Toast Round 14 = North Melbourne 118-119 Collingwood

[Looney]

Anyway else hoping North smash the Dee's this week?

I sure am.

Would they do that and risk losing the No.1 draft pick again?
Can you imagine if north held on to Horne Francis and got Harley Reed as well? How scary would the team be?

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Would they do that and risk losing the No.1 draft pick again?
Can you imagine if north held on to Horne Francis and got Harley Reed as well? How scary would the team be?

They have a couple more winnable games to go this year... Eagles & Tigers. I think the team which finishes on the bottom of the ladder this year could win a few more games than other years.

I don't mind if they tank against Tigers & beat Dee's instead

 

[76woodenspooners]

^^^^this! Last year the AFL went overboard with players respecting umpires. The idea was to give umpires some integrity back so they introduced the disent rule. Now we have coaches having a crack at umpires in pressers. Most importantly the media barrack against umpires every week.

I am so sick of Hodge and Richardson disputing decisions, Taylor creating a controversial decision at the end of every match and, Robbo and Caro should be ashamed of themselves. Edmonds, Ralph and Cornes are shock jock liars.

Its about time the AFL pulled the media in and told them to stfu.

I've been an umpire hater as a supporter and player. However I respect the speed of the game now even with four umpires is crazy. I am sure the Daicos hold was missed because umpires were caught out watching him scissor kick in awe. In the heat of the moment, the ‘50’ saw north, Collingwood and umpires caught up in the moment. All parties made mistakes. The wardlaw ‘50’ is not highlighted by the media at all.

Seriously media umpire bashing is a joke. That should be left to us


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Sadly, we live in a country that kinda has freedom of speech and free media

 

[manicpie]

Sadly, we live in a country that kinda has freedom of speech and free media

To a certain degree. No country has complete freedom of speech

 

[76woodenspooners]

Would they do that and risk losing the No.1 draft pick again?
Can you imagine if north held on to Horne Francis and got Harley Reed as well? How scary would the team be?

That assumes that JHF and Harley Reid would be the same players if they were at North.

Which is not necessarily a valid assumption.

Markov is a Richmond reject. And Suns reject. And yet is a Premiership player at Collingwood.

Frampton is a Port reject. And Crows reject. And yet is a Premiership player at Collingwood.

17 clubs passed over JFN year after year after year. And yet now he is a 100 game player with Collingwood.

17 clubs passed over Mihocek year after year after year. And yet now he is a Premiership player with Collingwood.

Lipinski struggled to get a game at Bulldogs. He’s played almost as many games in 3 years at Collingwood as he played in 5 years at Bulldogs. And he’s now a Premiership player at Collingwood.

Darcy Cameron was let go from Swans for peanuts as a 23 year old. Now he’s a Premiership player and mainstay in the Collingwood team.

Bobby Hill has become a much better player at Collingwood than what he was at GWS.

Jack “steak knives” Crisp. We all know how that story goes.

 

[76woodenspooners]

To a certain degree. No country has complete freedom of speech

True. And that’s a good thing.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Pork and Uke

Mike.

 

[gerryg400]

Mike.

And Yorrick.

 

[HoraceStrasbork]

That assumes that JHF and Harley Reid would be the same players if they were at North.

Which is not necessarily a valid assumption.

Markov is a Richmond reject. And Suns reject. And yet is a Premiership player at Collingwood.

Frampton is a Port reject. And Crows reject. And yet is a Premiership player at Collingwood.

17 clubs passed over JFN year after year after year. And yet now he is a 100 game player with Collingwood.

17 clubs passed over Mihocek year after year after year. And yet now he is a Premiership player with Collingwood.

Lipinski struggled to get a game at Bulldogs. He’s played almost as many games in 3 years at Collingwood as he played in 5 years at Bulldogs. And he’s now a Premiership player at Collingwood.

Darcy Cameron was let go from Swans for peanuts as a 23 year old. Now he’s a Premiership player and mainstay in the Collingwood team.

Bobby Hill has become a much better player at Collingwood than what he was at GWS.

Jack “steak knives” Crisp. We all know how that story goes.

What is your point?

 

[sr36]

That assumes that JHF and Harley Reid would be the same players if they were at North.

