Autopsy Autopsy vs Swans

[jarjarpowers]

Yep. What was with Buddys 2nd shot after his guy ran over the mark?

Swans player infringed on the man on the mark, Tarrant. So Buddy was allowed to take his kick again. Afl genius on display, punish a side by giving them another kick. Bit like when a team nominates two ruckmen and gets a free kick. WWE!

 

[Daniltchenko You Beauty]

I love Brown being Tassie but he can **** off to VFL.

Was so pathetic today (and last week), just disgusting.

Bring Preuss in and Brown out. At least one has a crack, and it's not Brown.

You continue to be the worst contributor to this board.

He got smashed by Jack last week and he had no good supply this week. He's a leading forward and we continually kicked it to two on one marking contests.

The least of our worries.

Go away.

 

[jclei]

That was putrid and they gave us nothing.
Only a hint of a spark at the start of the last quarter.

And by the way, where was the North crowd support?
Hardly a chant all night. Noiseless.

We beat Adelaide by ten goals last week and have 38,000 members. Yeah it was a shit time slot but the crowd was 21,000 which meanns 15,000 turned up. Friggin' pathetic.

I would usually agree with poor crowd but it's Mother's Day - most people have family things that you can't get out of. 21k with an interstate side is the best that was going to happen

 

[Snake_Baker]

Unquestionably poor umpiring tonight of which we had the rough end. But anyone believing it played any part in who won and lost the game is kidding themselves.

Agree, it was one of those games for North where the ball consistently bounces sideways or backwards in to the arms of an opponent and we got the poorer outcome of some bewilderingly inconsistent umpiring, but the defining difference between the teams was Sydneys ability to adhere to its structures much better than us. We constantly bombed long to outnumbered forwards only to see the ball transition down the other end, find a loose swan and result in a shot on goal. THis all comes down to discipline.

Last week we beat a pretender, this week we got beat by a contender.

Sydney managed to do the little "nuances" much better and more often than us, whether it be nudging a north player under a mark,hitting up a team mate or getting the ball in to space o a swan could run on to it. I don't now who our around the ground clearance coach is, but they have a lot of work in front of them as we were schooled at the around the ground contests.

 

[archereleven]

The 8-10 blatant htb non decisions pissed me off more than anything... The game is a rabble atm

Surprisingly I was actually fine with this and the umpires have been doing it all season. If a teammate of the kicker goes to block the man in the mark, the umpire calls time on and resets the mark. Buddy actually kicked after the ump stopped the clock so it had to be brought back

It should be a reversal then... In fact, doing anything to the man on the mark should be a free against. Blocking him is a blight on the game as well.

Really is in bad shape this game imo

 

[hotham]

We looked tired. Just try and do better next week.

 

[Shinboner roo]

We simply are a vanilla flavoured cake with a few chocolate chip sprinkles in tarrant higgins and waite. A poster has already said it but you can see why we are offering kelly $1million and martin $1million+ a year.

 

[Zondor]

Have been watching Anderson for awhile now, and he for some reason does not want the ball or kick for goals. He only wants to tackle.

Why is he in the team?

To justify his recruitment. :stern look

 

[ansonholt]

Yep. What was with Buddys 2nd shot after his guy ran over the mark?

It has to be a reset. It's in the rule book. I know it's nonsensical but the umpire did the right thing.

As for the non-HTB in the 3rd and then the subsequent deliberate, not so much.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

To justify his recruitment. :stern look

He brings little to the side.

 

[db swannie]

Yep. What was with Buddys 2nd shot after his guy ran over the mark?

Ok but that has never been paid as a free against the player taking the shot. NEVER. And it made no difference to the result at all.

 

[Boomerfan99]

Ok but that has never been paid as a free against the player taking the shot. NEVER. And it made no difference to the result at all.

Shouldn't you be romancing Mrs Palmer?

 

[Marstermind]

We simply are a vanilla flavoured cake with a few chocolate chip sprinkles in tarrant higgins and waite. A poster has already said it but you can see why we are offering kelly $1million and martin $1million+ a year.

