Certified Legendary Thread 2 x Premiership Coach Chris Scott contracted to 2026 (aka the Chris Scott volumes

[goyoucatters]

He was irritated by the "hit" on Blicavs and the umpires ignoring it, even though the AFL had issued an advice saying actions like that were reportable.

Meek simply kneed Blicavs in the abdomen in a way the AFL had deemed reportable.

Stanley was a victim of a similar incident inflicted by Tom deKoning that kept him out last week.

Scott pressed hard that ruckmen MUST stop this action, particularly so when they never even leave the ground but simply knee their opponent.

Seeing the incidents, I tend to agree, though Nathan Buckley felt it was a non-event..

Another magnificent quality of our coach. Gets his point across, defends his players vigorously, and yet never loses his temper and thereby dilutes the impact of his message.

He's a class act coaching on the field and a genuine gun representing the club off the field.

#bestinthebusiness

 

[00VicWard001]

Another magnificent quality of our coach. Gets his point across, defends his players vigorously, and yet never loses his temper and thereby dilutes the impact of his message.

He's a class act coaching on the field and a genuine gun representing the club off the field.

#bestinthebusiness

I actually like the moments where he is passionate, then pauses for a moment realising that he may sound forceful, and then always clarifies with the media about what he means, whether they understand his point and that their point is also valid (in the context of their role). He's thoughtful and considerate. Meanwhile, Hardwick and Bevo pretty much fight with the media for no particular reason.

 

[Partridge]

I actually like the moments where he is passionate, then pauses for a moment realising that he may sound forceful, and then always clarifies with the media about what he means, whether they understand his point and that their point is also valid (in the context of their role). He's thoughtful and considerate. Meanwhile, Hardwick and Bevo pretty much fight with the media for no particular reason.

Judging by what we saw a few years ago when they had multiple coaches and multiple "journalists" in the same room, I reckon most think what Hardwick and Beveridge do, but are far more diplomatic and won't actually say it.

To me it's good that the coaches pull them up on their bullshit. Whether it's Scott, Clarkson, or anyone else.

 

[patience]

As the years go by I am more impressed with Chris Scott

Chris Scott

Age

48

Ht

182cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.6

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.4

3star

No current season stats available

D

13.2

4star

K

10.2

4star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

2.8

5star

G

0.4

3star

. His intelligence and demeanour has matured with experience. Like a good bottle of red, our coach.

 

[Back One Out]

As the years go by I am more impressed with Chris Scott. His intelligence and demeanour has matured with experience. Like a good bottle of red, our coach.

He is also very, very shrewd in the way he controls the narrative of many situations.

Initially I was surprised that Scott would take on the role of the AFL's MRO in finding an opposition player guilty of a reportable offence. It's not something you ever really see any of the AFL coaches do, except for the most extreme circumstances like when Angus Brayshaw got his teeth knocked down his throat. Coaches will comment on the most egregiously violent acts; or they'll defend their own players when questioned by media. But you rarely hear them get involved in technical incidents involving transgressions by the opposition. They normally swat away those questions by the media and let the MRO do their job.

The media's response to the whole incident was quite interesting. Nobody (including Bucks) commented on the undersized Geelong ruckmen's premeditated tactic of rushing across the centre line and physically engaging their taller opponents while the ball is at its apex and denying their opponents a chance to jump for the ball.

That should be a free kick. It's generally been umpired that way for a long, long time. It was considered to be a "block". The whole point of the centre line is to separate the ruckman, avoid the grappling contests and encourage both ruckman to fly for the ball. It's supposed to be one of the great and unique "spectacles" of AFL footy, watching the league's giants fly mano a mano for the hitout.

Blicavs goes to the very edge of what is permissable under rules 18.4.3 (d) and (e)... Both rules which are designed to encourage the 'Spirit and Intention' of centre bounce ruck contests. But his actions should be penalised under rule 18.4.3 (c) because he is not making the ball his sole objective and he is deliberately and premeditatedly blocking his opponent from jumping at the ball.


18.4 RUCK CONTESTS

18.4.1 Spirit and Intention: the Ruck whose sole objective is to contest the football shall be permitted to do so.

18.4.3 Free Kicks - Ruck Contests

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Ruck contest against a Player...
...(a) who is not a Ruck, contests a throw-up or boundary throw-in;
...(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Ruck;
...(c) blocks an opposition Ruck;
...(d) makes contact with an opposition Ruck prior to the football leaving the field or boundary Umpire’s hand;
...(e) who is a Ruck, enters their attacking half or steps outside the Centre Circle prior to the field Umpire bouncing or throwing up the football; or
...(f) hits the football Out of Bounds On the Full from a throw-up by a field Umpire or a throw-in by a boundary Umpire.