Which is not necessarily a valid assumption.

Markov is a Richmond reject. And Suns reject. And yet is a Premiership player at Collingwood.

Frampton is a Port reject. And Crows reject. And yet is a Premiership player at Collingwood.

17 clubs passed over JFN year after year after year. And yet now he is a 100 game player with Collingwood.

17 clubs passed over Mihocek year after year after year. And yet now he is a Premiership player with Collingwood.

Lipinski struggled to get a game at Bulldogs. He’s played almost as many games in 3 years at Collingwood as he played in 5 years at Bulldogs. And he’s now a Premiership player at Collingwood.

Darcy Cameron was let go from Swans for peanuts as a 23 year old. Now he’s a Premiership player and mainstay in the Collingwood team.

Bobby Hill has become a much better player at Collingwood than what he was at GWS.

Jack “steak knives” Crisp. We all know how that story goes.

Harley is about 8 games in - don't think North could have ****ed him up yet.

 

[Mollythedolly]

if you want to get technical according to rule 20.2 (b) he never attempted to dispose of the ball so it's not play on until the umpire calls it.



20.2 (b) mentions the field umpire should call play on (and the ball become live) if a player attempts to dispose of the ball other than directly over the mark.

Isn’t the first element of “attempts to dispose of the ball” the running off the line of the mark?

 

[TW Sherrin]

Isn’t the first element of “attempts to dispose of the ball” the running off the line of the mark?

I can see what you mean but not according to the rules. he didn't attempt to handball or kick.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2024/03/20/a1cd31c5-e4f1-47a1-a8be-005d0b990cbe/2024-Laws-of-Australian-Rules-Football.pdf?_ga=2.192495850.1383607881.1718852830-1238501788.1714697352

PART B
DEFINITIONS, INTERPRETATION and VARIATION
1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION
1.1 DEFINITIONS


Correct Disposal or Correctly Dispose: a Kick or Handball of the football by a Player



Play on definition:

Play On’ or ‘Touched Play On’: the verbal and visual instruction given by a field Umpire in the following circumstances to indicate that play will continue:

(a) a Free Kick or Mark will not be awarded;
(b) a Player has failed to dispose of the football when directed to do so by the field Umpire;
(c) a Player has attempted to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark

 

[sr36]

if you want to get technical according to rule 20.2 (b) he never attempted to dispose of the ball so it's not play on until the umpire calls it.



20.2 (b) mentions the field umpire should call play on (and the ball become live) if a player attempts to dispose of the ball other than directly over the mark.

If you want to get really technical.

Player takes a mark and immediately changes direction and and runs with the footy. Opponent immediately starts chasing him. It's a 50, as technically it's not play on until the umpire has called it. We don't want technical.

As far as I'm concerned, the call was fine. Probably should have been called play on, but seeing it wasn't, you don't want players penalised for that.

 

[TW Sherrin]

If you want to get really technical.

Player takes a mark and immediately changes direction and and runs with the footy. Opponent immediately starts chasing him. It's a 50, as technically it's not play on until the umpire has called it. We don't want technical.

As far as I'm concerned, the call was fine. Probably should have been called play on, but seeing it wasn't, you don't want players penalised for that.

umpires make the call on this and that's the only way the game can work. the players can't jump over the mark because they think their opponent has played on.

there are so many judgement calls and interpretations made every game the rules have to be the backbone of the game. even if they are technical.

 

[sr36]

umpires make the call on this and that's the only way the game can work. the players can't jump over the mark because they think their opponent has played on.

there are so many judgement calls and interpretations made every game the rules have to be the backbone of the game. even if they are technical.

My point was they do all the time. Players don't wait for a play on call when the player has run off his mark- expecting them to gives the bloke with the ball too much of an advantage. He'd run off his mark, but if it wasn't play on, it wasn't wasting time either, as the player hadn't got back to his mark if he wasn't playing on. Common sense decision - both sides got the benefit of the doubt for a grey area.

 

[Mollythedolly]

I can see what you mean but not according to the rules. he didn't attempt to handball or kick.

