Preview NAB Cup Rd 3 - Collingwood v Brisbane Lions

[chopperduck]

The problem with the below the knees rule is that you still need to protect the bloke who actually goes for the ball. In Rocky's case, he went for the ball and got there first. The rule needs to apply in that case if the Collingwood player go there first and took the ball, then i'd be fine with it being paid against Rocky. They want players to keep their feet which is fine, if you go to ground you run the risk, especially if you don't win the ball. But when you have a game where you have 10 blokes fumbling around trying to win a ball on the ground, you can't have a rule that does that. It will coach players to simply not take possession. You are better off getting there half a second late, and either tackling the guy who gets it, or probably getting contact below the knees.

The rule cannot be applied when 2 players arrive the same time and one goes in harder and gets the ball. Cant wait to see how many times this year a one v one contest for a loose ball on the wing ends with both guys pulling up and neither going for the ball.

 

[Skoob]

The problem with the below the knees rule is that you still need to protect the bloke who actually goes for the ball. In Rocky's case, he went for the ball and got there first. The rule needs to apply in that case if the Collingwood player go there first and took the ball, then i'd be fine with it being paid against Rocky. They want players to keep their feet which is fine, if you go to ground you run the risk, especially if you don't win the ball. But when you have a game where you have 10 blokes fumbling around trying to win a ball on the ground, you can't have a rule that does that. It will coach players to simply not take possession. You are better off getting there half a second late, and either tackling the guy who gets it, or probably getting contact below the knees.

The rule cannot be applied when 2 players arrive the same time and one goes in harder and gets the ball. Cant wait to see how many times this year a one v one contest for a loose ball on the wing ends with both guys pulling up and neither going for the ball.

Not only that but you can see Rocky's intention WAS to keep his feet.
He didn't slide into Blair but rather Blair ran into him.
Like a car accident, blame and responsibility should be apportioned according to who ran into whom.
I can see this rule being ignored within a shortish time. There will be too many instances of incidental contact that won't be paid for it to be fair. As much as I hate grey areas and giving umpires discretion, they will have to allow them to judge what is forceful and or reckless rather than pay every time a player has his leg hit.
It will undoubtedly become an absolute farce.

 

[chopperduck]

I don't mind with what the rule is trying to achieve in theory, making players keep their feet, but they need to amend it so that it's the guy with the ball that is protected, and the 2nd player to the ball is the one that needs to be careful. Rocky got there a split second quicker which allowed him to take possession, he went to ground to make sure he won the ball. The result of this is that he tapped the Pies player on the knee who got there a split second after. Last year, Rocky has done the right thing, won the ball, got a high hit for his troubles. This year, he is in teh wrong. Right idea for the rule, but wrong application.

They have rushed it in without giving it a good test out to see how this works in the real world.

 

[pulsade]

 

[chopperduck]

Not only that but you can see Rocky's intention WAS to keep his feet.
He didn't slide into Blair but rather Blair ran into him.
Like a car accident, blame and responsibility should be apportioned according to who ran into whom.
I can see this rule being ignored within a shortish time. There will be too many instances of incidental contact that won't be paid for it to be fair. As much as I hate grey areas and giving umpires discretion, they will have to allow them to judge what is forceful and or reckless rather than pay every time a player has his leg hit.
It will undoubtedly become an absolute farce.

Yup, the rule is perfect if it's the other way around. If a bloke gets to the ball first, is going after it, but the guy 2nd to the ball slides in putting the 1st guy at risk, i have no problem with the way that works. Reward the person to gets to the ball first. Don't punish them like Rocky was. Blair ended up being 2nd to the contest because Rocky got their first and went in hard after the ball, the result is Rocky got kneed in the head. Rocky should have the protection of the rules, not Blair.

It's exactly what i mean by the rule being good in theory, but it is being applied wrong.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Last year, the player who hit Rocky could have found himself on report.

 

[ZoBlitz]

Yup, the rule is perfect if it's the other way around. If a bloke gets to the ball first, is going after it, but the guy 2nd to the ball slides in putting the 1st guy at risk, i have no problem with the way that works. Reward the person to gets to the ball first. Don't punish them like Rocky was. Blair ended up being 2nd to the contest because Rocky got their first and went in hard after the ball, the result is Rocky got kneed in the head. Rocky should have the protection of the rules, not Blair.

It's exactly what i mean by the rule being good in theory, but it is being applied wrong.

Like most rules changes made by the AFL in the recent years, it involves an over-reaction to circumstances and a lack of understanding/thinking about the implications of the rule change.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Am I the only one who enjoyed watching Darren Jolly have a Barry Crocker last night?

Haven't been able to stand the bloke since he switched to the Pies. Just exudes the self-entitled smugness of that club. Still yet to see him cop a free kick against him without having a bit of a cry.

 

[weevil]

Am I the only one who enjoyed watching Darren Jolly have a Barry Crocker last night?

Haven't been able to stand the bloke since he switched to the Pies. Just exudes the self-entitled smugness of that club. Still yet to see him cop a free kick against him without having a bit of a cry.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Red card weevil for conceptual misuse of the "stalker girlfriend" meme.

 

[weevil]

Red card weevil for conceptual misuse of the "stalker girlfriend" meme.

It was the only picture I could find with that phrase in it and I could not be bothered.

 

[Hollow Knight]

It was the only picture I could find with that phrase in it and I could not be bothered.

-5 Internet credibility points for you.

 

[weevil]

-5 Internet credibility points for you.

So that still leaves me about ten billion ahead of you?

 

[Tairy Greene]

Red card weevil for conceptual misuse of the "stalker girlfriend" meme.

Maybe his subconscious is just trying to tell you something?

 

[Hollow Knight]

So that still leaves me about ten billion ahead of you?

 

[weevil]

Maybe his subconscious is just trying to tell you something?

See that is much better, that's how you do it.

 

[iBeng]

Maybe his subconscious is just trying to tell you something?

 

[BuntonRules]

Another thing on that free was the way the Collingwood players all went into back to defend as we all went to attacking positions. No player thought it was a Collingwood free.

I reckon there was a bit of payback in the in the back he got downfield a couple of minutes later

 

[Ceebee]

I wonder if the AFL will be covering the cost?

You would sincerely hope so.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Not sure how allocation of gate share dollars is supposed to work for a NAB final but I would suspect (or at least hope) that we are treated as the home side in that regard.

 

[Hollow Knight]

On another note, props to the Victorian Lions fans in attendance last night. Generated some good noise. Especially after Bewick's goal early in the 4th.

 

[POBT]

I thought the AFL pocketed all money from the NAB Cup, including ticket sales, ground sponsorship and food and beverage revenue.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I thought the AFL pocketed all money from the NAB Cup, including ticket sales, ground sponsorship and food and beverage revenue.

Ah, suspected that may have been a likely scenario.

 

[iBeng]

Ive settled on my favourite part of last night: Ace dumping Jolly in a tackle when Jolly tried to claim a ball bounced off someone else is considered a mark if you catch it.

And the resulting goal to us for it.

 

[ZoBlitz]

While it was a generally positive night, I notice we got beaten fairly well in the centre clearances 13-7, although we only narrowly lost the clearance count overall 23-21. Rich had 7 (4 centre clearances), Rockliff 5 (1 centre clearance) and Moloney 2 with a bunch of others on 1. Beams and Michael had 1 centre clearance each.