 

[catscratchfever]

He is also very, very shrewd in the way he controls the narrative of many situations.

Initially I was surprised that Scott would take on the role of the AFL's MRO in finding an opposition player guilty of a reportable offence. It's not something you ever really see any of the AFL coaches do, except for the most extreme circumstances like when Angus Brayshaw got his teeth knocked down his throat. Coaches will comment on the most egregiously violent acts; or they'll defend their own players when questioned by media. But you rarely hear them get involved in technical incidents involving transgressions by the opposition. They normally swat away those questions by the media and let the MRO do their job.

The media's response to the whole incident was quite interesting. Nobody (including Bucks) commented on the undersized Geelong ruckmen's premeditated tactic of rushing across the centre line and physically engaging their taller opponents while the ball is at its apex and denying their opponents a chance to jump for the ball.

That should be a free kick. It's generally been umpired that way for a long, long time. It was considered to be a "block". The whole point of the centre line is to separate the ruckman, avoid the grappling contests and encourage both ruckman to fly for the ball. It's supposed to be one of the great and unique "spectacles" of AFL footy, watching the league's giants fly mano a mano for the hitout.

Blicavs goes to the very edge of what is permissable under rules 18.4.3 (d) and (e)... Both rules which are designed to encourage the 'Spirit and Intention' of centre bounce ruck contests. But his actions should be penalised under rule 18.4.3 (c) because he is not making the ball his sole objective and he is deliberately and premeditatedly blocking his opponent from jumping at the ball.


18.4 RUCK CONTESTS

18.4.1 Spirit and Intention: the Ruck whose sole objective is to contest the football shall be permitted to do so.

18.4.3 Free Kicks - Ruck Contests

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Ruck contest against a Player...
...(a) who is not a Ruck, contests a throw-up or boundary throw-in;
...(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Ruck;
...(c) blocks an opposition Ruck;
...(d) makes contact with an opposition Ruck prior to the football leaving the field or boundary Umpire’s hand;
...(e) who is a Ruck, enters their attacking half or steps outside the Centre Circle prior to the field Umpire bouncing or throwing up the football; or
...(f) hits the football Out of Bounds On the Full from a throw-up by a field Umpire or a throw-in by a boundary Umpire.

Sorry, we don't accept apostates

 

[Cataholic]

He is also very, very shrewd in the way he controls the narrative of many situations.

Initially I was surprised that Scott would take on the role of the AFL's MRO in finding an opposition player guilty of a reportable offence. It's not something you ever really see any of the AFL coaches do, except for the most extreme circumstances like when Angus Brayshaw got his teeth knocked down his throat. Coaches will comment on the most egregiously violent acts; or they'll defend their own players when questioned by media. But you rarely hear them get involved in technical incidents involving transgressions by the opposition. They normally swat away those questions by the media and let the MRO do their job.

The media's response to the whole incident was quite interesting. Nobody (including Bucks) commented on the undersized Geelong ruckmen's premeditated tactic of rushing across the centre line and physically engaging their taller opponents while the ball is at its apex and denying their opponents a chance to jump for the ball.

That should be a free kick. It's generally been umpired that way for a long, long time. It was considered to be a "block". The whole point of the centre line is to separate the ruckman, avoid the grappling contests and encourage both ruckman to fly for the ball. It's supposed to be one of the great and unique "spectacles" of AFL footy, watching the league's giants fly mano a mano for the hitout.

Blicavs goes to the very edge of what is permissable under rules 18.4.3 (d) and (e)... Both rules which are designed to encourage the 'Spirit and Intention' of centre bounce ruck contests. But his actions should be penalised under rule 18.4.3 (c) because he is not making the ball his sole objective and he is deliberately and premeditatedly blocking his opponent from jumping at the ball.


18.4 RUCK CONTESTS

18.4.1 Spirit and Intention: the Ruck whose sole objective is to contest the football shall be permitted to do so.

18.4.3 Free Kicks - Ruck Contests

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick in a Ruck contest against a Player...
...(a) who is not a Ruck, contests a throw-up or boundary throw-in;
...(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Ruck;
...(c) blocks an opposition Ruck;
...(d) makes contact with an opposition Ruck prior to the football leaving the field or boundary Umpire’s hand;
...(e) who is a Ruck, enters their attacking half or steps outside the Centre Circle prior to the field Umpire bouncing or throwing up the football; or
...(f) hits the football Out of Bounds On the Full from a throw-up by a field Umpire or a throw-in by a boundary Umpire.

