Review Good/Bad and the Umpiring.

[rabidcrow]

I can’t believe people think Dawson was that bad of a choice.

Dominant first quarter and set the tone for the team - but didn’t have him in my top 4
But it adds to his “legend” profile. 2 medals in 3 games, match winning goal.

I loved the fact 5-6 guys could have won it


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[MsTopG]

So this is not a dig at JHF, but some games you thank your lucky stars North turned down our package of picks. And Saturday night was one of those days.

JHF: 16 disposals, 0.0

Vs

The rejected package that turned into Dawson, Rachele and Rankine: 53 disposals, 6.3

EDIT: And a showdown medal

It was a stupid offer by us for an unproven player. Luckily north were too dumb to accept it.

 

[SugarShane]

The guy from the advertiser wrote an article defending his choice of Dawson, said they have to vote 5-10 before the end.

This I don't get. I believe they do it for the Norm too.

How ****ing long does it take for 5 people to choose their top 3 then tally them up? We're not striking the medal there and then, and the preso is usually like 10 minutes away. Why can't we just wait until the siren?

If it's the adding up that's the issue I'll volunteer my Microsoft Excel services free of charge.

 

[Dangarman]

After 3 rounds we are ranked fifth for points scored; =2nd for scoring shots; =5th for goals scored and first for behinds scored. Signs that we are around the top quartile in the comp for our forward line.

However, goals against, SS against, and accuracy against all remind us that our defence is clearly bottom quartile. Our oppo kicking 45.30 against us suggests that our defence is letting the opposition bring the ball into their F50 just a little bit too easily allowing goal shots from good positions.

Table below includes rushed behinds, i.e. based on game score. Pts for and against are as per ladder, SS for and against simply sum of goals scored plus behinds scored. Acc for and against = goals / (goals plus behinds). Scoring shot percentage is SS for/ SS against.

Team	Goals For	Behinds For	Goals against	Behinds against	Points for	Points against	SS for	SS Against	Acc for	Acc against	Scoring shot percentage
Ad	40	43	45	30	283	300	83	75	48.2%	60.0%	110.7%
Syd	45	42	34	28	312	232	87	62	51.7%	54.8%	140.3%
Car	30	42	29	30	222	204	72	59	41.7%	49.2%	122.0%
GWS	35	41	35	54	251	264	76	89	46.1%	39.3%	85.4%
WC	35	39	39	42	249	276	74	81	47.3%	48.1%	91.4%
Haw	24	38	45	33	182	303	62	78	38.7%	57.7%	79.5%
Port	40	36	50	24	276	324	76	74	52.6%	67.6%	102.7%
Cwd	48	35	32	24	323	216	83	56	57.8%	57.1%	148.2%
Fre	33	34	30	27	232	207	67	57	49.3%	52.6%	117.5%
GC	30	34	39	38	214	272	64	77	46.9%	50.6%	83.1%
Ess	46	30	34	33	306	237	76	67	60.5%	50.7%	113.4%
Gee	35	29	42	36	239	288	64	78	54.7%	53.8%	82.1%
Nth	32	29	33	36	221	234	61	69	52.5%	47.8%	88.4%
WB	24	29	38	32	173	260	53	70	45.3%	54.3%	75.7%
Bri	32	26	41	29	218	275	58	70	55.2%	58.6%	82.9%
Mel	51	25	35	32	331	242	76	67	67.1%	52.2%	113.4%
StK	38	23	23	29	251	167	61	52	62.3%	44.2%	117.3%
Rich	32	23	26	41	215	197	55	67	58.2%	38.8%	82.1%

 

[MsTopG]

I mean cripes, the kids is only just starting his 2nd year and he is already better than half their squad, his ceiling is soooo very high.

There's no guarantee. If he doesn't start improving his attitude he will end up like Jake Stringer.

 

[CrowBloke]

I loved the fact 5-6 guys could have one it

Yeah, me two.

 

[WetCrow1991]

Bad:

Dan Houston

5

Dan Houston

Age

27

Ht

186cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.2

5star

K

11.8

4star

HB

6.4

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.0

5star

MG

289.2

4star

D

17.6

4star

K

11.6

4star

HB

6.0

3star

M

3.3

3star

T

3.4

4star

MG

319.9

5star

D

16.6

4star

K

12.4

5star

HB

4.2

4star

M

7.0

5star

T

2.6

4star

MG

279.8

5star

pretending to be injured.

First when Pedlar tackled him fairly. Then in the 4th after he was trying to be a thug towards Rankine.

