Review Cats drop Bombers by 45 at MCG

[Farmer2Goggin]

Kudos to the Media Department - great feature on Lawson.

I've got a really positive feeling for this kid , think he might be the defensive running back we need right now.
Hawks smalls are very good , will be a great test coming up.
He won't always play as well as he did on debut but I think he becomes best 22 fairly quickly

 

[Pollywaffle]

I agree the rule is worded terribly. There should be an "or" after each clause. That is the way I believe it is interpreted. It provides a list of alternatives with the "or" only included before the final clause in the way one does with a spoken sentence. Like: "you can get out bed in four ways: on the right, the left, off the end, or by levitating up into the air".

It appeared as though our guys were deliberately allowing him to get a kick back into play . Might be a thing now . More chance of an intercept turnover than after point which allows a much more organised back half exit. Could see more of this in future ?

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

Spot on, exactly what we called at home. That was the dead giveaway. Could have pretended to lose control, not look behind him, and punch it through, but took possession and squibbed it. Serves him right, basic back keeping.

Fantastic awareness from Close and Dempsey to both back off and go with the open arms to accentuate the situation.

 

[Play it Sam]

Kudos to the Media Department - great feature on Lawson.

I've got a really positive feeling for this kid , think he might be the defensive running back we need right now.
Hawks smalls are very good , will be a great test coming up.
He won't always play as well as he did on debut but I think he becomes best 22 fairly quickly

Which begs the question, what do we do with Mullin?

 

[CHAWKTS]

2E surprised me and played a solid sweeper in place of Stewart. 97% in defence. I would keep him if Stewwy stays in the guts. Admit I hv been on the 2E out bandwagon

Sent from my SM-S928B using Tapatalk

me to.

I still think we were right to make that call as in my view he hurt us on the wing. was still strong in contest and had some great offensive games but he couldn't the two way running (he did the KMs though) nor fill the right holes.

But he was great in that sweeping role and I would like to see if he can bed that in. His kicking out of defence is a weapon

 

[CHAWKTS]

It appeared as though our guys were deliberately allowing him to get a kick back into play . Might be a thing now . More chance of an intercept turnover than after point which allows a much more organised back half exit. Could see more of this in future ?

yep listening to Dempsey on the footy show that actually was his intention. he said he didn't expect Menzies to rush a behind as it would be a free kick (maybe!). Didn't want to pressure him into a rushed behind because then they get an advantage of running out of goal square for a long kick out...

as you say, he wanted him to do a quick kick from goal sq and keep it in the 50

pretty heads up play from inexperienced footballer to go one second trying to get the ball to then backing off with that strategy in mind.

 

[CHAWKTS]

Which begs the question, what do we do with Mullin?

give him more time in the VFL. I would like him to play a few roles rather than pigeon hole him as a defender. It is ok if he plays rest of year in VFL which will include finals this year. good old fashioned development

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

Which begs the question, what do we do with Mullin?

Play him as a mid in the 2's Play it Sam - fast track him.
I see him as a mid in 2025 , he gives us speed and an athletic profile that's off the charts.
We saw a glimpse of it V the Power where he played very well in a tagging role but also got a bit of it himself.

 

[Kobe Gryant]

Which begs the question, what do we do with Mullin?

Play him as a HBF/mid in the VFL, let him develop until he's ready next year.

I'm a Mullin fan, but Humphries is a different beast at this stage in their careers.

Even if you take out their form, it's the little things like directing traffic, and knowing where to set up which Touhy mentioned in the interview.

That's ultra impressive for a young player, and chalk and cheese to what Oisin can deliver at this stage in his career.

 

[catempire]

Now it's important to note that (as written) these are compound criteria and there is not a presumptive 'OR'. (which exists only in reference to the ruck criteria, thus highlighting the lack of the presumptive 'ORs' for the other criteria).

Huh? What is your basis for this? It clearly is a list of “or”s.

 

[noclashjumpers]

Huh? What is your basis for this? It clearly is a list of “or”s.

Well no, not clearly, but I alluded to it in my last (concessionary) post.

Well fair enough then.
My work dealing with this stuff in QLD some 30+ years ago, this was absolutely not my experience.
Perhaps state legislative culture or time is a narrow and isolated lens, and my mistake was assume a broader application.
Always willing to bow to those with greater knowledge/experience.

Another lifetime ago there were times when lawyers walked (a younger and greener version of) me through interpreting proposed legislated changes/amendments.

 

[catempire]

Well no, not clearly, but I alluded to it in my last (concessionary) post.


