Bon calls for players to be protected on holding the ball

[blackshadow]

On the topic of nicknames (and ignoring the thread topic totally), I think that after last week, Levi G should be nicknamed the "G-Bomb".

He'll always be Greenhead to me.

 

[snrub]

On a side note, given conversations regarding the recent concert tour, my brother and I are both of the same opinion that AkkaDakka aren't quite as good since the 'new guy' has been lead singer.

Give him time to settle in.

 

[snrub]

I thought the same thing - an "inside-out" handball that rocketed 15m directly to a teamate.......

Then the gall to keep going on about it.

Black should have the nickname "British Paints"...... Keep on Keeping on....

Now stop right there... I'm getting sick of this shit. The handball/throw went to space and a Brisbane player and a North player were both in pursuit with the North player in the better position. The way people are describing this situation, it's as though he handballed it to Fevola on his own in the goal square.

 

[snrub]

Thompson's holding the ball came seconds after Staker was tackled & clearly disposed of the ball incorrectly, throwing it with one hand. Prior-opportunity doesn't count when you throw it, accidentally or not.

As for all the hoo-har about Simon Black's handpass / throw late in the game, something reasonably important has been lost in all the dribble being written / spoken by these f'n journos...... THE BALL FELL INTO NORTH HANDS ANYWAY - WE HAD POSSESSION!!!!!

The Staker throw was actually immediately before the Firrito free kick/goal not the Thompson free kick/goal. That's also the one where Pratty apparently asked for some consistency and copped a 50 m penatly, whereas Black abused the umpires so badly that he was fined a fair whack, yet no 50.

As for the hoo-har, yes, it was bullshit, they weren't in a dangerous position to score and Black's reaction was ridiculous for that reason.

 

[RooHooDoo]

I thought we copped it pretty bad from the umpires overall, so many of the 50/50 decisions seemed to go against us. But from what I saw Scotty T jumped on the ball, and when you do that your pretty much stuffed if you cant get it out 9 times out of 10.

 

[TROOROO]

I think the Lions had a licence to drill us into the turf after a mark all night. None of them was paid a 50.

Totally agree, there were at least 4 times players were tackled after having clearly taken the mark and 2 of them were actually taken to ground. All from baldy 15

HTF... are they not 50's

 

[JD-Roo]

Now stop right there... I'm getting sick of this shit. The handball/throw went to space and a Brisbane player and a North player were both in pursuit with the North player in the better position. The way people are describing this situation, it's as though he handballed it to Fevola on his own in the goal square.

Yep, saw it again last night and instantly thought "I got that one wrong."

Funny how the memory plays tricks on you when the steam is up.

But I still reckon it's a dead-set throw that happens to brush his fist on the way past....... technically that makes it legal, I guess.

 

[hcd199]

Interesting article from Leigh Matthews on the same subject: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/95948/default.aspx

Basically discusses the way in the back and over the shoulder rules seem to go out the window when players jump on the ball. Brings up the Scotty T case, says the player first to the ball is getting no protection.

 

[Mr Reliable]

Interesting article from Leigh Matthews on the same subject: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/95948/default.aspx

Basically discusses the way in the back and over the shoulder rules seem to go out the window when players jump on the ball. Brings up the Scotty T case, says the player first to the ball is getting no protection.

Which is Bon's point, isn't it?

Scotty had one Lion's player holding his head down onto the ground. Isn't that high contact?

Not to mention all the others who were mugging him at the time.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

I dont understand why they dont introduve a rule stating if a player has been tackled, no player from either side can tackle, jump on, hold the ball in etc.

 

[Groggyk]

I dont understand why they dont introduve a rule stating if a player has been tackled, no player from either side can tackle, jump on, hold the ball in etc.

There is already one in place, but I think the umps don't pay it as it too hard to interpret. There some interesting eek discussion on the main board about this subject. Amazing i know, but true.

It's gotten to the point where the guy who's first to the ball is the guy being penalised. Then a hundred blokes pile on top preventing him getting it out and often you'll see it come out only for the tackler to drag it back in, and still the playmaker cops the brown end of the stick.

Sack Geischen, the guys ****ing the game up.