Review Good bad ugly vs Port Adelaide R8 2024

[George Kramer]

What ever happened to Subaru? Lose a bet?

I don’t think anyone has bothered to find out, but I’m guessing she’s back

 

[MarcusP2]

At a Gold Coast game, happened right in front of me. Went down as if shot!

I was also at the game, friends and I were very concerned about our defence for no reason ha.

 

[adelaidecrows]

I remember back in 2017 Talia thought he'd done a hammy, but scans showed no issue and he played the next week.

He wasn't feeling any tightness or anything though.

Cramp maybe, club erred on the side of caution. No being sure. But should be easy to assess with a fitness test midweek.

 

[FR0GGY]

I don’t think anyone has bothered to find out, but I’m guessing she’s back

Nah it’s not Subaru

 

[Large 1]

He was Port's best player because the only time they threatened to win, and they looked good, he was heavily involved.

The rest of the game we were well in front.



The difference between looking at disposal stats vs real impact on a game.


Tim Ginevar gets it in his 3,2,1.


Sog
Worrell
JHF.

Worrell was massive for us. He is a key reason all their shots were rushed and their key forwards got no clean ball despite the battery of i50s.

Nice of Ginever to see that.

On SM-A325F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Well if Tim said it, who am I to disagree!

I watched the game live and JHF was good for a quarter then went missing and popped up at the end. Then I watched it on replay. And he was good and then went missing. The difference between the two was how much he got talked up on TV.

Most port players were ordinary, JHF was ok amongst a bund of sub par performers. But he was not Ports best. He ran ahead of the play to look flashy, but applied no pressure and went missing. So a classic port player.

 

[CrowBloke]

Umpires dont pay it. The reason I believe is because they aren't watching the ball carrier they are watching the players around him and the contests up the field for holding, high tackling. Its why its all but disappeared. Its the same with HTB doesn't get paid for good tackles. Because the umpires are on alert to look for the high tackle. Its only once the checklist gets ticked, then they go oh he still has the ball and then its see if he isn't making an effort.

I get what you're saying, but there are now FOUR Umpires out there with none of them watching the ball carrier??

Ive lost count of the amount of times players drop the ball in tackles to no free. Same thing. Its not a priority on the checklist.

Yeah, that drives me crazy .
Also:
Player takes possession, raises his arms, gets tackled, sees he has no easy handball, falls to ground, NO htb, bounce.
If he has time to raise his arms, then he has time to handball (prior opportunity), but it's almost never called htb.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

What ever happened to Subaru? Lose a bet?

Think she lost her head...

 

[George Kramer]

Nah it’s not Subaru

Until it proves otherwise I’m going with it

 

[SugarShane]

Umpires dont pay it. The reason I believe is because they aren't watching the ball carrier they are watching the players around him and the contests up the field for holding, high tackling. Its why its all but disappeared. Its the same with HTB doesn't get paid for good tackles. Because the umpires are on alert to look for the high tackle. Its only once the checklist gets ticked, then they go oh he still has the ball and then its see if he isn't making an effort. Ive lost count of the amount of times players drop the ball in tackles to no free. Same thing. Its not a priority on the checklist.

It's such a pedantic nit pick but the under-umpiring of ran too far (and by proxy, the volatile judgement of how far 15m is) is one of my biggest gripes in footy.

The players know the umps won't call it. Why won't they call it? Is it a directive from the AFL?

If not, umpire the ****ing game properly.
If so, just change the ****ing rules instead of allowing legal rule breaks.

15m when a player is running is, according the umpires, anywhere between 25-35m. When Horny Toad runs that far, or Izak, or Cripps, and doesn't get pinged, the umpires are virtually saying "If he kicked it from where he started and someone marked it where he kicked/bounced, we would NOT pay a mark." Which is complete and utter bullshit.

Then people will argue "It's 15 steps. He didn't take 15 steps." No it's not. It's 15 metres. AFL players easily cover more than a metre per step.