We're not even that. We're one of those rice wafers that look and taste like polystyrene. They don't look good or taste of anything but can be OK every now and again to fill a whole or if you spread something different on it. But even then you get over it pretty quickly.

 

[Flawed Genius]

Shouldn't you be romancing Mrs Palmer?

Please don't feed the trolls.

 

[Boomerfan99]

Please don't feed the trolls.

Can you give him a day off?

 

[Flawed Genius]

Can you give him a day off?

Hasn't done anything wrong. Just don't quote him and he'll go away.

 

[Samsquanch]

The 8-10 blatant htb non decisions pissed me off more than anything... The game is a rabble atm



It should be a reversal then... In fact, doing anything to the man on the mark should be a free against. Blocking him is a blight on the game as well.

Really is in bad shape this game imo

Have to agree with this. The buggerising with rules takes this game from being pretty much a format where natural justice applies (i.e. Holding without the ball, push in the back, over the shoulder, throw etc.) and turns it into one where umps have to interpret the intentions (i.e. Did he make sufficient effort to do X, Y or Z) or where they can pay either way on a whim and still be right.

FFS, blocking the man on the mark has to be a free against (the rule allows it to be a "reset" is a joke???). Rushing a behind is a very reasonable way to deny your opponent a goal - how the hell is that a free against? Deliberate OOB is an abomination - paid one way, not the other, payed one week then next week it's forgotten about. It may be a submission to rush the ball over the boundary, but part of the objective is to deny your oponent - so why not allow this IMO?

Protecting the ruckman in the rucking contest sounds like it should be OK, but the umps asking for nominations at every contest is just a farce. They have to sort out something better - maybe just clear more space from the throw up.

Anyway, I also think that the over administration of the game is terrible.

 

[DarwinRoo]

Has there ever been a loss we have had that wasn't the umpires fault???

I'll let you know when we get some competent ones for a change.

 

[Reginald0]

They played some great 1 touch footy, very good football team
We shld have been better
We are soft
Goldy bb durdin
Hrovat ando wood
Jmac dumont Simpkin
These guys did not perform
At least Ats tried to run

The Hansen durdin experiment sweet Jesus
Without overly freaking out it was a lesson that Swallow still has value

In mullet garner swallow mountford preuss BH
Out goldy jmac dumont durdin Simpkin Hrovat ando

 

[LuvtheKangas]

^ Six changes and no Waite in? Your whole post seems a bit hysterical to me.

 

[db swannie]

Shouldn't you be romancing Mrs Palmer?

I was simply making a point. It has never been a free, ever. Umpires simply make players take the kick again. That's how it's always been. If you can show me an instance where it has been a free kick id be happy to look at it.

 

[scooby1279]

what a crap game could tell 5-10 minutes in and nothing changed throughout the game. Swans too tough as usual, mids and forwards were terrible.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I was simply making a point. It has never been a free, ever. Umpires simply make players take the kick again. That's how it's always been. If you can show me an instance where it has been agree kick id be happy to look at it.

You're correct, of course, but what a terrible outcome it would have been (for football, not just North) if Buddy kicked a goal the second time around as a result of an act by a teammate that categorically doesn't belong in the game.

The implication is that every time you see a teammate shooting for goal tentatively / lining it up wrong, then you just interfere with the guy on the mark and they get another go. Awesome work, AFL.

 

[lockheed]

We played as if we had little energy, got smashed in the midfield and transition and played with at least one key forward too few.

Anyone who thought that last week's standard was the new 'typical' was probably getting ahead of themselves; anyone who thinks that this week is typical is hopefully being unduly pessimistic. I'm just hoping that we can give a better account of ourselves next week.

 

[Zondor]

A very disappointing performance.

Smashed in Contested Ball 170 to 133

Smashed in Centre Square Clearances 19 to 10

Smashed in Uncontested Ball 271 to 197

Our inside work was deplorable and when the ball got to the outside we were also deplorable.

So how could we play so well last week and so poor this week? And don't give me this shit about young guys and being Inconsistent. I think that a number of people at the club were "Giving Head To Themselves" after the Adelaide win. :stern look