Toast Round 18 = Adelaide 86-91 Collingwood

[jonbe54]

Ginnivan does an enormous amount without the ball in hand. He pinballs around the forward line putting pressure on opponents. He’s not quick and he rarely catches them, but he does put pressure on the kicker which is helpful to keep the ball in our front half. Doesn’t get a stat for any of it.

That’s why Henry gets dropped and Ginnivan holds his spot. Sure, Henry can take the big marks and kick the set shots. But while Henry only spends 60% TOG and can’t run and chase, Ginnivan is running around the forward line like a blue assed blow fly. (And McCreery is prowling around like a tiger)

Ginnivan gets up the ground to provide escape options for getting the ball out of defense (Or draws his opponent away from the others). Very smart footballer. If he’s fit I don’t think we can afford to drop him. Let’s put it this way, if he’s rested or omitted he gets replaced by Callum Brown.

No argument '76 the number of so called Collingwood 'supporters' who say they are embarrassed by a kid playing within the rules is an indictment on our supporter base.

If you want to be embarrassed about players go and support StKilda.

 

[Everybody Panic]

Ginnivan does an enormous amount without the ball in hand. He pinballs around the forward line putting pressure on opponents. He’s not quick and he rarely catches them, but he does put pressure on the kicker which is helpful to keep the ball in our front half. Doesn’t get a stat for any of it.

That’s why Henry gets dropped and Ginnivan holds his spot. Sure, Henry can take the big marks and kick the set shots. But while Henry only spends 60% TOG and can’t run and chase, Ginnivan is running around the forward line like a blue assed blow fly. (And McCreery is prowling around like a tiger)

Ginnivan gets up the ground to provide escape options for getting the ball out of defense (Or draws his opponent away from the others). Very smart footballer. If he’s fit I don’t think we can afford to drop him. Let’s put it this way, if he’s rested or omitted he gets replaced by Callum Brown.

I'm not suggesting we drop him. I'm thinking rest him. I think he's playing at about 70 per cent of what he was early year. Sidey and Bianco could cover his pressure for a week.

 

[Everybody Panic]

No argument '76 the number of so called Collingwood 'supporters' who say they are embarrassed by a kid playing within the rules is an indictment on our supporter base.

If you want to be embarrassed about players go and support StKilda.

It's like a monkey trying to sound intelligent. Truth is if Ginivan played for any other club we would want the high free kicks not paid. Also Bucks said on the call that it's in the rules that if a player acts in a way to bring upon the high contact it's not a free. He does it every single time. I love him, don't think he needs the free kicks. He's smart with leading to pace and a handy mark.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

It’s a very good trait to have and shows a level of maturity with your team. Also helps having possibly the best first year player ever. Conversely, we are 1-3 in games decided by less than a goal this year and have lost another couple of games by 3-4 goals when we were within a goal during the last quarter, makes a huge difference being able to close out these close games.

Agree with what you’ve said here. Last season we went 1-5 in games under 12 points and until Round 20 we didn’t play out a result of greater than 5 goals to the positive or the negative yet we were supposedly abhorrently bad and would be in for an extended period of spoon contention per the Bigfooty Brains Trust.

This season we’re winning the close ones and the winners always point to it as just being “better” and the losers more often than not put it down to “luck”. Reality is there is an element of both, sometimes you are genuinely just fortunate but sometimes the biggest contribution is having the cooler heads, better users and decision makers. Isolating one or the other is unjust.

The Crows with their string of close results going the wrong way is unfortunate for them, but provides huge scope for learning and development and holds them in far better stead than the old yo yo win by 40 lose by 40 type performances. And they won the important one against Port so that’s all that matters

Looking forward to plenty more close matches between our two sides as we both start our run to contending again

 

[unplugged]

I wouldn't be against Ginivan having a week as the sub. He's a young player, and feel his impact is lessening and he looks frustrated. A rest might help. He's clutch around the corner. Early season he was clutch with drop punts too.

Re the sooking about high tackles. He plays for them so much it's gone over the top. If he played for Carlton we'd be screaming for them to be not paid. I don't even mind him dropping, but he stops and looks at the ump when there's no whistle.

Not this week. We have to assume he'll kick another bag on Essendon every time he plays them, until he doesn't!

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Also how ****ing brilliant is Maynard. We lose that without him yesterday, not a doubt in my mind about that.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Not this week. We have to assume he'll kick another bag on Essendon every time he plays them, until he doesn't!

I’ll also be dropping Carmichael for Mark McGough

 

[Tarkyn_24]

+ there was the one where WHE used his Kung-Fu on … oh wait

One of his more effective kicks yesterday

 

[Markfs]

Let’s put it this way, if he’s rested or omitted he gets replaced by Callum Brown.

Is this an update on the old saying "the boogie man will get ya".....there are kiddies reading this thread 76....

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Also Bucks said on the call that it's in the rules that if a player acts in a way to bring upon the high contact it's not a free. He does it every single time. I love him, don't think he needs the free kicks. He's smart with leading to pace and a handy mark.

