List Mgmt. Ross Lyon - Sacked

[Taylor]

Oooh Kinky.

Ever notice the way his nose moves when he talks? It'd become such a focal point that I'd lose the gist of what he was carping on about.

I haven't seen that and now will never be able to not see it again should this be true.

 

[Taylor]

Ah, right. You are a very obscure young person at times

Well ten points to Loguedore for anyone that got it before the explanation

X

 

[igon value]

I don't see anyone saying he's never wrong either. Maybe we could all go a bit easy on the hyperbole?

There has been an argument made that the decision to play underperforming senior players was taken out of his hands, to absolve him of any mistakes or wrongdoing.

Yeah I agree. Like the 2015 second half. He's not a ******* magician.

However i'd be open to believing shit like players were against dropping certain individuals. It's absolutely feasible that loyal cliques exist, and what player wants to actively lose (often synonymous with 'playing kids' but clearly not in our case).

Ultimately there is no ******* way we will ever know. One thing I do take comfort in is that if there was resistance to playing kids; be it from Ross, the leadership group, admin or the ******* janitor, everyone should be on the same page now.

I don't doubt that players have their loyalties, but the argument that they were overriding Ross on team selection is fanciful. Even more fanciful is that Rosich had a say. Do we really think that Lyon couldn't have argued the case for picking Crozier or Grey over Suban? Or that one or all of Pearce, Dawson and Griffin might be long in the tooth and it's time for some freshness or difference in non-essential roles? Can anyone legitimately believe that Rosich saw the team sheets before round 1, couldn't find Suban and got on the phone ... "Hey Ross, we need to fill a 60,000 seat stadium next year. You pick Nick or you walk."

Of course, no one actually believes that, so the argument is that Lyon felt intense internal pressure to pick the most experienced and therefore most likely to win, against his better instincts to rebuild, and then after the Geelong failure doubled-down to prove the folly of the idea that we needed to keep the old heads.

But this goes against everything we know about Lyon. The side that was picked on the weekend was in the top 20 for his youngest ever squads, and the second youngest ever side he's won a game with (thanks to Ron The Bear).

Some people want to believe that Ross is playing 36-dimensional chess while we're all yelling at him thinking he's really shit at draughts because he's not kinging any of the young blokes, but in reality he's just playing regular chess and sometimes he is too attached to his pawns.

 

[DudleyDocker]

There has been an argument made that the decision to play underperforming senior players was taken out of his hands, to absolve him of any mistakes or wrongdoing.

Again, a far cry from saying he's never wrong.

Anyway, point taken let's move on.

 

[Nightrain]

I haven't seen that and now will never be able to not see it again should this be true.

You're not still watching Gerard are you? You must have higher tolerance levels than me. I can't stand his soap boxing and moral high ground stance he has on almost all issues. Yet he steers clear of the obvious injustices like,
- Why was recent ex-teammate Brad Sewell allowed to remain in the Tribunal panel when deliberating the "Luke Hodge wrapping Wingard's neck around a point post" incident, or
- How his beloved Selwood's ducking and arm raising to get free kicks is making the game unwatchable, is despicable, duplicitous, distasteful and down right dirty pool. There was a time when we would make fun of soccer players for similar acts, yet we applaud and make heroes of a selected few in the AFL for the exact same thing. It's akin to taking a dive in soccer.

Anyhoo, dunno what it is about him but every time I see him I just think camel and want to smoke.

 

[Mudd]

And you will get far more respect and less aggro from other posters if you post respectfully without name calling and treating other opinions with contempt.

a horde of bored keyboard warriors gnawing at my mistakes like a labrador with an old shank.

Hmm

 

[DudleyDocker]

Some people want to believe that Ross is playing 36-dimensional chess while we're all yelling at him thinking he's really shit at draughts because he's not kinging any of the young blokes, but in reality he's just playing regular chess and sometimes he is too attached to his pawns.

That, I think, sums up the argument perfectly for me. He's just a bloke doing a difficult job to the best of his ability, and like all of us he will sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong.

Some of us believe he is doing a good job, some of us think he is not but I think most are somewhere in the middle. But let's not suck the joy out of a great win by arguing about how it happened - I'm just hanging out to see where it goes from here!

 

[DudleyDocker]

Hmm

Do as I say, not as I do OK!

EDIT: In fairness I was spraying everyone, not just the pencil necks...

 

[meima]

Do as I say, not as I do OK!

EDIT: In fairness I was spraying everyone, not just the pencil necks...

 

[ydraw]

- How his beloved Selwood's ducking and arm raising to get free kicks is making the game unwatchable, is despicable, duplicitous, distasteful and down right dirty pool. There was a time when we would make fun of soccer players for similar acts, yet we applaud and make heroes of a selected few in the AFL for the exact same thing. It's akin to taking a dive in soccer.

