Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 25 to 36 of 57

Thread: AFL Round 4 general discussion

  1. #25
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,274
    We should put Melbourne away next week.

  2. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by MattW View Post
    We should put Melbourne away next week.
    I admire your optimism. Swans got some major form / injury concerns. But in season 2020 anything* is possible.

    *Except Adelaide making the eight

  3. #27
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    3,274
    Quote Originally Posted by Markwebbos View Post
    I admire your optimism. Swans got some major form / injury concerns. But in season 2020 anything* is possible.

    *Except Adelaide making the eight
    I really don't rate Goodwin. We shouldn't lose to them while they're playing under him.

  4. #28
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    5,324
    The only constant this season is the awfulness of the Crows, 11 scoring shots to 33, lucky it wasn't a 100 point beating. Being in Adelaide myself, this is the best.

    Battle for the wooden spoon next week, Crows versus Freo with no Fyfe.

    Hope the normal flakey Dees turn up next week, it is an odd numbered round and we've won our previos two of those.

  5. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    The only constant this season is the awfulness of the Crows, 11 scoring shots to 33, lucky it wasn't a 100 point beating. Being in Adelaide myself, this is the best.
    I hear you.

  6. #30
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    10,549
    The short quarters sure are stifling scoring. The AFL must be hating it. No doubt we will go back to real footy next year. They have fiddled with the length of quarters previously and also rotations to fatigue players and increase scoring etc, etc. Lets hope the change merchants leave the game as it is.

    I think the umpiring has been quite good and they are rarely penalising a player for hatching the footy. "My ball", ball it up and moving the game on.

  7. #31
    Veterans List
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Crowland :-(
    Posts
    5,324
    Quote Originally Posted by goswannies View Post
    I hear you.
    LOL, don't we know how insufferable it is in this town when the Crows are up and about, the fawning press makes me feel ill, but this year - bliss!

    Crows have real problems, long term problems. A lot of senior players who, to to honest, are declining rapidly before their time and no outstanding young talent. Their past few drafts are looking like busts and you just know with their on and off field problems that the Vic clubs will be white anting draftees as I write! Got a strong draft hand this year but their list is in need of a significant injection of quality talent.

    I won't say any more as this is the R4 thread not a general discussion thread

  8. #32
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Inner West
    Posts
    1,809
    I was reading somewhere that the WA teams are about to get seven weeks in a row of home games. If that's correct we should
    all spare a thought for all the Richmond supporters who are going to have to suffer through this incredible injustice.

  9. #33
    Can you feel it? Site Admin ugg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chucked into the ruck
    Posts
    15,595
    Betts gave away the fifty because he ran forward of the mark before the umpire had called played on. The kick-in player is only deemed to have played on once he crosses one of the goalsquare lines. Saad started running a few steps before he crossed the line and Betts jumped the gone. However, the two Essendon players are meant to be attempting to clear the 10m zone when the kick-in is being taken. The fact they weren't meant that technically the umpire should have made Saad re-take the kick-in. They keyword here though is "attempting". They don't actually have to be clear of the zone when the kick-in is taken, but because they weren't attempting to, the umpire should have recalled it.

  10. #34
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Close to the old Lake Oval
    Posts
    2,780
    Quote Originally Posted by ugg View Post
    Betts gave away the fifty because he ran forward of the mark before the umpire had called played on. The kick-in player is only deemed to have played on once he crosses one of the goalsquare lines. Saad started running a few steps before he crossed the line and Betts jumped the gone. However, the two Essendon players are meant to be attempting to clear the 10m zone when the kick-in is being taken. The fact they weren't meant that technically the umpire should have made Saad re-take the kick-in. They keyword here though is "attempting". They don't actually have to be clear of the zone when the kick-in is taken, but because they weren't attempting to, the umpire should have recalled it.
    Thx Ugg. You must be one of the rare people in the country who is actually well versed in the game's rules.

  11. #35
    Bets didn't even interfere with the kicker, so it was a joke. Put the whistle away in the last few minutes.

  12. #36
    pr. dim-melb; m not f
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Central Coast NSW, Costa Lantana
    Posts
    6,856
    Quote Originally Posted by ugg View Post
    Betts gave away the fifty because he ran forward of the mark before the umpire had called played on. The kick-in player is only deemed to have played on once he crosses one of the goalsquare lines. Saad started running a few steps before he crossed the line and Betts jumped the gone. However, the two Essendon players are meant to be attempting to clear the 10m zone when the kick-in is being taken. The fact they weren't meant that technically the umpire should have made Saad re-take the kick-in. They keyword here though is "attempting". They don't actually have to be clear of the zone when the kick-in is taken, but because they weren't attempting to, the umpire should have recalled it.
    Thanks ugg - that clarifies the situation. All we need now is an explanation from the ump as to why he ran at least 60 metres and maybe more past 50. But I'm not counting on it ...
    He reminds him of the guys, close-set, slow, and never rattled, who were play-makers on the team. (John Updike, seeing Josh Kennedy in a crystal ball)

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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