 

[dogs105]

Yeah, me two.

I three what you did there!

 

[Dangarman]

Here's some I50 stats. Taken from the afltables.com team stats for I50 and R50. I've assumed I50 against is going to be pretty close to R50 plus goals against. (There will be some I50s against missed for quarters that end with the ball inside 50.) Crows are leading the comp for scores per I50, but only 5th for points per I50. Also second worst behind Port for points and goals against per I50.
If you're a punter, I suggest picking the 'above' total points scored line.

Team	Goals For	Behinds For	Goals against	Behinds against	Points for	I50	R50	R50+GA	Goals per IF	Scores per I50	Points per I50	Goals against per I50	Scores against per I50	Points against per I50
Adl	40	43	45	30	283	164	113	158	0.24	0.51	1.73	0.28	0.47	1.90
Syd	45	42	34	28	312	174	110	144	0.26	0.50	1.79	0.24	0.43	1.61
Port	40	36	50	24	276	161	105	155	0.25	0.47	1.71	0.32	0.48	2.09
WC	35	39	39	42	249	158	121	160	0.22	0.47	1.58	0.24	0.51	1.73
Car	30	42	29	30	222	154	140	169	0.19	0.47	1.44	0.17	0.35	1.21
Cwd	48	35	32	24	323	178	100	132	0.27	0.47	1.81	0.24	0.42	1.64
GWS	35	41	35	54	251	166	133	168	0.21	0.46	1.51	0.21	0.53	1.57
Ess	46	30	34	33	306	171	122	156	0.27	0.44	1.79	0.22	0.43	1.52
Nth	32	29	33	36	221	139	120	153	0.23	0.44	1.59	0.22	0.45	1.53
Mel	51	25	35	32	331	174	124	159	0.29	0.44	1.90	0.22	0.42	1.52
GC	30	34	39	38	214	150	134	173	0.20	0.43	1.43	0.23	0.45	1.57
Haw	24	38	45	33	182	147	120	165	0.16	0.42	1.24	0.27	0.47	1.84
Gee	35	29	42	36	239	152	116	158	0.23	0.42	1.57	0.27	0.49	1.82
Bri	32	26	41	29	218	147	126	167	0.22	0.39	1.48	0.25	0.42	1.65
WB	24	29	38	32	173	138	123	161	0.17	0.38	1.25	0.24	0.43	1.61
StK	38	23	23	29	251	161	125	148	0.24	0.38	1.56	0.16	0.35	1.13
Fre	33	34	30	27	232	181	121	151	0.18	0.37	1.28	0.20	0.38	1.37
Rich	32	23	26	41	215	157	126	152	0.20	0.35	1.37	0.17	0.44	1.30

 

[CrowBloke]

I three what you did there!

Just four a bit of fun.

 

[Gtowncrow]

I’m pretty sure feigning a pass only applies to feigning handballs, the logic being that if you’re on the mark you should be able to move to stop the player running past who receives the handball. But the rule doesn’t apply and to kicks. Also it was not called at any other time in the evening.

I think the umpire just stuffed up and thought he stepped forward of the mark when he had actually taken a few steps back.

Isn't it play on once you've moved off your line? Until you do so, it shouldn't matter what you do on your line.

Sholl was about to move off his line but hadn't. Very poor decision and deserves an apology from the AFL.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Isn't it play on once you've moved off your line? Until you do so, it shouldn't matter what you do on your line.

Sholl was about to move off his line but hadn't. Very poor decision and deserves an apology from the AFL.

Sholl shuffled slightly off line, I can see why the umpire called play-on ......I can't see, why the oppo player was allowed to stand directly behind Sholl, unless there was also a Crows player there as well

 

[ABAB]

Sholl shuffled slightly off line, I can see why the umpire called play-on ......I can't see, why the oppo player was allowed to stand directly behind Sholl, unless there was also a Crows player there as well

It didn't look like the umpire called play on because SPP was so quick to tackle Sholl which meant he made the initial mistake of not seeing SPP so close to Sholl and since he tackled Sholl so quick was it even prior? He should have set the mark and asked SPP to move away, you can't have opposition player directly behind a player who is moving backward to take his kick after a mark since they don't have eye behind their head.

 

[Bearded Clam]

Sholl shuffled slightly off line, I can see why the umpire called play-on ......I can't see, why the oppo player was allowed to stand directly behind Sholl, unless there was also a Crows player there as well

Its just dumbfounding..

Whats the point of having the stupid “stand” rules where you can only have one player on the mark and that guy isnt allowed to fart loudly without giving away 50m..