I don't really see ducking and arm raising in this way. There is a legitimate argument that it's a good way to break a tackle. The problem lies in the rule itself, not the players exploiting the rule.

Very simply, high tackle should only be called if the original tackle is high. If the tackle starts fair but then moves high due to the player actions then it shouldn't be a free kick.

 

[Taylor]

You're not still watching Gerard are you? You must have higher tolerance levels than me. I can't stand his soap boxing and moral high ground stance he has on almost all issues. Yet he steers clear of the obvious injustices like,
- Why was recent ex-teammate Brad Sewell allowed to remain in the Tribunal panel when deliberating the "Luke Hodge wrapping Wingard's neck around a point post" incident, or
- How his beloved Selwood's ducking and arm raising to get free kicks is making the game unwatchable, is despicable, duplicitous, distasteful and down right dirty pool. There was a time when we would make fun of soccer players for similar acts, yet we applaud and make heroes of a selected few in the AFL for the exact same thing. It's akin to taking a dive in soccer.

Anyhoo, dunno what it is about him but every time I see him I just think camel and want to smoke.

I haven't seen him since he was doing some pregame work in a colourful shirt in India, covering the cricket.

 

[Nightrain]

I don't really see ducking and arm raising in this way. There is a legitimate argument that it's a good way to break a tackle. The problem lies in the rule itself, not the players exploiting the rule.

Very simply, high tackle should only be called if the original tackle is high. If the tackle starts fair but then moves high due to the player actions then it shouldn't be a free kick.

So it shouldn't be a free kick yet you don't see it as un-sportsman like?

I would go as far as to say it should be a free kick against. You are trying to fool the umpire and get an advantage when there was no intentional infringement.

 

[Wally Walpamur]

So it shouldn't be a free kick yet you don't see it as un-sportsman like?

I would go as far as to say it should be a free kick against. You are trying to fool the umpire and get an advantage when there was no intentional infringement.

I think the term you're looking for is 'gamesmanship.'

It's definitely not un-sportsman like. If a player can gain an advantage from exploiting a rule interpretation, it's either up to the powers that be to close that loophole or the opposition to stop the player from exploiting that loophole. It's a bit like a batsman not walking after edging it and getting caught; it's the umpires job to make the call if he's out.

 

[ydraw]

So it shouldn't be a free kick yet you don't see it as un-sportsman like?

I guess what I am saying is that it isn't the players' fault that this stupid rule exists. The solution is not to punish the players, but to fix the rule.

You cant just award a free kick against because like I said, you can't be sure the intention was to "fool the umpire". They could also simply be trying to evade or break the tackle. Michael Walters does exactly this a lot.

If there's one thing that the deliberate rushed behind and OOB rules show, it's that it's a really bad idea to ask umpires to guess what the players' intentions were. You're basically asking umpires to read the players' mind. Literally no other sport in the world has rules that require the umpires to decide what the player was thinking.

 

[masai]

Whateley will go the "what took so long?" angle tonight on AFL360.

Yep, is the Pope catholic.

 

[masai]

Plus Whateley is a despicable lightweight narcissistic cowardly campaigner.

To me he is a frustrated wannabe jockey.

 

[Square Peg]

I guess what I am saying is that it isn't the players' fault that this stupid rule exists. The solution is not to punish the players, but to fix the rule.

You cant just award a free kick against because like I said, you can't be sure the intention was to "fool the umpire". They could also simply be trying to evade or break the tackle. Michael Walters does exactly this a lot.

If there's one thing that the deliberate rushed behind and OOB rules show, it's that it's a really bad idea to ask umpires to guess what the players' intentions were. You're basically asking umpires to read the players' mind. Literally no other sport in the world has rules that require the umpires to decide what the player was thinking.

I hate the OOB rule too but the last sentence is not true: there is the knock the ball down penalty in rugby, for example, that relies on an adjudication of player intentions

 

[freo_leo29]

Nick Dal Santo is very close with the likes of Lee Spurr and a couple of the other freo boys in that group, just for the people wondering a few pages back.

 

[Nightrain]

I think the term you're looking for is 'gamesmanship.'

It's definitely not un-sportsman like. If a player can gain an advantage from exploiting a rule interpretation, it's either up to the powers that be to close that loophole or the opposition to stop the player from exploiting that loophole. It's a bit like a batsman not walking after edging it and getting caught; it's the umpires job to make the call if he's out.

No I think it more like a player taking a dive in soccer. There was no infringement and the diving player is trying to pull one over the umpire.

If you watch the majority of Selwoods tackles they start just above waist, then the inevitable arm raise causes the tackler's arm to slide above his shoulders. What started out as a legit tackle is only considered an infringement because of Selwoods actions.

Your cricket analogy is more like a football player knowing his goal was touched but not saying anything and leaving it to the umpires to work out.