And of course, as we all know, an 8m metre kick in the forward line is, more often than not, actually 15m. Those chip kicks? Yep, we'd pay ran too far if a player covered that distance without bouncing. A 20m kick in the backline is often not 15m. And every now and then when an umpire feels they haven't been heard on TV enough, or just want to feel a pulse of power and control running through their feeble bodies, they'll call "not 15" on a 15m kick that they've paid as a mark all day.

I can't think of any other sports that have rules that are so flagrantly broken every single game to the point where when it does get adjudicated correctly once every month or so, the team that gets called for it feels slighted.

 

[Large 1]

The ugly? The umpire stuffing up another hit the post call.

This time, the system fixed it because he accidentally called it a goal. So no one is making a big deal about it. But, again, the umpire confidently made a call when he should have referred it for review.

 

[adelaidecrows]

I get what you're saying, but there are now FOUR Umpires out there with none of them watching the ball carrier??

Nope, watching the players chasing and looking to tackle. The other 3 are watching the contests up the ground.

 

[adelaidecrows]

It's such a pedantic nit pick but the under-umpiring of ran too far (and by proxy, the volatile judgement of how far 15m is) is one of my biggest gripes in footy.

The players know the umps won't call it. Why won't they call it? Is it a directive from the AFL?

If not, umpire the ******* game properly.
If so, just change the ******* rules instead of allowing legal rule breaks.

15m when a player is running is, according the umpires, anywhere between 25-35m. When Horny Toad runs that far, or Izak, or Cripps, and doesn't get pinged, the umpires are virtually saying "If he kicked it from where he started and someone marked it where he kicked/bounced, we would NOT pay a mark." Which is complete and utter bullshit.

Then people will argue "It's 15 steps. He didn't take 15 steps." No it's not. It's 15 metres. AFL players easily cover more than a metre per step.

And of course, as we all know, an 8m metre kick in the forward line is, more often than not, actually 15m. Those chip kicks? Yep, we'd pay ran too far if a player covered that distance without bouncing. A 20m kick in the backline is often not 15m. And every now and then when an umpire feels they haven't been heard on TV enough, or just want to feel a pulse of power and control running through their feeble bodies, they'll call "not 15" on a 15m kick that they've paid as a mark all day.

I can't think of any other sports that have rules that are so flagrantly broken every single game to the point where when it does get adjudicated correctly once every month or so, the team that gets called for it feels slighted.

I hear you, preaching to the choir.

We are one of the few sports in the world that consider rules optional.

We pack away the rules just because its a close game.

The whole object of holding the ball was that if you have the ball when tackled regardless of the amount of time you have it is HTB. For instance, if you are running and a player is holding the back of their jumper its holding the ball. No where does it say you need to pin them to the ground. They just need to make an effort to get rid off the ball. One of my biggest gripes is those players who stand up in swinging tackles to break the tackle and the tackle eventually breaks. To me that's hands down HTB every day of the week. The player makes no attempt to get rid of it, they tried to break the tackle. The second they are held that's a tackle. Not whether the tackle is controlling. For example, Rozee trying to jump out of the Dawson tackle in my view should have been called holding the ball. Dawson only had to hold him, not wait and see if Rozee breaks his tackle.

Unfortunately the rules have probably been rewritten from the originals and it is catering for a more controlling tackle. Which in my view has meant dangerous tackles have become a thing because of the rule.

Another fundamental rule is throwing the ball. Ive lost count the amount of times a player in a tackle has a team mate come and rip the ball from their hands and plays on. Thats a throw. Nowhere in the rules does it state we can pass hand to hand as long as we are holding it. Has to be a hand pass or kick, or a punch / tap. Yet the umpires allow it.

Another gripe is players running too far. I don't understand this. 15 metres is not very far. In fact many grounds deliberately do 15 metre grass mow patterns so the umpires can tell. But I think this is just a symptom of umpires asked to watch everything else that is so low down on the interpretation check list I dont think they notice. Its the same why out of bounds play on is a thing. Umpires aren't looking for it.