Yet spp was able to just stand a metre behind Sholl and then tackle him before the ump had even called play on..

It was either a total brain fart from the ump.. or he is a deliberate cheat..

 

[Gtowncrow]

I’m glad Jordan felt like he could make that suggestion.

I'm glad that Nicks could...

1. Be flexible enough to allow it
2. Be trusting enough in his skipper to allow it
3. Be man enough to admit how it came about.

Nicks gets a fair bit of stick on here but credit where it's due. Very good coaching at many levels IMO.

 

[Gtowncrow]

It didn't look like the umpire called play on because SPP was so quick to tackle Sholl which meant he made the initial mistake of not seeing SPP so close to Sholl and since he tackled Sholl so quick was it even prior? He should have set the mark and asked SPP to move away, you can't have opposition player directly behind a player who is moving backward to take his kick after a mark since they don't have eye behind their head.

No prior. Interesting point you raise.

 

[Gtowncrow]

Dawson even polarising the coaches...

SSP a bit stiff. He carried them for most of the match it seemed. Good player

 

[ABAB]

No prior. Interesting point you raise.

All I can think off is the umpire saw Sholl moving backward on an angle to take his kick and thought that was play on so that was his prior but he didn't even call play on at that time to inform Sholl he had to quickly dispose the ball and even so he should have straighten Sholl up anyway to take his kick, he simply stuff up, very amateur umpiring.

 

[Interloperer]

Its just dumbfounding..

Whats the point of having the stupid “stand” rules where you can only have one player on the mark and that guy isnt allowed to fart loudly without giving away 50m..

Yet spp was able to just stand a metre behind Sholl and then tackle him before the ump had even called play on..

It was either a total brain fart from the ump.. or he is a deliberate cheat..

He was allowed to stand there because of fan and media hyperbole last year about how bad it is for the game to give away 50m for players not leaving the area quick enough. And carving out a million and one exceptions to the larger protected zone/stand rule is more palatable than admitting it was a bad rule change in the first place and reversing it.

IMHO the free kick taker had way more protection before there even was a protected zone. "Don't obstruct the kicker and never under any circumstances run across the mark" is simple and effective. Now you can run through the mark with impunity as long as you can point to an opponent you're vaguely following.

Sholl shuffled slightly off line, I can see why the umpire called play-on ......I can't see, why the oppo player was allowed to stand directly behind Sholl, unless there was also a Crows player there as well

Brodie Smith was about 1m away and was Powell-Pepper's direct opponent at the time. You could argue Smith should have spread quicker, but it's mostly on Sholl for zero awareness.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

How many matches have the Crows been involved it, that have directly resulted in the opposition Club's Coach getting the sack ? .....quite a few

 

[arrowman]

Isn't it play on once you've moved off your line? Until you do so, it shouldn't matter what you do on your line.

Sholl was about to move off his line but hadn't. Very poor decision and deserves an apology from the AFL.

Sholl shuffled slightly off line, I can see why the umpire called play-on ......I can't see, why the oppo player was allowed to stand directly behind Sholl, unless there was also a Crows player there as well

My in-depth analysis

See here for the video, skip to 2:33...

Mini-Match: Port Adelaide v Adelaide

Extended highlights of the Power and Crows clash in round three

www.afl.com.au

Also, Laws of the Game

Laws of the Game | Play AFL

www.play.afl

- see Sections 17.3 (note that the Protected Area does not extend as far behind the player with the ball, as it does to either side), and 19.2:
[A 50m penalty] will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that any Player or Official from the opposing Team: ...(d) enters or does not make every endeavour to immediately vacate the Protected Area, except when the Player is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent

So - let's roll the tape...

- Sholl takes the mark and takes 2-3 steps back, SPP is standing in the Protected Area, next to Smith. So far, so good.

- SPP turns away from Smith to face toward Sholl (and right next to him). SPP is no longer "accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent". - At this stage IMO the umpire could pay a 50m against SPP. Although that might be a bit harsh, given the pace with which things are moving.

- Sholl shapes to kick off the line, SPP tackles him. The umpire has (apparently) not yet called play on.

- Even if the umpire had called play on, is it legitimate for a player who is inside the Protected Area and not "accompanying or following their opponent" to turn and tackle the player with the ball? IMO the "accompanying or following" exemption is to allow a player to legitimately defend against a pass-off from the player with the ball; if you divert your attention to the player with the ball you lose that exemption.

(Sort of like the situation in soccer, where a player can be in an offside position but not get called for it, if they are not interfering with / part of the play - but once they take part in the play, they're offside.)

