.

#squashthebugg With a bit of luck, this grub has played his last game of AFL football.

[Mug Punter]

Newman appears to know where to run and make space and place himself behind the play. I don't see that he is playing back. He starts on the wing at almost every centre bounce. He drifts foreward and back and is an excellent reader of the play. The only area he needs to tidy up is the depth of his kicking. Tries to be a bit cute at times by trying to thread the needle to a player on the lead. Turned it over a lot last night.

Having watched the replay I thought Towers was ok. He does himself a disservice by trying fancy kicks across his body to no one, instead of having a shot himself. Twice he could have nailed goals and all would have been hailing his breakout game. He certainly works hard and doesn't lack courage. He took 5 marks and a few were heavily contested.

Gary Rohan's best game for a long time. Just play him forward.

Jack is back but Zac will miss again due to his over zealous high shoulder bump. Takes another week's rest that should give him enough game management for a strong run to the finals.

Strewth Grundy and Macca keep proving some RWO list management gurus wrong.

On Bugg; yes a dog act and has probably labelled himself as a dog for the rest of his career. I cringe when I see that crap. The 50 metre penalty was brought in for those type of acts. That was 70's (Matthews mentality) rubbish and we have to get these people out of the game. Take note please Zac.

Agree with pretty much all of this.

Newman has a raking left boot, I'd prefer for him to look long but overall his disposal is very good. Cannot believe how easily he has made the step up from the NEAFL.

Towers is keeping his spot on merit and I hope his confidence can improve, he is working his butt off and I can't see him being dropped any time soon. He had his breakout game against Freo in that final a coupe of years ago and I really thought he could become a star for us but he has faltered. Maybe he can have another breakout game.

Still can't see Macca playing on next year but Reg is looking timeless at the moment.

[Thunder Shaker]

His intent IS relevant. That's why they call it "deliberate". Otherwise, the rul would apply to the last person to touch it. Frankly, I would prefer that rule as the current interpretation isn't working.

A few rules rely on opinion, not fact. As long as that is the case, there will be controversy.

Kicking the ball out of bounds on the full always pays a free kick because it is a fact-based rule. It is a far less controversial rule.

It would be less controversial if they scrapped the deliberate out of bounds and brought in a last-possession rule. If the player had a clean possession (including a ruck tap) and the ball goes out of bounds but not on the full from that possession, some kind of free should be paid to the opposition. But not a free kick. They should handpass the ball back into play with every other player being 10 metres away.

[Velour&Ruffles]

oops

[Matty10]

It would be less controversial if they scrapped the deliberate out of bounds and brought in a last-possession rule. If the player had a clean possession (including a ruck tap) and the ball goes out of bounds but not on the full from that possession, some kind of free should be paid to the opposition.

There would still be controversy. I think it is just the nature of our game. People will be arguing over clean possession and players would still try and fumble a ball over the line (deliberately, but disguised), which may or may not be penalised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Velour&Ruffles]

I think he's mentored them very well. He's taught them how to; duck into tackles to earn a free, take a dive when an opponent goes near them, coward punch them behind play, etc.

- - - Updated - - -



His intent IS relevant. That's why they call it "deliberate". Otherwise, the rul would apply to the last person to touch it. Frankly, I would prefer that rule as the current interpretation isn't working.

Thank goodness someone else said this. I wasn't quite sure how I could possibly word a response without suggesting that barry is mentally deficient (or at least has no understanding of what the word "deliberate" means).