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2024/03/20/a1cd31c5-e4f1-47a1-a8be-005d0b990cbe/2024-Laws-of-Australian-Rules-Football.pdf?_ga=2.192495850.1383607881.1718852830-1238501788.1714697352

PART B
DEFINITIONS, INTERPRETATION and VARIATION
1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION
1.1 DEFINITIONS


Correct Disposal or Correctly Dispose: a Kick or Handball of the football by a Player



Play on definition:

Play On’ or ‘Touched Play On’: the verbal and visual instruction given by a field Umpire in the following circumstances to indicate that play will continue:

(a) a Free Kick or Mark will not be awarded;
(b) a Player has failed to dispose of the football when directed to do so by the field Umpire;
(c) a Player has attempted to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark

What I’m saying is that an “attempt” to dispose requires momentum toward the disposal. Running off the mark is one of the triggers for that process. The play on call should have come as soon as he accelerated away from where he’d taken the mark in a direction off the line of the mark.

 

[northcotehead]

Been copping it all week from supporters of every other team, I've gone from defending the umps to just admitting we got away with murder. I feel liberated and it makes them all more cranky.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Been copping it all week from supporters of every other team, I've gone from defending the umps to just admitting we got away with murder. I feel liberated and it makes them all more cranky.

The best way to shut them up is to tell them the non stop whingeing makes the win even sweeter and reminds us what a great comeback it was.

Oh and how about that miss from Fisher AFTER the non 50/play on saga.. that was delicious. They lost twice.

 

[gerryg400]

Every week simpleton idiots in the media focus on the last questionable decision of the game. How about all the other iffy ones you dickheads. Zurhaar clearly got away with a HTB decision in the last quarter. Nick was clearly being held when he soccered that ball out of the air the lead to Bobby’s 4th goal. Where’s the outcry about these you dickheads

That’s right. And when Howe lead and marked on 50 with 4 minutes to go the player trailing him took 4 steps over the mark and pushed Howe as he stopped. The commentators said it should be 50 and then said it wasn’t paid because he was in the contest. He wasn’t. It should have been 50 because Howe stopped. He did not play on.

 

[Eric Shin]

It’s f****** Thursday and all the Collingwood haters are still going on about this. Wish they were as passionate about some of the calls that have gone against us over the years.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[doofdoof]

And effectively against Adelaide also. It was most inconvenient for them to hit the front, so we had to conjure a goal from an IQ smother to ensure the win.

We put the cue back in the rack at half time against Hawthorn and it nearly cost us.

 

[gerryg400]

My point was they do all the time. Players don't wait for a play on call when the player has run off his mark- expecting them to gives the bloke with the ball too much of an advantage. He'd run off his mark, but if it wasn't play on, it wasn't wasting time either, as the player hadn't got back to his mark if he wasn't playing on. Common sense decision - both sides got the benefit of the doubt for a grey area.

Think about the situation that happens quite often when a forward doubles back and marks running towards goal. A chasing back does not need to wait for the ump to call ‘play on’ to chase him. He just need to be sure that when the ump’s feeble brain catches with what’s happening he agrees that he played on.
This is an extreme example of what happened to Sidey and Beau.

 

[sr36]

Think about the situation that happens quite often when a forward doubles back and marks running towards goal. A chasing back does not need to wait for the ump to call ‘play on’ to chase him. He just need to be sure that when the ump’s feeble brain catches with what’s happening he agrees that he played on.
This is an extreme example of what happened to Sidey and Beau.

Yep. That's what I'm saying.

 

[TW Sherrin]

Think about the situation that happens quite often when a forward doubles back and marks running towards goal. A chasing back does not need to wait for the ump to call ‘play on’ to chase him. He just need to be sure that when the ump’s feeble brain catches with what’s happening he agrees that he played on.
This is an extreme example of what happened to Sidey and Beau.

in that case the player has crossed over the mark and the umpire would be calling play on.

we're not disagreeing Scott played on. I think he did.

but according to the ump he didn't and that's all that matters.

 

[Anzacday]

What about the free against Jiath in the 3rd.
Somehow we were paid an advantage and had the ball near the opposite wing.
Finally they worked out is was holding the ball, not the man.
The ball is sent back and North kick a goal.