No Oppo Supporters General AFL discussion and other club news

[SammyC]

If an opposition player is within 9m (goal square) of the goals then you can rush it with no penalty.

Is razor wrong then on sen the week before to say the player needed to be under direct pressure. That seems more logical and would say menzies wasnt

 

[Spanish Sahara]

Is razor wrong then on sen the week before to say the player needed to be under direct pressure. That seems more logical and would say menzies wasnt

Nah my understanding is Razor is right. You need to be under pressure. Bartel went through the rule the other day.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

100%

i’m surprised the rushed behind was a confirmed mistake and there is so much grey in the HTB that you could argue either way.

I think this is confected outrage to create a week of talking points. I actually support the afl approach of not commenting directly going fwd, deal with it via umpire coaching and don’t feed the story.

I’d add that brad scott is out of line commenting publicly on the afl advice… i’d bet my last dollar it wasn’t as definitive as he makes out … and reinforces he and his brothers pattern of commenting on umpires inappropriately.

Everything you said here is spot on.

You can never please everyone with umpiring - and there's a real line now of highlighting the discontent that exists and magnifying it. Brad Scott commenting on this stuff is a real twat act.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Nah my understanding is Razor is right. You need to be under pressure. Bartel went through the rule the other day.

The Geelong players were facing the umpire - they weren't putting any pressure on the guy who just ran it over the line. In terms of defining what a deliberate rushed behind is - that's it.

Is the 9m rule actually written anywhere?

 

[Spanish Sahara]

The Geelong players were facing the umpire - they weren't putting any pressure on the guy who just ran it over the line. In terms of defining what a deliberate rushed behind is - that's it.

Is the 9m rule actually written anywhere?

It is (according to Bartel), but its more you can't rush a behind from outside of the 9m. I will see if I can find the vision of him discussing with Eddie

 

[Nugett]

100%

i’m surprised the rushed behind was a confirmed mistake and there is so much grey in the HTB that you could argue either way.

I think this is confected outrage to create a week of talking points. I actually support the afl approach of not commenting directly going fwd, deal with it via umpire coaching and don’t feed the story.

I’d add that brad scott is out of line commenting publicly on the afl advice… i’d bet my last dollar it wasn’t as definitive as he makes out … and reinforces he and his brothers pattern of commenting on umpires inappropriately.

Both Scott brothers, highlight decisions they feel have disadvantaged their teams. They never highlight, the bad decisions that go against them. It’s pretty much they believe there should be 1 set of rules for their teams, and a completely different set for all other teams. Watch Chris sook all week about Ginni and Watson, despite 1 of his former players was the major instigator of starting the “Duck” which he had no issue with.

 

[grumbleguts]

It's been a while since I have posted anything, but I am astounded by the hee-haw around some of the decisions in the Essendon/Geelong game. Just watched AFL 360 (and here I am 14 hours behind) and to hear Brad Scott say that the AFL told him that the rushed behind ruling was an error left me flabbergasted. I thought watching it that it was clearly a free kick and it had been so since they changed the rule after our (carn'n the Hawks) 08 grannie. Some of those holding the ball decisions being debated, I thought with the new interpretation, were also correct decisions.

Certainly not worth the airtime or the debate (and yes sorry, I am contradicting myself by making this post).

Then you don't understand the rule.

 

[grumbleguts]

one of the biggest fallacies in the game is the insufficient intent rule. (Insufficient intent to do what? Keep the ball in play?) Why, if the ball goes off the side of the boot and rolls towards the line, where two opposition players are just standing there with their arms spread, Geelonging for deliberate, making no attempt to keep it in play, isn't that insufficient intent on their part?

 

[Middle Pocket]

An article by Tobias Moskowitz and L. Jon Wertheim in the new Sports Illustrated argues that home-field advantage is mostly explained by unintentional umpire bias, as they are influenced by a combination of the closeness of the game and the game situation; the home crowd (size, loudness, proximity, and intensity) to help them resolve uncertainty in making a call, resulting in more calls going the way the home crowd wants them to go.
And that “If the umpire is going to show favouritism to the home team, he or she will do it when it is most valuable — when the outcome of the game is affected the most.”
In ‘Umpire Home Bias in Major League Baseball’ Mike Hsu found that this effect was amplified by players of home sides theatrically calling for a decision in their favour, and demonstrating disbelief in calls against them. The finding was that this playing to the home crowd added to the pressure on the umpire.

