Blues v Hawks Venting thread - keep it all in here

[Sublime]

Exactly. I don't want to rush players into the side if they are underdone. Bower injury could have been prevented.

We need Waite to pull his head in, release all of his anger and get back into the side.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't they say his new injury was unrelated to the first one?

 

[Dramoth]

Match review panel: round nine

Contact between Hawthorn’s Brent Renouf and Carlton’s Mitch Robinson from the third quarter of Sunday’s match was assessed. The panel said the video footage available was insufficient to determine if a reportable offence had occurred. No further action was taken.

Match review panel: round nine

They could see Robbo go down after contact from Renouf, but couldnt do anything about it because they couldnt see the incident from front on. I was half expecting them to try and ping Robbo for staging.

 

[Silvagnis]

http://www.prowess.com.au/pro-stats/reports/match_report_71.pdf

Bryce "wasted at half back" Gibbs had more inside fifties than Judd, Carrazzo, Garlett and Yarran.

Almost sums up our day with at least eight Hawthorn players equaling Gibbs total inside fifties.

We had just five fewer I50s, but our conversion of our inside fifties into goals was roughly half of Hawthorn's efficiency in this category.

Poor skills under pressure like the Collingwood game.

 

[Dramoth]

http://www.prowess.com.au/pro-stats/reports/match_report_71.pdf

Bryce "wasted at half back" Gibbs had more inside fifties than Judd, Carrazzo, Garlett and Yarran.

Almost sums up our day with at least eight Hawthorn players equaling Gibbs total inside fifties.

We had just five fewer I50s, but our conversion of our inside fifties into goals was roughly half of Hawthorn's efficiency in this category.

Poor skills under pressure like the Collingwood game.

I think that will sort itself out over the next 12-18 months TG. As the boys get more game time and experience, they will get used to playing under pressure and make less skill errors.

You can never reproduce match pressure against top teams in training drills. It is something that you need to gain experience of and get used to while being under pressure.

 

[Claypigeon]

yeah... I loved Buddy's 25m run from the centre to the chf position. I counted a whole zero bounces...

Its a consistent failing in umpiring. .. It seems if your heading for goal you can ignore most rules. .. ie. run from the 50m line to the edge of the square without bouncing. .. Another been speccy marks where you can hold your opponent down as long as you launch into a screamer of a mark (drop the mark and your gone tho). .. The third is the forward can take longer to dispose of the ball when going for goal, eg. Buddy gets swung 360degrees in a tackle after bursting through 2-3 others and kicks a goal and get goal of the week instead of the expected Holding the Ball. ..

The new one is the no prior opportunity and attempt rule which has made holding the ball even harder to adjudicate. ..

 

[Dramoth]

Its a consistent failing in umpiring. .. It seems if your heading for goal you can ignore most rules. .. ie. run from the 50m line to the edge of the square without bouncing. .. Another been speccy marks where you can hold your opponent down as long as you launch into a screamer of a mark (drop the mark and your gone tho). .. The third is the forward can take longer to dispose of the ball when going for goal, eg. Buddy gets swung 360degrees in a tackle after bursting through 2-3 others and kicks a goal and get goal of the week instead of the expected Holding the Ball. ..

The new one is the no prior opportunity and attempt rule which has made holding the ball even harder to adjudicate. ..

we need to get back to the original rules of the game... less ambiguity and the old rules were actually stricter.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

There wasn't too much to like but it wasn't as bad as some suggest.

Always thought Thornton was a bit overrated. Very serviceable years ago against top shelf forwards but still doesn't beat his man enough these days.
At least he goes sideways (and even forwards sometimes) instead of backwards. I've seen some games where his 'metres gained' stat would need to be written in red.
Seems to be incompatible with our quick ball movement game. Could be getting close to getting his handshake and gold watch.

Like boxing refs, Carrazzo is better when not noticed as much. Despite often getting shiploads of possies, I think his better games are his shutdown jobs. Our disposal can (and still needs to) improve. Carrazzo not getting thousands of kicks is a start. On the same topic Judd must have been training with a different shape ball lately

Whilst we didn't turn up to play, our second half was OK all things considered. It is pleasing that we do challenge these days rather than collapse. Would be even more pleasing if the boys didn't rely on it as often.
I doubt many teams are 'relaxed and comfortable' these days against us despite their lead - we will challenge. This is, I believe, evidence of our improvement.

With a young team (and coming from where we have) consistency is our biggest opponent now.

Can't put a venting thread to waste (and speaking of inconsistency) - how about them ******* umpires?

 

[Stamos]

Match review panel: round nine



Match review panel: round nine

They could see Robbo go down after contact from Renouf, but couldnt do anything about it because they couldnt see the incident from front on. I was half expecting them to try and ping Robbo for staging.