I reckon you wouldn't be so forgiving if every AFL player practiced this and 80% of tackles resulted in arm-raised or ducking frees. It's ok now because it is limited to a very few in the competition but the number of players who do it are growing. Shuey is a master at it. That bloke from Brisbane. McClean from the Dogs. I noticed Gaff doing it on the w/e. Duncan does it quite a bit. Puopolo.

 

[Freo Shark]

Why use 5 words when 2 will suffice - Whateley is a sports journalist.

One word be better...campaigner

 

[Wally Walpamur]

No I think it more like a player taking a dive in soccer. There was no infringement and the diving player is trying to pull one over the umpire.

If you watch the majority of Selwoods tackles they start just above waist, then the inevitable arm raise causes the tackler's arm to slide above his shoulders. What started out as a legit tackle is only considered an infringement because of Selwoods actions.

Your cricket analogy is more like a football player knowing his goal was touched but not saying anything and leaving it to the umpires to work out.

I reckon you wouldn't be so forgiving if every AFL player practiced this and 80% of tackles resulted in arm-raised or ducking frees. It's ok now because it is limited to a very few in the competition but the number of players who do it are growing. Shuey is a master at it. That bloke from Brisbane. McClean from the Dogs. I noticed Gaff doing it on the w/e. Duncan does it quite a bit. Puopolo.

Still gamesmanship and the AFL did introduce the interpretation that if the tackle was initiated below the shoulders and the players ducks into or raises their arms in the tackle, resulting in high contact, the umpire is to call play on, so the onus is on the umpries.

The coaches should also coach better technique i.e. tackle the player lower.

 

[Nightrain]

I guess what I am saying is that it isn't the players' fault that this stupid rule exists. The solution is not to punish the players, but to fix the rule.

You cant just award a free kick against because like I said, you can't be sure the intention was to "fool the umpire". They could also simply be trying to evade or break the tackle. Michael Walters does exactly this a lot.

If there's one thing that the deliberate rushed behind and OOB rules show, it's that it's a really bad idea to ask umpires to guess what the players' intentions were. You're basically asking umpires to read the players' mind. Literally no other sport in the world has rules that require the umpires to decide what the player was thinking.

Agree the rule needs to be fixed. A dead give away is when you see the tackled players arm go up. A soon as this happens, ping the dirty little shite.

Of course the intention is to fool the umpire. What about Lindsay Thomas last year (?) when he flew backwards in front of goal and no-one touched him? There needs to be repercussions and whether this is on the field with a free against or a fine/points after, once the match is reviewed, something needs to be done to clean this up.

I am asking the umpires to adjudicate what they see and if they see an obvious duck, bending at the knees as the player is being tackled or the raised arm after a tackle then give the free against. Don't think it's that hard. We can see it as spectators why can't the umps?

 

[Nightrain]

Still gamesmanship and the AFL did introduce the interpretation that if the tackle was initiated below the shoulders and the players ducks into or raises their arms in the tackle, resulting in high contact, the umpire is to call play on, so the onus is on the umpries.

The coaches should also coach better technique i.e. tackle the player lower.

Not that easy when you are running full pelt though is it. All you can do is tackle legitimately. It's not like you have all day to consider your options and the player is just standing there motionless. However it is easier for the tackled to make it look like an infringement.

Anyhoo, that bolded line in your post is something Whately and his fellow Geelong supporters sprout to defend Selwood. Don't buy into it.

 

[malpaso]

Still gamesmanship and the AFL did introduce the interpretation that if the tackle was initiated below the shoulders and the players ducks into or raises their arms in the tackle, resulting in high contact, the umpire is to call play on, so the onus is on the umpries.

The coaches should also coach better technique i.e. tackle the player lower.

Totally agree. There was a great S.Hill tackle on Stringer, he just targeted the hips and drove into him. Stringer had no chance to handball, nothing.. as compared to the other times where he wiggled out of wrist tackles..
We miss a lot of tackles because we have this 'containment' type of approach to tackling, bring back the Troy Cook pile drivers. I have never understood the strange tackling technique in footy, I realize it's to prevent the handball but I suspect most won't be making many efficient handballs while lying on the turf...

 

[ydraw]

Totally agree. There was a great S.Hill tackle on Stringer, he just targeted the hips and drove into him. Stringer had no chance to handball, nothing.. as compared to the other times where he wiggled out of wrist tackles..
We miss a lot of tackles because we have this 'containment' type of approach to tackling, bring back the Troy Cook pile drivers. I have never understood the strange tackling technique in footy, I realize it's to prevent the handball but I suspect most won't be making many efficient handballs while lying on the turf...

You don't always have enough momentum to drive someone into the ground when you tackle them. You have to take the arms because if you don't it basically does nothing.