- The umpire is not in frame at the moment of the tackle, but then the camera pans back and we can see the umpire raising his hands in the "play on" signal - AFTER the tackle.

So, IMO, the umpire had 3 legitimate options:
1. Pay 50 when SPP turned away from Smith, towards Sholl, and was making no attempt to leave the PA.
- Harsh, perhaps.
2. Pay 50 when SPP tackled Sholl, because (a) play on had not been called and (b) SPP was in the PA and not "accompanying or following".
- Less harsh but perhaps a bit tiggy touchwood.
3. Call for play to stop, give the ball back to Sholl and tell SPP to get out of there.
- Possibly the least controversial.

The one thing that, to me, is not 100% clear from this is, as I said above - is a player permitted to be in the PA because accompanying or following, and then turn his attention to the player with the ball? If play on has been called, maybe.

I don't know if the AFL would ever clarify this publicly (because that would be admitting an umpire error), but IMO it's a legitimate question for clubs / coaches to ask.

 

[arrowman]

Brodie Smith was about 1m away and was Powell-Pepper's direct opponent at the time. You could argue Smith should have spread quicker, but it's mostly on Sholl for zero awareness.

SPP turned away from Smith and towards Sholl. He was not "accompanying or following" Smith. As for "zero awareness" - yeah maybe, but I think the player with the ball should be entitled to assume the Protected Area is clear.

 

[GreyCrow]

My in-depth analysis

See here for the video, skip to 2:33...

Mini-Match: Port Adelaide v Adelaide

Extended highlights of the Power and Crows clash in round three

www.afl.com.au

Also, Laws of the Game - see Sections 17.3 (note that the Protected Area does not extend as far behind the player with the ball, as it does to either side), and 19.2:
[A 50m penalty] will be awarded if the field Umpire is of the opinion that any Player or Official from the opposing Team: ...(d) enters or does not make every endeavour to immediately vacate the Protected Area, except when the Player is accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent

So - let's roll the tape...

- Sholl takes the mark and takes 2-3 steps back, SPP is standing in the Protected Area, next to Smith. So far, so good.

- SPP turns away from Smith to face toward Sholl (and right next to him). SPP is no longer "accompanying or following within two metres of their opponent". - At this stage IMO the umpire could pay a 50m against SPP. Although that might be a bit harsh, given the pace with which things are moving.

- Sholl shapes to kick off the line, SPP tackles him. The umpire has (apparently) not yet called play on.

- Even if the umpire had called play on, is it legitimate for a player who is inside the Protected Area and not "accompanying or following their opponent" to turn and tackle the player with the ball? IMO the "accompanying or following" exemption is to allow a player to legitimately defend against a pass-off from the player with the ball; if you divert your attention to the player with the ball you lose that exemption.

(Sort of like the situation in soccer, where a player can be in an offside position but not get called for it, if they are not interfering with / part of the play - but once they take part in the play, they're offside.)

- The umpire is not in frame at the moment of the tackle, but then the camera pans back and we can see the umpire raising his hands in the "play on" signal - AFTER the tackle.

So, IMO, the umpire had 3 legitimate options:
1. Pay 50 when SPP turned away from Smith, towards Sholl, and was making no attempt to leave the PA.
- Harsh, perhaps.
2. Pay 50 when SPP tackled Sholl, because (a) play on had not been called and (b) SPP was in the PA and not "accompanying or following".
- Less harsh but perhaps a bit tiggy touchwood.
3. Call for play to stop, give the ball back to Sholl and tell SPP to get out of there.
- Possibly the least controversial.

The one thing that, to me, is not 100% clear from this is, as I said above - is a player permitted to be in the PA because accompanying or following, and then turn his attention to the player with the ball? If play on has been called, maybe.

I don't know if the AFL would ever clarify this publicly (because that would be admitting an umpire error), but IMO it's a legitimate question for clubs / coaches to ask.

Im a fan of 3

My thought is the umpire had called play on in his head which is why he continued with the HTB call.

 

[arrowman]

since he tackled Sholl so quick was it even prior?

I think if you've taken a mark and stepped back from the mark to take your kick counts as "prior".

If SPP had come from 5m or whatever away i.e. there was not controversy / doubt about the Protected Area, and had managed to zoom his way in to tackle Sholl, that would be "prior opportunity" and HTB.

 

[Milo Cyrus]

Sholl needs to check his surroundings because the umps can't interpret the rules in real time and they seem to have been starved of the use of common sense fair play as a mechanism for decision making.