What an f*&^ing joke

 

[The Coach]

http://www.prowess.com.au/pro-stats/reports/match_report_71.pdf

Bryce "wasted at half back" Gibbs had more inside fifties than Judd, Carrazzo, Garlett and Yarran.

Almost sums up our day with at least eight Hawthorn players equaling Gibbs total inside fifties.

We had just five fewer I50s, but our conversion of our inside fifties into goals was roughly half of Hawthorn's efficiency in this category.

Poor skills under pressure like the Collingwood game.

I will use Champion data from the Hun TG.

Judd only had 1 less I50 than Hodge

As you know you can twist stats to mean anything. We are only talking about a difference of 4 v 3 in mine and most of your examples (although Carrots and Gibbsy actually both had 4)

I would like to think that Garlett and Yarran (who had a shocker v Hawks, so beat nobody for I50's) are supposed to receive more I50's than create

The Hawks had 11 players go I50 between 3-6 times, we had 8 players go I50 between 3-7 times.

We lacked backline attack with NO I50's from JR, Army, Joey, and Jammo. We would normally expect some from JR and Army

 

[Bluebear]

Not sure if its been covered, and it shouldn't gloss over a monumental brain explosion.......but how the hell did Setanta not get a free/50m penalty for being tackled as he played on in the goal square.

For the last......well forever actually, you can't just run and tackle a bloke when he starts to play on......not until the ump has called it......time and time again 50m are paid with the ump explaining "you have to wait for me to call it".......yet......when Setanta turned, he was immediately tackled and had the ball jarred out with no call.......no time for a call.

Yet another example of umpries who don't actually know the rules of the game and allow circumstances to dictate what is and is not paid.

P.S. Umps......FFS you made a mandate of letting the "ball winners" run at the ball around stoppages, yet for the last few weeks Judd has had 2-3 blokes blocking his run at ball ups..........sort it out.

You also nearly cost Barry Hall his job, and that North ******** his ability to talk and eat normally by not using your "Riewoldt rule" on the weekend. Sharpen up FFS.

End rant.

 

[Silvagnis]

I wasn't twisting anything.

I was making the point that even though Gibbs played at half back, he had as many inside fifties than our mids last Sunday.

That isn't a good statistic in anyone's language.

Though it makes a mockery of the argument Gibbs is of less value playing at half back.

Yarran and Garlett need to build their endurance, yet it's still their responsibility to work hard and push up the ground like they did against the Saints.

They usually play well if the game is open and fast like the games against Geelong, St Kilda and Adelaide.

Workrate and intensity is something for Yarran and Garlett to work on.

Robinson had more impact last week.

 

[Dramoth]

Not sure if its been covered, and it shouldn't gloss over a monumental brain explosion.......but how the hell did Setanta not get a free/50m penalty for being tackled as he played on in the goal square.

For the last......well forever actually, you can't just run and tackle a bloke when he starts to play on......not until the ump has called it......time and time again 50m are paid with the ump explaining "you have to wait for me to call it".......yet......when Setanta turned, he was immediately tackled and had the ball jarred out with no call.......no time for a call.

Yet another example of umpries who don't actually know the rules of the game and allow circumstances to dictate what is and is not paid.

P.S. Umps......FFS you made a mandate of letting the "ball winners" run at the ball around stoppages, yet for the last few weeks Judd has had 2-3 blokes blocking his run at ball ups..........sort it out.

You also nearly cost Barry Hall his job, and that North ******** his ability to talk and eat normally by not using your "Riewoldt rule" on the weekend. Sharpen up FFS.

End rant.

Should have actually called it back at that point I am thinking. But I agree... there was no call of play on, so it is a free kick. Yet when Roughead did pretty much the same thing at the other end, he either got called back, or was given a free for it.

Bloody inconsistant bastards...

 

[The Coach]

I wasn't twisting anything.

I was making the point that even though Gibbs played at half back, he had as many inside fifties than our mids last Sunday.

That isn't a good statistic in anyone's language.

Though it makes a mockery of the argument Gibbs is of less value playing at half back.

Yarran and Garlett need to build their endurance, yet it's still their responsibility to work hard and push up the ground like they did against the Saints.

They usually play well if the game is open and fast like the games against Geelong, St Kilda and Adelaide.

Workrate and intensity is something for Yarran and Garlett to work on.

Robinson had more impact last week.

I don't think it is neccesarily a mockery to play Gibbs back like some - may not be his best posn but we have many inj

Have only watched first half again so far - Gibbsy's effective I50 count zero at half time and he started in 2 or 3 centre bounces

 

[Sublime]

Not sure if its been covered, and it shouldn't gloss over a monumental brain explosion.......but how the hell did Setanta not get a free/50m penalty for being tackled as he played on in the goal square.