 

[madstar]

I hear you, preaching to the choir.

We are one of the few sports in the world that consider rules optional.

We pack away the rules just because its a close game.

The whole object of holding the ball was that if you have the ball when tackled regardless of the amount of time you have it is HTB. For instance, if you are running and a player is holding the back of their jumper its holding the ball. No where does it say you need to pin them to the ground. They just need to make an effort to get rid off the ball. One of my biggest gripes is those players who stand up in swinging tackles to break the tackle and the tackle eventually breaks. To me that's hands down HTB every day of the week. The player makes no attempt to get rid of it, they tried to break the tackle. The second they are held that's a tackle. Not whether the tackle is controlling. For example, Rozee trying to jump out of the Dawson tackle in my view should have been called holding the ball. Dawson only had to hold him, not wait and see if Rozee breaks his tackle.

Unfortunately the rules have probably been rewritten from the originals and it is catering for a more controlling tackle. Which in my view has meant dangerous tackles have become a thing because of the rule.

Another fundamental rule is throwing the ball. Ive lost count the amount of times a player in a tackle has a team mate come and rip the ball from their hands and plays on. Thats a throw. Nowhere in the rules does it state we can pass hand to hand as long as we are holding it. Has to be a hand pass or kick, or a punch / tap. Yet the umpires allow it.

Another gripe is players running too far. I don't understand this. 15 metres is not very far. In fact many grounds deliberately do 15 metre grass mow patterns so the umpires can tell. But I think this is just a symptom of umpires asked to watch everything else that is so low down on the interpretation check list I dont think they notice. Its the same why out of bounds play on is a thing. Umpires aren't looking for it.

I thought Butters was HTB three times but only called once, which was an advantage call that didn’t advantage us at all. He is definitely umpired differently in a positive way for Port.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[adelaidecrows]

I thought Butters was HTB three times but only called once, which was an advantage call that didn’t advantage us at all. He is definitely umpired differently in a positive way for Port.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would love for the media to get behind a very hard interpretation of HTB where players are called very easily. This criteria and obsession about giving players time to get rid of the ball is whats driving inconsistency. Basically if a player has the ball and one arm is free or both it should be an immediate HTB. If you had the ball free in one arm it was enough to try and get a kick away. Ive seen it creep in where these haven't even been called.

 

[AFC979810]

I hear you, preaching to the choir.

We are one of the few sports in the world that consider rules optional.

We pack away the rules just because its a close game.

You don't watch many other sports do you?

 

[AFC979810]

I can't think of any other sports that have rules that are so flagrantly broken every single game to the point where when it does get adjudicated correctly once every month or so, the team that gets called for it feels slighted.

You should watch NBA and NFL.

 

[adelaidecrows]

You don't watch many other sports do you?

Watch heaps of sports. And I also said one of the few. But I guess it makes it ok then. Wow, all forgiven. Rules, who needs them.

 

[adelaidecrows]

You should watch NBA and NFL.

American sports sell their souls for money. So its hard to compare. Most NBA fans have the same gripes we do when it comes to ignoring rules. Especially when some players can run half the court without bouncing and dunk it. Travelling is the main frustration. Not sure about NFL. They are pretty strict I thought with interpretation.

 

[AFC979810]

American sports sell their souls for money. So its hard to compare.

Lucky for us AFL supporters - our sport is pure and money has zero impact on the game.

Watch heaps of sports. And I also said one of the few. But I guess it makes it ok then. Wow, all forgiven. Rules, who needs them.

I think this is, unfortunately, the key piece.

Many sports want the rules to be ambiguous. They want controversy. It generates more clicks, more talking points, more discussion.

If professional sporting leagues want to get serious about the quality of officiating hen they would invest in their umpires/refs and make them full time.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Lucky for us AFL supporters - our sport is pure and money has zero impact on the game.



I think this is, unfortunately, the key piece.