Does this account for the constant arm waving appeals made by Geelong, Swans, Eagles, Port players? Teams that have home grounds with intense, loud partisan crowds.

 

[VandoHawk]

Very scary stuff happening in America

 

[unitedhawk]

Very scary stuff happening in America

SCOTUS appears intent on turning it into a tinpot dictatorship.

I now refer to it as the DDSA (DD for Deeply Divided).

 

[Changa10]

The Geelong players were facing the umpire - they weren't putting any pressure on the guy who just ran it over the line. In terms of defining what a deliberate rushed behind is - that's it.

Is the 9m rule actually written anywhere?

Yes, here is the extract from 2024 Laws of the game:



I guess the argument in the Scum one is whether the player was under immediate physical pressure? Umpire decided he wasn’t in this instance.

 

[I got the outside word]

Very scary stuff happening in America

Has been for a while now.

 

[Mopar Jason]

Former Demon David Schwarz claims that Dustin Martin is a 100% certainty to leave the Tigers at the end of the year and sign with the Gold Coast on a 2 year deal.

 

[Yardie]

Yes, here is the extract from 2024 Laws of the game:

View attachment 2036761

I guess the argument in the Scum one is whether the player was under immediate physical pressure? Umpire decided he wasn’t in this instance.

SammyC Spanish Sahara I stand corrected you both are right. However, another rule with "interpretation", just keep it simple AFL!

 

[Mr Lizard]

that reads like a, b & c need to be checked off OR d

so, if it's closer than 9m, it can't be deliberate.

I'm actually not clearer on the rule after seeing that.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Yes, here is the extract from 2024 Laws of the game:

View attachment 2036761

I guess the argument in the Scum one is whether the player was under immediate physical pressure? Umpire decided he wasn’t in this instance.

Oh so the 9 metres is irrelevant because the free kick was based on the basis of parts B and C of the rule.

(cos it says A, B, C or D = free kick).

Also the intent/spirit of the rule is that the player tries to keep the ball in play, the Essendon guy ran over the line when nobody was even trying to tackle him.

 

[Changa10]

Oh so the 9 metres is irrelevant because the free kick was based on the basis of parts B and C of the rule.

(cos it says A, B, C or D = free kick).

Also the intent/spirit of the rule is that the player tries to keep the ball in play, the Essendon guy ran over the line when nobody was even trying to tackle him.

Yes, and I admit when I first saw the replay (didn’t see it live as I was at a Jimmy Barnes gig) I thought the Bombers were stiff. But reading the rule, I reckon the free kick is there based on both b and c.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Yes, and I admit when I first saw the replay (didn’t see it live as I was at a Jimmy Barnes gig) I thought the Bombers were stiff. But reading the rule, I reckon the free kick is there based on both b and c.

But I think we can all agree it was pathetic play from Geelong to appeal for a free kick instead of trying to tackle the guy. Absolutely gross way to 'earn' a goal

 

[The Golden Glenferrie]

But I think we can all agree it was pathetic play from Geelong to appeal for a free kick instead of trying to tackle the guy. Absolutely gross way to 'earn' a goal

Appealing should = no free kick, regardless of the type of incident. I hate it

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Appealing should = no free kick, regardless of the type of incident. I hate it

This is a much better rule

 

[Yardie]

SammyC Spanish Sahara I stand corrected you both are right. However, another rule with "interpretation", just keep it simple AFL!

Actually, reading further in the thread I may have to take that back (It's all confusing)

 

[The Golden Glenferrie]

This is a much better rule

Like if you see someone carrying on, nothing.

Deliberate out of bounds would be fun to see. People actually just watching the ball go out!

 

[Yardie]

Oh so the 9 metres is irrelevant because the free kick was based on the basis of parts B and C of the rule.

(cos it says A, B, C or D = free kick).

Also the intent/spirit of the rule is that the player tries to keep the ball in play, the Essendon guy ran over the line when nobody was even trying to tackle him.

I'm just confused now. I used to know this game like the back of my hand. Could pretty much understand every ruling (i'd yell but then look at the replay and say "fair enough") with the occasional error.

Now........

 

[peetoo]

The backman can’t just stand there waiting to be tackled, cos prior opportinity is now gone