Non-Lions Footy Season (2017)

[Fitzroy bears]

Interpretation of the rules is always going to be a talking point. What some might see as a push in the back others might see as a push in the side or momentum. You will never make any rule BLACK AND WHITE, cause the wording would have to be so specific that it make certain areas of the game look robotic or artificial. IMO the umps made the right call on the rush behind, he had the time to use it he could have taken possession and dump kicked it down the line resulting in a free kick, further away from his goal or as other have already said handball it down the line. IMO he was only under perceived pressure because of the teams set up in their forward 50 and the fact he didn't have support from team mates, you can't rewrite rules to allow for those factors not to mention others, because teams will train it and use to advantage eg: ruck rule (richmond) Sydney need to train that scenario better and lastly the goal is only harsh cause the free kick is paid near the goal. A free kick is a free kick. If you push someone in the back in goal square it will result in a free kick and most likely a goal (Darcy Gardiner learnt that last week) you dont change the penalty because of where the infringement takes place on the ground. If its deliberate out of bounds near the point post then a goal maybe the resulting penalty. It will get better it will just take time. Just my opinion.

 

[Ceebee]

That was a great game of footy .
Liam Picken is my favourite non Lions player .
I thought Beveridge looked unwell last night .maybe stressed out .

 

[CarterS]

How good was Buddy's pair of goals? At 3-qtr time I was just thinking "we need some Buddy magic here". He is the best.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Interpretation of the rules is always going to be a talking point. What some might see as a push in the back others might see as a push in the side or momentum. You will never make any rule BLACK AND WHITE, cause the wording would have to be so specific that it make certain areas of the game look robotic or artificial. IMO the umps made the right call on the rush behind, he had the time to use it he could have taken possession and dump kicked it down the line resulting in a free kick, further away from his goal or as other have already said handball it down the line. IMO he was only under perceived pressure because of the teams set up in their forward 50 and the fact he didn't have support from team mates, you can't rewrite rules to allow for those factors not to mention others, because teams will train it and use to advantage eg: ruck rule (richmond) Sydney need to train that scenario better and lastly the goal is only harsh cause the free kick is paid near the goal. A free kick is a free kick. If you push someone in the back in goal square it will result in a free kick and most likely a goal (Darcy Gardiner learnt that last week) you dont change the penalty because of where the infringement takes place on the ground. If its deliberate out of bounds near the point post then a goal maybe the resulting penalty. It will get better it will just take time. Just my opinion.

The afl came out & said it was the right decision, so watch the adjustment come fast from the players. I will feel sorry when the guys who take possession then get pinged for holding the ball get bagged out by everyone.

I reckon mills has got about a 5% chance at best of getting the ball turning around and getting an effective kick anywhere before Pickens tackles him.

I don't mind if they can get a consistent interpretation for the whole year for incidents like that. Bit the thing that irritates me the most is any rule that advantages the player that stops playing the game like Pickens did is not a good look for the sport. I like it to soccer where if you take a dive you are likely to get a free more than if you try to keep your feet.

In the SANFL last year they had the rule in that if you kicked it out of bounds if was a free regardless of if it was deliberate or not. Players could then shepherd the ball out of play rather than picking it up, so they had to stop rewarding any team that just let the ball run over the line.

If players start appealing for frees & stop defending I would like to see that not rewarded. I'd be perfectly happy with the reason of it wasn't deliberate cos you weren't trying to get the ball anyway

 

[POBT]

That was a great game of footy .
Liam Picken is my favourite non Lions player .
I thought Beveridge looked unwell last night .maybe stressed out .

I think he's a bit mad, in a Sheeds or Bomber kinda way.

 

[Hollow Knight]

*sigh*

Was hoping Hawthorn's loss to the Bombers was the start of their slide but they're blitzing the Crows right now.

 

[carnthemlions]

How do you figure? It seems to me that the decision potentially complies, depending on the umpire's interpretation.

FWIW, that isn't the actual law, just the current 'policy'. Following those guidelines, the decision was correct, imo.

Based on my reading of that, it's clearly the wrong decision and goes against what players would've been told
Probably not surprising that players don't know the rule if what umpires tell them in pre-season isn't necessarily consistent with how the game will be umpired anyway.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Based on my reading of that, it's clearly the wrong decision and goes against what players would've been told
Probably not surprising that players don't know the rule if what umpires tell them in pre-season isn't necessarily consistent with how the game will be umpired anyway.

Which shows that of different people can read the same guidelines and get an entirely different result, it's problematic.

The penalty for such a clearly subjective infringement is just way too big. As said earlier, awarding the behind and a ball-up 10m out makes infinite more sense.

 

[CarloLion]

Once again, Adelaide just wilt when playing a determined, quality side.

 

[POBT]

Based on my reading of that, it's clearly the wrong decision and goes against what players would've been told

What part though? If the umpire deemed he was not under physical pressure, then that guideline says it is deliberate rushed behind. I personally think "physical pressure" is arguable but I think that it was certainly open to the umpire to make that call. Or, in other words, it is not "clearly wrong" IMO.

 

[jackess]

Mitchell and O'Meara getting plenty of it. Great how teams can just buy success.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Mitchell and O'Meara getting plenty of it. Great how teams can just buy success.

*Some teams.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Umpires having a blinder this weekend.

That Pooopolo free was vomitous.

 

[Viceregal]

Umpires having a blinder this weekend.

I don't suppose they have saved their best umpires for the Lions v Dons game...?

 

[The Zork]

That Puopolo in the back is the most unbelievably ridiculous bad decision by an umpire I have ever seen in my life. I have absolutely no words to describe it any other way.

Disgraceful. That umpire should be fined and given 4 weeks.

 

[Dom PC]

The Hawks bottom 6 players selected are very average. They won't be top 4 this year, the confidence will slowly seep away from their players and will just scrape into the top 8.

 

[POBT]

Adelaide are such an impressive club.

 

[Hollow Knight]

 

[Mr Ripper]

View attachment 352354

I agree with that free kick purely in isolation; although it is completely at odds with what's been allowed over the past 20+ years. Crows bloke was clearly laying right across Puopolo's back. Pre AFL era, this was always 'in the back'.

Bigger issue to me was that holding the ball wasn't given against PP beforehand. No prior, but he had a couple of opportunities to get rid of it in the tackle and made no attempt. Law says he gets a 'reasonable' chance, and he had that and then some.

 

[Dylan12]

Doubt there'll be many Hawthorn sympathisers if they continue to decline.

2017 maybe Hawthorn's season that the Lions had in 2005.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Doubt there'll be many Hawthorn sympathisers if they continue to decline.

2017 maybe Hawthorn's season that the Lions had in 2005.

Hopefully they can no longer bank on luring talent from other clubs at a discount by dangling a premiership as bait.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Jaeger

 

[jackess]

I agree with that free kick purely in isolation; although it is completely at odds with what's been allowed over the past 20+ years. Crows bloke was clearly laying right across Puopolo's back. Pre AFL era, this was always 'in the back'.

Bigger issue to me was that holding the ball wasn't given against PP beforehand. No prior, but he had a couple of opportunities to get rid of it in the tackle and made no attempt. Law says he gets a 'reasonable' chance, and he had that and then some.

Agreed. This is what I thought the interpretation was.

 

[mattymac]

Once again, Adelaide just wilt when playing a determined, quality side.

Or... is it?

 

[BRAB]

Or... is it?

You don't play us until round 9

Be afraid