Another lifetime ago there were times when lawyers walked (a younger and greener version of) me through interpreting proposed legislated changes/amendments.

No worries. I didn’t mean to be harsh. I’ve never come across someone applying your way of interpreting an “or” list. The standard way is the “or” applies to all clauses.

 

[noclashjumpers]

No worries. I didn’t mean to be harsh. I’ve never come across someone applying your way of interpreting an “or” list. The standard way is the “or” applies to all clauses.

Well it exists (ed). But perhaps only in QLD. But then I fear that may be a long list!

 

[tommy2011]

Play him as a mid in the 2's Play it Sam - fast track him.
I see him as a mid in 2025 , he gives us speed and an athletic profile that's off the charts.
We saw a glimpse of it V the Power where he played very well in a tagging role but also got a bit of it himself.

Sit him down and show him tape after tape of Bobby Hill and give him a go at blunting him when we meet the Pies. We haven't got anyone else who could do the job anyway. He blunted Horne-Francis, maybe he could blunt Bobby.

 

[cats_09]

 

[4quarter_cat]

I don't think we'll win it if we make it but what I want is to be this September's wrecking ball.
Make sure we ruin someone's hopes in the process.

Can it be Carlton? Pls let it be Carlton

 

[Oisin_the_Goat]

As it stands the criteria for a free kick to be paid for a rushed behind are that the defending player in question:

(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line
or Behind Line on the full.



So this has to be interpereted as OR !

The reason being if it was AND, it could never get paid - Since D is from a ruck contest, and A,B,C are not from a ruck contest. So it can't both be a ruck contest AND not a ruck contest at the same time. Has to be interpreted as OR.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

View attachment 2036731

This is brilliant. Tag a Bombers fan

 

[Seeds]

View attachment 2036731

I cant think of a time when it was better?

Do we all have goldfish memories. We have always complained about the horrible state of umpiring. Ever since I first followed football. Its nothing new.

Holding the ball decisions have alway been contentious. As have deliberate points/out of bounds, push in the back rules and diving duck.

And back in the day we all thought certain umpires were cheats and biased for certain sides. We dont get that any more.

 

[cats_09]

This is brilliant. Tag a Bombers fan

I just love the look on Henry's face - WTF...

It works for both the play in question and the quote

 

[kickazz]

Stewart was clearly holding the ball and should have been penalised and Ess were stifff with the free goal to Geel , re taking it through for a point

But the Zach T , Draper one when i watched that one live and im not being one eyed , but i thought it was 50-50 , there was a tangled mess of arms etc , and if it was in the last qtr of a GF it is definitely play on

I thought it was probably a free.

But Tuohy got to the ball first, got to the ball before he touched Draper, you can see why an umpire would call it play on.

Draper needed to go for the ball properly, and probably put a knee up whilst doing so.

 

[kickazz]

As it stands the criteria for a free kick to be paid for a rushed behind are that the defending player in question:

(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line
or Behind Line on the full.



So this has to be interpereted as OR !

The reason being if it was AND, it could never get paid - Since D is from a ruck contest, and A,B,C are not from a ruck contest. So it can't both be a ruck contest AND not a ruck contest at the same time. Has to be interpreted as OR.

Yep and yet the '9 metres' is constantly misunderstood by the paid pundits.

 

[kickazz]

The AFL sold the umpire down the river, on the deliberate call. So by the umpiring body's own admission none of the clauses applied, despite Jimmy's opinion. Further, they will no longer be explaining decisions to the press. So they were wrong, but suck it up in future, we'll only get clarification if a coach chooses to reveal an official verdict.

Bartel and Eddie weighed in.

'Know the rules': Bartel calls out commentators

Amid Bombers uproar

www.nine.com.au

When an umpire makes a decision - we know who it is.

When the 'AFL' come out and 'clarify' decisions - they don't seem to put an actual name to it. I'm sure, just like umpires, you'd get different interpretations from different people internally.

The AFL need to stop doing these and back their umpires FFS. The start of the year is the time to explain rules and interpretations, not after every journo has a whinge.

 

[cats_09]

 

[The_Koulouriotis_Fan]

When an umpire makes a decision - we know who it is.

When the 'AFL' come out and 'clarify' decisions - they don't seem to put an actual name to it. I'm sure, just like umpires, you'd get different interpretations from different people internally.

The AFL need to stop doing these and back their umpires FFS. The start of the year is the time to explain rules and interpretations, not after every journo has a whinge.