No Oppo Supporters Non Bulldog Footy Talk - Bulldogs only - Part 4

[X_box_X]

FFS why couldn't the Bulldogs play them this week and Geelong the week after?

Instead we play Geelong for Selwood's 350th and then Freo who will probably get those players back if they do indeed miss the Melbourne match.

 

[Libbaaaa]

FFS why couldn't the Bulldogs play them this week and Geelong the week after?

Instead we play Geelong for Selwood's 350th and then Freo who will probably get those players back if they do indeed miss the Melbourne match.

The upside of breaking a 20 year drought while they chair off Duckwood after a loss though makes my pants tight.

 

[Doggy]

Jones should have wasted thirty seconds and then chipped it sideways to ice the game.

His ego cost them the game.

Should have been 50m for kicking the ball away

 

[BeMoreBont]

Some ex Dogs having a day out in the Hawks VFL side over the weekend.

Cal Porter 45 touches.
Fergus Greene

26

Fergus Greene

Age

27

Ht

187cm

Wt

75kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.8

2star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.4

3star

M

3.6

4star

T

3.0

5star

G

1.0

4star

No current season stats available

D

8.8

3star

K

5.4

2star

HB

3.4

3star

M

3.6

4star

T

3.0

5star

G

1.0

4star

and Cavarra 5 goals each

It was against a ridiculous weak Bullants side though..

 

[ossie_21]

Tim Kelly has to be up there for the worst return for a supposedly elite player - didn’t they give up two first rounders for him?

Windhager has completely taken him out of the game, and at least to me watching on tv it looks like he’s not working anywhere near hard enough. I know he’s played some good games for WC, I just don’t think I’ve seen any.

Can’t feel too sorry from him, purely for the fact he didn’t even want to go to Freo despite being desperate to return to WA. He joined a team on the decline and could have joined one on the rise, important calls at his age. But he’s getting paid very well, so he wouldn’t care too much

 

[Chicago1]

Hardwick losing it. Delicious.

 

[Bulldogs85]

Hardwick losing it. Delicious.

Always hated that arrogant prick

 

[Dogs Rule]

Hardwick losing it. Delicious.

You can always sense he's been repressing that rage...

 

[hutchy31]

Lucked in to a prime Dusty - maybe the best player in the last decade, or at least the best peak - and virtually no injuries to his key 4-5 players from 2017-2020. Was almost out until a revamp of the full coaching group and Balme came in to run the footy department and deliver three flags - the second of which was gifted by the pies failing to beat GWS in the wet, and the third COVID-asterisked. Their failure to put teams away this year might be the worst stretch of coaching in recent history, just gifting wins to teams after being multiple goals up deep into the second half.

I mean, just if I was playing devil’s advocate.

 

[Dogs Rule]

Some ex Dogs having a day out in the Hawks VFL side over the weekend.

Cal Porter 45 touches.
Fergus Greene and Cavarra 5 goals each

It was against a ridiculous weak Bullants side though..

Are we sure the Bullants players had pulses?

 

[doggies ftw]

Ginnivan high was well umpired, don’t drop the knees and look for high contact if ya don’t want it.

Come at me

 

[LittleG]

Ginnivan high was well umpired, don’t drop the knees and look for high contact if ya don’t want it.

Come at me

Still holding around the neck once he got to ground…. is when the free should have been paid. Until then, play on, you dropped at the knees….

 

[ScragCity]

Still holding around the neck once he got to ground…. is when the free should have been paid. Until then, play on, you dropped at the knees….

Exactly. Redman shouldn't have been penalised for the initial high tackle. But the subsequent chokehold...I don't think that was necessary and/or something we want in our game. Fair enough that if you drop at the knees you don't get awarded with a high tackle free, but that shouldn't give the tackler permission to do whatever he wants to you. It was a weird/unanticipated scenario, so I can understand why the ump was a bit discombobulated by it. It's a great case study to learn from.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Players are still allowed to evade tackles, dropping down low is one of the ways to do this. I feel like what Toby McLean

16

Toby Mclean

Age

28

Ht

181cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.7

5star

K

9.0

3star

HB

10.7

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

4.0

5star

CL

2.4

4star

D

15.5

4star

K

6.5

3star

HB

9.0

4star

M

1.3

1star

T

3.5

4star

CL

2.0

4star

D

16.8

4star

K

8.2

4star

HB

8.6

5star

M

5.0

5star

T

1.8

4star

CL

0.8

3star

used to do was way worse, would basically grab the arm of the tackler and drag it over.

 

[doggies ftw]

Players are still allowed to evade tackles, dropping down low is one of the ways to do this. I feel like what Toby McLean used to do was way worse, would basically grab the arm of the tackler and drag it over.

Yeah no one’s stopping them from doing it, just you forfeit your right for a high tackle if you go low to evade.

But good points made above, the free should have been paid after the initial high was let go - agree it’s a bit of a weird one, hopefully they learn from it

 

[Charlie Bucket]

Players are still allowed to evade tackles, dropping down low is one of the ways to do this. I feel like what Toby McLean used to do was way worse, would basically grab the arm of the tackler and drag it over.

Spot on. Ginnivan only slightly stepped away from the tackle and would’ve only dropped an inch at the very most.
The tackle would’ve taken his head off regardless.

The rule states, if the tackle is reasonably applied, it’s play on. The initial tackle wasn’t reasonably applied and should’ve been paid a high free kick.
This is where they’ve ****ed this rule up. It leaves too much wiggle room in the interpretation and will lead to more of these ridiculous decisions to let the free kick go.

I also find it bizarre, at a time when the league is doing its best to stop head and possible neck/spinal injuries, they’re ok for players to have their heads taken off in these tackles. Which will inevitably continue to happen if they continue to adjudicate the way they are.

The pendulum has now swung the other way at it’s now the ball carriers responsibility to not get tackled too high.

Peak stupidity

 

[BEaston]

It's bullshit. Too much responsibility on the player with the ball to avoid high contact. Poor tackle technique is where most of the responsibility should lay.

 

[maddog37]

Spot on. Ginnivan only slightly stepped away from the tackle and would’ve only dropped an inch at the very most.
The tackle would’ve taken his head off regardless.

The rule states, if the tackle is reasonably applied, it’s play on. The initial tackle wasn’t reasonably applied and should’ve been paid a high free kick.
This is where they’ve *ed this rule up. It leaves too much wiggle room in the interpretation and will lead to more of these ridiculous decisions to let the free kick go.

I also find it bizarre, at a time when the league is doing its best to stop head and possible neck/spinal injuries, they’re ok for players to have their heads taken off in these tackles. Which will inevitably continue to happen if they continue to adjudicate the way they are.

The pendulum has now swung the other way at it’s now the ball carriers responsibility to not get tackled too high.

Peak stupidity

What rubbish. It was mostly a great improvement and will stop players leading with the head.

Using one extreme example and basing all assumptions on it is simplistic.

If a bloke goes on with the tackle like Redman it should be a free kick no doubt but getting rid of those ticky touchwood over the shoulder free kicks is an absolute blessing and makes the game infinitely more enjoyable to watch.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

What rubbish. It was mostly a great improvement and will stop players leading with the head.

Using one extreme example and basing all assumptions on it is simplistic.

If a bloke goes on with the tackle like Redman it should be a free kick no doubt but getting rid of those ticky touchwood over the shoulder free kicks is an absolute blessing and makes the game infinitely more enjoyable to watch.

Most are arguing the initial high contact shouldn’t have been paid because there was a slight drop in Ginnivans height.

This how the league and many supporters want this rule to be umpired.

Where does this stop?

The responsibility is now with the ball carrier. It’s ****ing ridiculous.

If there’s an obvious movement by the arms or an obvious drop to force the head high contact, fair enough. But to let the free go because there may or may not have been an effort made to encourage the high contact is peak stupidity.

Just another shit, on the fly decision by the league without a lot of thought out in.

 

[BrisDog]

But the subsequent chokehold...I don't think that was necessary and/or something we want in our game.

I actually think the chokehold would be a welcome introduction to the game and a fine tactic.

Imagine a bloke who can’t get a kick, say Bruce, running down a private school campaigner, say Fritsch and choking him out in front of our cheer squad. Doesn’t get any better.

 

[doggies ftw]

It's bullshit. Too much responsibility on the player with the ball to avoid high contact. Poor tackle technique is where most of the responsibility should lay.

There’s zero responsibility on the player with the ball to avoid high contact, play the ball on its merits and you’ll be fine.

In the past there’s been too much responsibility on the tackler to not tackle high, to the point we keep saying go lower go lower and it became physically impossible to tackle some players legally.

Find the middle ground

 

[ossie_21]

I’m almost certain that Ginnivan drew a head high tackle against Redman in their game earlier this season, and Redman was seething at him for it.

That’s why I reckon he went through the thought process of I’m just gonna make him earn this one, but I might just get away with it for the only sport that changes rules and interpretations mid-season. And he got away with it.

 

[BEaston]

There’s zero responsibility on the player with the ball to avoid high contact, play the ball on its merits and you’ll be fine.

In the past there’s been too much responsibility on the tackler to not tackle high, to the point we keep saying go lower go lower and it became physically impossible to tackle some players legally.

Find the middle ground

How is there zero responsibility on the player with the ball to avoid high contact when they're being told not to do certain actions on the field?

I disagree it's impossible... Look at our tackling technique as a team. We are elite and very rarely give high contact frees away. Other teams are just shit at it.

 

[Libbaaaa]

Regardless one thing we can all agree on is that Essendon lost nothing from the loss, Stringer is still a top 20 player who was robbed of All Australian and the Bombers are building nicely.

Seriously though elephant in the room is how much better they play without Parish, Merrett (though still pea hearted at his core) is more engaged and even Dylan Shiel

9

Dylan Shiel

Age

31

Ht

182cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

24.6

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

12.2

5star

M

3.1

3star

T

3.9

5star

CL

4.9

5star

D

23.4

5star

K

13.6

5star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.2

2star

T

3.4

4star

CL

6.4

5star

D

19.8

5star

K

8.4

4star

HB

11.4

5star

M

2.4

3star

T

2.6

4star

CL

3.8

5star

is putting in consistent week to week effort. Don't think Darcy Seagull is that well liked.

 

[BEaston]

It's just amazing in the era of concussions and protecting the head, the AFL have gone this way as well. Can't see how this is going to reduce high contact as it just emboldens the tackler to go in with poor technique