Blitz was deliberately kneed in a grubby action that could've caused serious injury. That's what CS was p*ssed about.

He didn't 'control' the narrative. He simply pointed out exactly what occurred.

If there was a concern about the way the ump was interpreting the above your captain / club could've raised it with the umps. But no, your man took the low road and resorted to an attempt to injure his opponent.

Now we have his action being justified because of a belief the ump hasn't interpreted the rules correctly in that moment. Charming.

Ol' Sam has got them playing the same grubby football the HFC has dished up for years.

 

[Back One Out]

Blitz was deliberately kneed in a grubby action that could've caused serious injury. That's what CS was p*ssed about.

He didn't 'control' the narrative. He simply pointed out exactly what occurred.

If there was a concern about the way the ump was interpreting the above your captain / club could've raised it with the umps. But no, your man took the low road and resorted to an attempt to injure his opponent.

Now we have his action being justified because of a belief the ump hasn't interpreted the rules correctly in that moment. Charming.

Ol' Sam has got them playing the same grubby football the HFC has dished up for years.

Yeah, the Hawks are a bunch of filthy, sniping, mongrel dogs. Ol' Sam has taught 'em everything he knows.
Opposition teams hate playing the Hawthorn brutes because know they're in for a torrid day. They fear us.
You better get some extra icepacks ready and make sure you have the orthopaedic surgeons on standby.

When they say "The meek shall inherit the earth" what they really mean is "Meek will garrotte them to death"

Keep 'em coming, Cataholic. I need some cheering up when there's no footy in Melbourne all weekend.

 

[Cataholic]

Yeah, the Hawks are a bunch of filthy, sniping, mongrel dogs. Ol' Sam has taught 'em everything he knows.
Opposition teams hate playing the Hawthorn brutes because know they're in for a torrid day. They fear us.
Better get some extra icepacks and make sure you have the orthopaedic surgeons on standby.

When they say "The meek shall inherit the earth" what they really mean is "Meek will garrotte them to death"

Keep 'em coming, Cataholic. I need some cheering up when there's no footy in Melbourne all weekend.

Can't disagree with your first 3 sentences at all, but as for your fourth .....well, they all fear the dirty play, but definitely don't fear your, ah......talent.

 

[Partridge]

Yeah, the Hawks are a bunch of filthy, sniping, mongrel dogs. Ol' Sam has taught 'em everything he knows.
Opposition teams hate playing the Hawthorn brutes because know they're in for a torrid day. They fear us.
You better get some extra icepacks ready and make sure you have the orthopaedic surgeons on standby.

When they say "The meek shall inherit the earth" what they really mean is "Meek will garrotte them to death"

Keep 'em coming, Cataholic. I need some cheering up when there's no footy in Melbourne all weekend.

If you want pure comedy, read each board when an opposition player has been cited for something. The frothing at the mouth hysteria about sometimes very mundane incidents is something to behold (plus of course total amnesia for when your club's player has done something similar or far worse).

For the sentence in bold. It's so true. Except that hasn't happened in footy for at least 30 years (and probably longer). But it sounds good.

 

[00VicWard001]

Judging by what we saw a few years ago when they had multiple coaches and multiple "journalists" in the same room, I reckon most think what Hardwick and Beveridge do, but are far more diplomatic and won't actually say it.

To me it's good that the coaches pull them up on their bullshit. Whether it's Scott, Clarkson, or anyone else.

Yes, I agree. They all have an ego, all are fiercely protective of their players, take losses personally, are all fairly intelligent people and probably look down on most pedestrian opinions who have no insight or detail of what they are trying to achieve - but only grasp the surface level stuff. Some are just able to hit that pause button before they really unload. Even CS with his apologies is probably being snarky, condescending or trite when he is apologising, and behind closed doors would be taking the piss out of any of the commentators or media who have opinions that he thinks are stupid.

 

[PhatBoy]

I just watched the little 15-minute mini-doco in Kayo about last year - ‘Relentless.’

Showed some snippets from team meetings etc where they were mic’d up.

