Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 72 of 85

Thread: #AFL Round 9 Weekly Discussion Thread

  1. #61
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    6,096
    Very satisfying that short turd got his come upance today against the winless Lions. Wonder what he said in his presser, maybe Brisbane got away with blue murder in their forward line because Hawks seemed inept in defence. Must have been a lot of easy goals out the back like Ronke got last week.

    Hawks got talked up on the back of wins against bottom sides, Tigers the same. So glad to see the miracle rebuild at Glenferrie was just a mirage! Reckon today another team may have been struck off the list of possible destinations by GC Tom Lynch.

  2. #62
    On the Rookie List
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Canberra via Marrickville and Moree
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by ugg View Post
    Bulldogs back to their throwing best.
    I thought the same when watching the footage on Game Day


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #63
    "I do believe that Fagan is better qualified to coach against the Hawks than us after being In the inner sanctum for so long"

    But Fagan would have been part of the planning of how to beat the Swans; at which the Hawks were pretty successful in Fagan's time there.

  4. #64
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    I don't think Fagan would be trying to get his team to do different things to beat specific opponents. At this stage of their development, he'd be just trying to get them to play the way he wants them to play, and if it works against a particular team, all the better. But the focus would be primarily internal and on how they play, rather than how the opposition plays.

  5. #65
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,177
    Who's surprised with this below?! Stupid decision, now entrenched with all the other crap decisions from past weeks with robotically repeated AFL 'ticks of apporoval'.....our game is going downhill.

    http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%2...-Right-AFL.jpg

    Sorry, link only, I don't seem to be able to upload actual images atm.
    Last edited by stevoswan; 22nd May 2018 at 12:37 AM.

  6. #66
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,177
    Quote Originally Posted by stevoswan View Post
    Who's surprised with this below?! Stupid decision, now entrenched with all the other crap decisions from past weeks with robotically repeated AFL 'ticks of apporoval'.....our game is going downhill.

    http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%2...-Right-AFL.jpg

    Sorry, link only, I don't seem to be able to upload actual images atm.
    To the above, I'll add Titus O'Reilly's take on it.

    ".........resulted in just two (WB) goals for the whole game and the umpires could put their hands up for at least one of them.

    One of them came from the idiotic slide rule that the AFL put in place a while ago with the amount of thought you�d expect from them."

    The Monday Knee Jerk Reaction: AFL Round Nine@ | Titus O'Reily

  7. #67
    The best this week from Titus:

    �Watching this insipid performance was made worse for Hawks fans, given Luke Hodge was directing a lot of the traffic for the Lions and playing very well himself.

    It was like wandering down the street hungover, unwashed and in your tracksuit pants, only to bump into your ex who looks terrific and is surrounded by a bunch of younger, more attractive friends.

    In the end, it was a perfect first win of the season for the Lions, fulfilling the promise they have been showing, while for the Hawks, it means a lot more coffees with Gillon are in Alastair Clarkson�s future.�

    https://www.titusoreily.com/afl/mond...und-nine%C2%A0
    Last edited by liz; 22nd May 2018 at 11:27 AM. Reason: Added link to source article

  8. #68
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    6,096
    I love Titus, always seems to get it spot on!

  9. #69
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,177
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    I love Titus, always seems to get it spot on!
    He's brilliant......required reading every week!

  10. #70
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,393
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    I love Titus, always seems to get it spot on!
    Except for his comment on "the sliding rule". I reckon he's missed the mark on this one.

    While people continue to refer to it as "the sliding rule", they will continue to misunderstand it. It has nothing to do with sliding and everything to do with choosing to go to ground and, in the process, taking out an opponent's legs. I do think it is sometimes over-officiated, with even minor contact to an opponent's leg sometimes penalised (it is "forceful contact" that is prohibited). But the one paid against Talia was entirely correct and a good example of why the rule was introduced. I found comments on social media that Webb caused the contact to be fanciful. He wasn't able to stop in his tracks once Talia chose to go to ground.

  11. #71
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,329
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Except for his comment on "the sliding rule". I reckon he's missed the mark on this one.

    While people continue to refer to it as "the sliding rule", they will continue to misunderstand it. It has nothing to do with sliding and everything to do with choosing to go to ground and, in the process, taking out an opponent's legs. I do think it is sometimes over-officiated, with even minor contact to an opponent's leg sometimes penalised (it is "forceful contact" that is prohibited). But the one paid against Talia was entirely correct and a good example of why the rule was introduced. I found comments on social media that Webb caused the contact to be fanciful. He wasn't able to stop in his tracks once Talia chose to go to ground.
    Historically, my only real problem with the rule, was that they arbitrarily decided that it no longer existed, during the 2016 GF.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh, I probably wouldn't have paid the Talia one, given that he was sliding away from the Dogs player, and that should minimise the chance of injury.

  12. #72
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Castlemaine, Vic.
    Posts
    8,177
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    Except for his comment on "the sliding rule". I reckon he's missed the mark on this one.

    While people continue to refer to it as "the sliding rule", they will continue to misunderstand it. It has nothing to do with sliding and everything to do with choosing to go to ground and, in the process, taking out an opponent's legs. I do think it is sometimes over-officiated, with even minor contact to an opponent's leg sometimes penalised (it is "forceful contact" that is prohibited). But the one paid against Talia was entirely correct and a good example of why the rule was introduced. I found comments on social media that Webb caused the contact to be fanciful. He wasn't able to stop in his tracks once Talia chose to go to ground.
    While it was bought in with good intent after the Rohan injury, which admittedly was shocking, it was a knee jerk reaction and is now probably the worst rule in football IMO.....at least because of the way it is being adjudicated. Far too much, it penalises the player who arrives first for the ball, ie; who's object is the ball and rewards the slower (and suddenly conveniently clumsy) player arriving second, who can just fall over the top and receive his ill-earned free kick (Webb).

    Making the Talia decision worse, was that the two players were going in basically the same direction and Talia had no choice but too try and knock the ball out of the path of the approaching Bulldog player, who was attempting to kick the ball forward. My initial reaction was 'that's kicking in danger to Talia'.....

    It's a contact sport and players are going to fall over occasionally. It's often a stupid interpretation of a rule which is 'hazy' at best. IMO, it should only be paid when the sliding player is coming in from front on and 'forcefully', as the rule states ie: in a manner likely to cause injury, like Thomas on Rohan......side on and same direction smothering or denying possession, like the Talia one, should be play on.....

    The final insult is for the AFL to give the Talia decision the 'tick of approval' thereby setting a mindless precedent for the future......but the AFL are becoming very good at that.
    Last edited by stevoswan; 22nd May 2018 at 05:57 PM.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO