Review Cats drop Bombers by 45 at MCG

[standupand]

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.

I don't get your reasoning here. It does explicitly say "or" before option (d) the ruck situation. This is why it's ambiguous. Your logic would make sense if the order was reversed and the ruck option were say option (a) or (b). Then it would be impossible not to read it as "or" all the way through the list.

 

[Play it Sam]

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.

The AFL indicated they won't explain publicly, going forward. You would assume although opinions may differ, within the Umpiring body, they must come up with a consensus, which the AFL runs with.

The Scotts, and I assume other coaches, make a display of needing clarification "to learn." Then, as with what happened with Brad, they can decide whether or not to spill the beans. Not sure the AFL would be happy with that, although they rang him. Chris has said he emails them.

Yes the umpires should be protected, but outraged fans on the receiving end (and that surely has been us) can hardly wait for the AFL announcement to feel validated. B Scott must have weighed that up. There's not many sports that officially decide, with hindsight, the referee's mistakes. Answerable to their boss only. It doesn't change a thing, sacrifices an umpire, allows the media to go full bore, and the fans to sprout conspiracy theories. Despite all that, the AFL says "it's too time consuming"

 

[Zouz Kitty]

Thanks for posting Humphries' interview CTTF. Super his father was included. So thrilled to hear Humphries speak, seemed relaxed despite his excitement + most gracious acknowledge the club, Parfitt + Zuthrie. Confirms our belief the club provides support + nurtures players. A huge move for him from WA.

His Dad is a delight + pride just blazes:

“He played football, Cricket, basketball, tennis, soccer, as did my other kids. But yeah, He's always loved football, and we've got a bit of history of football in my family”. Ross Humphries explained.

“We've had a hell of a lot of support from the Pilbara and the Kimberley from people that we know and people that we've interacted with, all the support being overwhelming and appreciated.”

“The main thing for me is that he brings effort and doesn’t get injured, and if they make it to the finals and he’s there, well, that’s a bonus”.
https://www.ngaardamedia.com.au/news/rising-star-lawson-humphries-makes-his-mark-in-afl

A huge thrill for Humphries' family + friends.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Thanks for posting Humphries' interview CTTF. Super his father was included. So thrilled to hear Humphries speak, seemed relaxed despite his excitement + most gracious acknowledge the club, Parfitt + Zuthrie. Confirms our belief the club provides support + nurtures players. A huge move for him from WA.

His Dad is a delight + pride just blazes:


A huge thrill for Humphries' family + friends.

View attachment 2037240

His dad sounds like a professional coach. It's like drafting Alexander the Great but for footy instead of invading Iran.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

And who wrote this history? The source is just as important as the story. Truth is not objective anyway.

That's so true. I think it's reasonable to say the history of Australia was written by Captain Cook + scientists first.

When Australia was discovered by Europeans, Aboriginal people had purely spoken languages + no writing system. Consequently, with colonisation, history was written by Governors during the early settlement:
Governor Phillip, 1788-92
Governor John Hunter, 1795-1800
Governor Philip Gidley King, 1800-06
Governor William Bligh, 1806-08

Governor Captain Arthur Phillip at Sydney in February 1788 declared the colony uninhabited.

In 1835 NSW Governor Richard Bourke proclaimed terra nullius in Australian law as the basis for British settlement. In 1992 Mabo case established the principle of native title rights in Australian common law.

My point in all of this discussion is:
Aboriginals had no written history, still the fact there is no white written history of Wills playing Marngrook doesn't mean history is true;
As stated in previous posts, considering Will's love of sport, interacting with Aboriginal communities, who can definitively prove Wills did not play Marngrook*?
In addition, Wills as a child, learned their language + customs. Taught Aboriginal communities to play cricket in Queensland + NSW (which is now Victoria) + established an Aboriginal cricket team;
Australia's first cricket team to travel overseas was made up of 13 Aboriginal men. The Jardwadjali, Gunditjmara + Wotjobaluk men were first coached + captained by Tom Wills + later by a former English cricketer, Charles Lawrence. The team played 47 matches in England, winning 14, losing 14 and drawing 19. The team provoked much public discussion over past mistreatment of Aboriginal people and future relations between the races.
Article from Empire:
"Although you may not be fully aware of the fact, allow me to tell you that you have rendered a greater service to the aboriginal races of this country and to humanity, than any man who has hitherto attempted to uphold the title of the blacks to rank amongst men."

Who can say, considering history was written by colonists, if Wills did not play Marngrook, when he spent a huge amount of time with Aboriginal communities?

Why is this subject still raising contentious debate among historians in 2024?

My research of the subject from Aboriginal websites clearly reveals it purely relates to the Continuing Denial of Indigenous History:
"The Indigenous game of marngrook and its claimed connection to Australian rules football has provoked unusually intense debate.1 Dismissed as ‘an emotional belief’, ‘falsifying history’, ‘lacking any intellectual credibility’—who could have imagined that the seemingly innocuous matter of an Indigenous game of football would meet with such invective.

Several accounts of Indigenous football reveal a striking similarity with key features of the Australian game, suggesting an unarticulated link between the two games. In the insistent denial of such a link, a critical factor has been that none of these historic accounts of Indigenous football has placed the game directly in the Western District of Victoria, in the area where Tom Wills lived. ‘Were there any reports of Aboriginal football in the Western District where Wills lived?’ Hibbins asks. The short answer is, yes.

By these repeated calls for ‘evidence’ are meant documentary, text-based evidence, a notion and a form familiar to the British colonisers whose documentation of the penal settlement was superlative, but not one that would readily engage with Indigenous history. For a society whose cultural memory inhered in song, in dance, in stories and art, and which had so quickly been devastated, this constructs an evidentiary near impossibility."

This next paragraph is crucial to the debate:
"The contestation over marngrook and its relationship with Australian football has crystallised around three key elements: marngrook, Australian football, and between them the figure of Tom Wills, seen as the pivot between two communities, two cultures and two games."




*de Moore 2011, pp. 322–323 stated Wills played Aboriginal sport.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

His dad sounds like a professional coach. It's like drafting Alexander the Great but for footy instead of invading Iran.

With Alexander the Great's father, Phillip II of Macedon, as Ross

 

[Zouz Kitty]

We probably won't get a free for weeks now.

Next week

 

[Generalissimo]

View attachment 2036731

Skeptical Henry is skeptical.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

In floods of happy tears watching the video.

His Dad Ross spoke so well + seeing the pride in his parents' faces was a precious moment.

He had a terrific debut + must play next week

 

[Zouz Kitty]

Yes

And no

About 38 seconds into this clip - the AFL won't continue to address individual calls via the media





Swapped link - Mitch with bit of an explanation in his tweet

From the footage, it initially 'appears' Dempsey + Close 'think' he'll kick the ball. Then when no attempt was made + he ran the ball through, both Dempsey + Close called it.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

The wild thing about Brad Scott is, he has a perfect example of how to look far more handsome in his twin brother, yet he's sticking to the short hair and no beard. How can we trust anything that guy says or thinks?!

Brad has nothing on this hot AFL star

Spoiler added for you to sit down before looking

Spoiler

 

[Kitcat]

That's so true. I think it's reasonable to say the history of Australia was written by Captain Cook + scientists first.

When Australia was discovered by Europeans, Aboriginal people had purely spoken languages + no writing system. Consequently, with colonisation, history was written by Governors during the early settlement:
Governor Phillip, 1788-92
Governor John Hunter, 1795-1800
Governor Philip Gidley King, 1800-06
Governor William Bligh, 1806-08

Governor Captain Arthur Phillip at Sydney in February 1788 declared the colony uninhabited.

In 1835 NSW Governor Richard Bourke proclaimed terra nullius in Australian law as the basis for British settlement. In 1992 Mabo case established the principle of native title rights in Australian common law.

My point in all of this discussion is:
Aboriginals had no written history, still the fact there is no white written history of Wills playing Marngrook doesn't mean history is true;
As stated in previous posts, considering Will's love of sport, interacting with Aboriginal communities, who can definitively prove Wills did not play Marngrook*?
In addition, Wills as a child, learned their language + customs. Taught Aboriginal communities to play cricket in Queensland + NSW (which is now Victoria) + established an Aboriginal cricket team;
Australia's first cricket team to travel overseas was made up of 13 Aboriginal men. The Jardwadjali, Gunditjmara + Wotjobaluk men were first coached + captained by Tom Wills + later by a former English cricketer, Charles Lawrence. The team played 47 matches in England, winning 14, losing 14 and drawing 19. The team provoked much public discussion over past mistreatment of Aboriginal people and future relations between the races.
Article from Empire:
"Although you may not be fully aware of the fact, allow me to tell you that you have rendered a greater service to the aboriginal races of this country and to humanity, than any man who has hitherto attempted to uphold the title of the blacks to rank amongst men."

Who can say, considering history was written by colonists, if Wills did not play Marngrook, when he spent a huge amount of time with Aboriginal communities?

Why is this subject still raising contentious debate among historians in 2024?

My research of the subject from Aboriginal websites clearly reveals it purely relates to the Continuing Denial of Indigenous History:
"The Indigenous game of marngrook and its claimed connection to Australian rules football has provoked unusually intense debate.1 Dismissed as ‘an emotional belief’, ‘falsifying history’, ‘lacking any intellectual credibility’—who could have imagined that the seemingly innocuous matter of an Indigenous game of football would meet with such invective.

Several accounts of Indigenous football reveal a striking similarity with key features of the Australian game, suggesting an unarticulated link between the two games. In the insistent denial of such a link, a critical factor has been that none of these historic accounts of Indigenous football has placed the game directly in the Western District of Victoria, in the area where Tom Wills lived. ‘Were there any reports of Aboriginal football in the Western District where Wills lived?’ Hibbins asks. The short answer is, yes.

By these repeated calls for ‘evidence’ are meant documentary, text-based evidence, a notion and a form familiar to the British colonisers whose documentation of the penal settlement was superlative, but not one that would readily engage with Indigenous history. For a society whose cultural memory inhered in song, in dance, in stories and art, and which had so quickly been devastated, this constructs an evidentiary near impossibility."

This next paragraph is crucial to the debate:
"The contestation over marngrook and its relationship with Australian football has crystallised around three key elements: marngrook, Australian football, and between them the figure of Tom Wills, seen as the pivot between two communities, two cultures and two games."




*de Moore 2011, pp. 322–323 stated Wills played Aboriginal sport.

You quote a reference to key features of indigenous football being similar to the Australian football of Tom Wills' time. Could you specify what they are?

 

[D BRIDGE]

You quote a reference to key features of indigenous football being similar to the Australian football of Tom Wills' time. Could you specify what they are?

Maybe not in a Geelong / Essendon game recap thread please.

 

[Kitcat]

Maybe not in a Geelong / Essendon game recap thread please.

That's fair enough. It did start with someone asking why the Tom Wills medal was awarded for the game against Essendon, but if there is a response, it could go in the 'Not worthy of a thread on its own' thread.

 

[Zouz Kitty]

You quote a reference to key features of indigenous football being similar to the Australian football of Tom Wills' time. Could you specify what they are?

My post stated:
"Several accounts of Indigenous football reveal a striking similarity with key features of the Australian game, suggesting an unarticulated link between the two games."

There is a citing at the bottom of my post.

 

[Kitcat]

My post stated:
"Several accounts of Indigenous football reveal a striking similarity with key features of the Australian game, suggesting an unarticulated link between the two games."

There is a citing at the bottom of my post.

I have responded on the Not Worthy of a Thread of Its Own thread.

 

[Gunf]

Finally got a chance to watch the highlights on Humphries.

I love his footy IQ in one play instead of tackling the ESS player he taps the ball out of his hand runs onto it and clears.

Very nice debut from him and he should get a few games in a row now.

 

[catswhiskers]

250?

On SM-A156E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Oisin_the_Goat]

I don't get your reasoning here. It does explicitly say "or" before option (d) the ruck situation. This is why it's ambiguous. Your logic would make sense if the order was reversed and the ruck option were say option (a) or (b). Then it would be impossible not to read it as "or" all the way through the list.

So you're saying a and b and c need to be satisfied

Or

d

 

[standupand]

So you're saying a and b and c need to be satisfied

Or

d

No it's definitely a or b or c or d. But the fact that the ruck situation is option d leaves it open to being read as a+b+c ... or d.