At 3qt in the grand final, Scott addresses his players and it’s the most stern thing he says in any of the recorded bits:
‘Do NOT rub their noses in it. Just attack and get the ball to Tyse and Jez.’

Those 7 words are proof that he is the driving force of our culture and why I am happy for him to coach us as long as he wants the job.

 

[Cataholic]

CS saying on 360 that they have high hopes for Shannon Neal, and had him pencilled in for early games to ease Hawkins into 2023, but then Neale got injured.

Also said they see him more as a forward than a ruckman.

 

[goyoucatters]

CS saying on 360 that they have high hopes for Shannon Neal, and had him pencilled in for early games to ease Hawkins into 2023, but then Neale got injured.

Also said they see him more as a forward than a ruckman.

He's a good judge of talent, our coach.

 

[Gunf]

CS saying on 360 that they have high hopes for Shannon Neal, and had him pencilled in for early games to ease Hawkins into 2023, but then Neale got injured.

Also said they see him more as a forward than a ruckman.

So he sees what others here see good good. Now sign his ass up Scott.

 

[catscratchfever]

So he sees what others here see good good. Now sign his ass up Scott.

Are you referring to a donkey? No? Then please leave the Americanisms to the Americans. If you are an Aussie, the correct terminology is 'arses'. Nitpicking, I know, but the US dominates just about every other facet of our country (we are the 51st state, after all) - let's not let their stupid slang infiltrate our great homegrown game or this board.

 

[Mr Meow]

Are you referring to a donkey? No? Then please leave the Americanisms to the Americans. If you are an Aussie, the correct terminology is 'arses'. Nitpicking, I know, but the US dominates just about every other facet of our country (we are the 51st state, after all) - let's not let their stupid slang infiltrate our great homegrown game or this board.

A whole bunch of colorful language although you labored the point a bit. Do us a favor, there's need to analyze the caliber of our dialog.

 

[catscratchfever]

A whole bunch of colorful language although you labored the point a bit. Do us a favor, there's need to analyze the caliber of our dialog.

Perish the thought.

 

[Mr Meow]

Perish the thought.

I thought 6 Americanised spellings in one post might be enough to send you over the edge, but here you are cool as a cucumbre (admit it, that's how Aussies should spell it - folks of the "re" endings!).

On topic I don't think Chris makes an arse of himself like he sometimes did in his early days.

 

[00VicWard001]

I just watched the little 15-minute mini-doco in Kayo about last year - ‘Relentless.’

Showed some snippets from team meetings etc where they were mic’d up.

At 3qt in the grand final, Scott addresses his players and it’s the most stern thing he says in any of the recorded bits:
‘Do NOT rub their noses in it. Just attack and get the ball to Tyse and Jez.’

Those 7 words are proof that he is the driving force of our culture and why I am happy for him to coach us as long as he wants the job.

Thanks for that - I'm watching it now.

I got chills when Gary looked CS in the eyes and told him "Get it done"; and Guth said "I knew we were going to win".

 

[dazbroncos]

Are you referring to a donkey? No? Then please leave the Americanisms to the Americans. If you are an Aussie, the correct terminology is 'arses'. Nitpicking, I know, but the US dominates just about every other facet of our country (we are the 51st state, after all) - let's not let their stupid slang infiltrate our great homegrown game or this board.

Agreed!

Go Catters

 

[dazbroncos]

300 Games this week coaching for the club.

Fair effort - 2 Flags... 72ish % winning record in that time....

Well done Scotty.

GO Catters

 

[patience]

Congratulations Chris Scott

Chris Scott

Age

48

Ht

182cm

Wt

89kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.6

4star

K

11.2

4star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.6

4star

G

0.4

3star

No current season stats available

D

13.2

4star

K

10.2

4star

HB

3.0

3star

M

2.2

3star

T

2.8

5star

G

0.4

3star

. He's done alright .

 

[devilsnap]

300 Games this week coaching for the club.

Fair effort - 2 Flags... 72ish % winning record in that time....

Well done Scotty.

GO Catters

Should note that 72% is the HA winning %. Overall, he's ~70%.


Just for comparison:

Reg Hickey: 304 games, 61%, 2 flags (3 if you include him as a captain-coach)
Bomber Thompson: 260 games, 63%, 2 flags
And then daylight from the rest.

AFL Tables - Geelong - Coaches

Comfortably Top 3 Geelong coach of all time. He'll pass Reg Hickey's games record this year. Has to be in contention for a stand named after him (or a statue or something).

 

[cats_09]