Many sports want the rules to be ambiguous. They want controversy. It generates more clicks, more talking points, more discussion.

If professional sporting leagues want to get serious about the quality of officiating hen they would invest in their umpires/refs and make them full time.

Will only get worse I guess. Not sure they want the controversy. I just think they think of it as a biproduct of making truck loads of money. Like anything money makes the rules. They are too afraid to try and bring it back to its actual rules in case the viewing public dont like it. If anything, the current way the AFL is umpiring the game is keeping away bigger crowds.

 

[moogerfooger]

Watching the replay, there's no way you can look at Rachele's game and say it was bad.

He was impactful with and without the ball. Important to our win.

I think the thing with Rachele is that his errors seem really to stick out? But his positives FAR outweigh the negatives.

McHenry also crucial in our first quarter to get the early lead. Again, on and off the ball. Obviously dropped off (perhaps to net zero?), but when the heat was on early he did what he needed to. Not sure there are many in the team who would give that shepherd to Tex.

The only thing bad about Rachele's game was he allowed Houston to run off him too many times. Both he and Rankine need to tighten up their defensive efforts.

 

[AFC979810]

Watching the replay, there's no way you can look at Rachele's game and say it was bad.

He has too much fun playing football. Delist.

 

[FR0GGY]

Lucky for us AFL supporters - our sport is pure and money has zero impact on the game.



I think this is, unfortunately, the key piece.

Many sports want the rules to be ambiguous. They want controversy. It generates more clicks, more talking points, more discussion.

If professional sporting leagues want to get serious about the quality of officiating hen they would invest in their umpires/refs and make them full time.

Any of the us sports have full time umpires?

 

[moogerfooger]

Any of the us sports have full time umpires?

NBA refs are full time. Pretty sure NFL are part timers like AFL.

 

[budget]

Good: Just about everything really!

Soligo superb, couldn't have done more to embody the spirit of peak Sloane in that game. Sholl a great game after people on this board said he couldn't do it against a decent team. Hopefully those who are watching Jones realise he's essentially a tagger, especially around the contest in the forward half. Did his best work up the ground helping the HF's apply pressure.
Could say something decent about everyone really. Curtin was on DBJ for a lot of the 1st half and BJ barely got a look in. Smith as sub for Curtin would have been the plan from the get-go, Curtin looked to be slowing, Smith equalling Curtin's total game pressure acts with only 17% game time. I had a good chuckle for a few people pointing out his 2 possessions, he was there to help lock the game down and apply defensive pressure, which he did.

Collectively our defence should have won the Showdown medal, Keane, Michalanney and Worrell immense. Geelong has built a dynasty based off the quality of its defence. Once Murray comes back and Butts makes way, will be freakishly good.

Bad: Himmelberg worked into the game but was missing in parts, same for McHenry. A few really big moments for him, but also more fumbles and unforced errors. Really not sure he's ever going to get that polish to his game. Cook went back into his shell a little bit for me, didn't see as much of that manic workrate that we all saw for the first time last week. He HAS it, just need to get some consistency now.

It's 3 times in a row Hinkley has been out-coached, for all the Nicks haters there's no way else to look at it. Cut off the middle of the ground, forced long balls into the F50 which we ate up, and the chances they did get were far out or on the boundary. We showed that we didn't need to cut off F50 entires, we needed to cut off the quality going I50. We saw it once with Houston getting a good run through the middle, and we didn't really see it again for the rest of the game. That's Port 101 (or 119?), and mark my words they've been found out.

Ugly: Port - It's wild how Hinkley is being branded in the media as 'brave' for coming out and admitting he got it wrong with Rozee. What absolute horse sh!t. The Hubris and arrogance to select Rozee after scans indicated he has hamstring damage, all so he can get a win on the board and put some fingers up in front of the camera, blew my mind. Heading into a game against Geelong I wonder whether he thought it was a risk they HAD to take, considering 5-4 next week sounds like the wheels coming off their season...

Really good analysis enjoyed it thank you


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app