For the last......well forever actually, you can't just run and tackle a bloke when he starts to play on......not until the ump has called it......time and time again 50m are paid with the ump explaining "you have to wait for me to call it".......yet......when Setanta turned, he was immediately tackled and had the ball jarred out with no call.......no time for a call.

Yet another example of umpries who don't actually know the rules of the game and allow circumstances to dictate what is and is not paid.

P.S. Umps......FFS you made a mandate of letting the "ball winners" run at the ball around stoppages, yet for the last few weeks Judd has had 2-3 blokes blocking his run at ball ups..........sort it out.

You also nearly cost Barry Hall his job, and that North ******** his ability to talk and eat normally by not using your "Riewoldt rule" on the weekend. Sharpen up FFS.

End rant.

I know technically the umpire has to call play on... but Setanta deserved to get pinged. Go back and take the kick irregardless, his playing on is just too risky.

 

[Claypigeon]

I know technically the umpire has to call play on... but Setanta deserved to get pinged. Go back and take the kick irregardless, his playing on is just too risky.

I agree, was talking about this the other day. .. Within the rule it seems he shouldn't have been allowed to have been tackled but within the spirit of the rule he deserved to get done. ..

 

[Bluebear]

I know technically the umpire has to call play on... but Setanta deserved to get pinged. Go back and take the kick irregardless, his playing on is just too risky.

Sure. As I said, its not defending what he did, but how many hundreds of times have you endured an umpire giving a 50m to some clown who played on when standing next to the man on the mark, gets tackled, but because the ump didn't blow his whistle it doesn't count.

FWIW the rule should be "you are deemed to play on when the ump sees you play on, and not when he blows his whistle", in much the smae vein as the quarter ends when the umpire hears the siren, not when he signals the quarter is over.

Just another inconsistency within the laws that opens up umpires to being made to look stupid. Just because Setanta had a brain fade at a crucial juncture, shouldn't mean the laws of the game change.

 

[LoveMyBlueBoys]

on that note, when was the ruling changed to allow players to be directly in front of the goals when the ball was marked inside the goal square

 

[Claypigeon]

Sure. As I said, its not defending what he did, but how many hundreds of times have you endured an umpire giving a 50m to some clown who played on when standing next to the man on the mark, gets tackled, but because the ump didn't blow his whistle it doesn't count.

FWIW the rule should be "you are deemed to play on when the ump sees you play on, and not when he blows his whistle", in much the smae vein as the quarter ends when the umpire hears the siren, not when he signals the quarter is over.

Just another inconsistency within the laws that opens up umpires to being made to look stupid. Just because Setanta had a brain fade at a crucial juncture, shouldn't mean the laws of the game change.

Your right. .. That would be an interesting change to the rule and would really play it within the spirit of the game. ..

Also, if I were to grasp at straws, it was dubious whether Irish actually had yet gone over the mark when he went to kick. ..

 

[Claypigeon]

on that note, when was the ruling changed to allow players to be directly in front of the goals when the ball was marked inside the goal square

That rule is at least 3 years old and was an example of them getting it right. ..

 

[LoveMyBlueBoys]

Cheers, actually thought it had been changed for longer than that, definitely a change for the better

 

[OldBlueFan]

I don't know about the other rules, but one that will surely come under some scrutiny soon is the habit of players pushing their opponent in the back as they run off and deliver a kick forward. Yarran is one who is often guilty of this (gave Hayes a huge shove in the back during the Saints game but wasn't pinged).

I've seen it happen in plenty of other games (non-Carlton) as well and I reckon it's being paid at a rate of less than 25% at the moment.

 

[Dramoth]

Your right. .. That would be an interesting change to the rule and would really play it within the spirit of the game. ..

Also, if I were to grasp at straws, it was dubious whether Irish actually had yet gone over the mark when he went to kick. ..

He could have been seen to be moving with the momentum. Similar to Rougheads mark and 4 steps towards the dawks goals in the same quarter I think.

 

[LoveMyBlueBoys]

I don't know about the other rules, but one that will surely come under some scrutiny soon is the habit of players pushing their opponent in the back as they run off and deliver a kick forward. Yarran is one who is often guilty of this (gave Hayes a huge shove in the back during the Saints game but wasn't pinged).

I've seen it happen in plenty of other games (non-Carlton) as well and I reckon it's being paid at a rate of less than 25% at the moment.

Totally agree, it baffles me week in and week out why on earth aren't pulled up for it. I understand the umpires don't have 7 sets of eyes but surely it's not a hard thing to police?