Bucks is wrong. Razor Ray broke it down in a podcast recently. If the initial contact is high, and the player didn’t duck their head (and yes, I specifically mean “duck”, not all the other shit), it’s a free kick.

 

[jonbe54]

Bucks is wrong. Razor Ray broke it down in a podcast recently. If the initial contact is high, and the player didn’t duck their head (and yes, I specifically mean “duck”, not all the other s**t), it’s a free kick.

So then the only remaining explanation is that the AFL is forcing (coaching) the umpires to act illegally.

 

[Markfs]

It amazes me that umpires are willing to make decisions about ruck contests but not about high tackles. If ginnivan is judged to have ducked, he should have a free kick paid against him. They are also willing to stick to the letter of the law ridiculously regarding diving on the ball, with ginnivan suffering the penalty....and even the rule about questioning a decision that followed. Why do they have the guts to abide by the rules in these situations but not in high tackle situations? I think that they need to think about interpretation holistically......with fairness as the main driving factor....but if they want to be technical, they should be so with all of it

 

[domus]

It's like a monkey trying to sound intelligent. Truth is if Ginivan played for any other club we would want the high free kicks not paid. Also Bucks said on the call that it's in the rules that if a player acts in a way to bring upon the high contact it's not a free. He does it every single time. I love him, don't think he needs the free kicks. He's smart with leading to pace and a handy mark.

What burns in my gut is the fact that when any other player does the same thing they pay the free and commentators say nothing. Noble drops into tackles in similar fashion as did a number of players in the games I watched yesterday.

Ginnivan copped two high tackles late and he did not drop his knees. The holding the ball decision was ludicrous. There is no doubt he is being umpired differently because of who he is.

 

[TradeDraft]

Thinking about the game and realised we we’re screwed a few times.

• Ginni not holding the ball and 50 for Pendles.
• AJ unnecessary Shepherd for that easy Mihocek goal.
• Cameron 50 meters which led to a goal.

3 goal turnaround.

Scumps nearly cost us a Game 2 weeks in a Row

 

[Everybody Panic]

What burns in my gut is the fact that when any other player does the same thing they pay the free and commentators say nothing. Noble drops into tackles in similar fashion as did a number of players in the games I watched yesterday.

Ginnivan copped two high tackles late and he did not drop his knees. The holding the ball decision was ludicrous. There is no doubt he is being umpired differently because of who he is.

I agree about other players. But it's hard for umpires, and players only make it harder. Is bending low to push into a tackle high? Is dropping the knees high. What about the Selwood arm raise?

Regarding Ginivan, I think he did dive on it (from memory) and then the ball came out the back. Players get pinged for this constantly. The tackling player holds the ball in, and the player on the ground holds their arm out showing they don't have it. If he had prior, then should have been illegal disposal imo. But AFL rules are so ambiguous. It's by far the hardest sport in the world to umpire. With players trying to constantly trick them. Fans will always notice the 5 bad calls against them and not the 5 bad calls for them.

 

[Everybody Panic]

Scumps nearly cost us a Game 2 weeks in a Row

It's the umpires fault that AJ clearly Sheppard? I'm quite sure on the Pendles goal that the advantage call was quite late and Maynard threw the ball to him. Swings and roundabouts. North was much worse.

 

[hellfire]

I agree about other players. But it's hard for umpires, and players only make it harder. Is bending low to push into a tackle high? Is dropping the knees high. What about the Selwood arm raise?

Regarding Ginivan, I think he did dive on it (from memory) and then the ball came out the back. Players get pinged for this constantly. The tackling player holds the ball in, and the player on the ground holds their arm out showing they don't have it. If he had prior, then should have been illegal disposal imo. But AFL rules are so ambiguous. It's by far the hardest sport in the world to umpire. With players trying to constantly trick them. Fans will always notice the 5 bad calls against them and not the 5 bad calls for them.

I don’t think Ginnivan ever really had the ball under him. He certainly dived into the contest and was first in, but after a couple of seconds of scrambling, Tex Walker was literally hugging the ball to his chest. It was a ludicrous decision in my view, although I agree with your last comment.

 

[Markfs]

I agree about other players. But it's hard for umpires, and players only make it harder. Is bending low to push into a tackle high? Is dropping the knees high. What about the Selwood arm raise?

Regarding Ginivan, I think he did dive on it (from memory) and then the ball came out the back. Players get pinged for this constantly. The tackling player holds the ball in, and the player on the ground holds their arm out showing they don't have it. If he had prior, then should have been illegal disposal imo. But AFL rules are so ambiguous. It's by far the hardest sport in the world to umpire. With players trying to constantly trick them. Fans will always notice the 5 bad calls against them and not the 5 bad calls for them.

I agree that ginnivan is not the first to have been free-kicked when the ball was out. It doesnt happen a lot but it does happen.

My understanding is that the aim of the "dive on the ball rule" was to move the ball on. Players were diving on the ball to stop ball movement.

However, the players jumping on the back of players laying on the ball are now the ones guilty of stopping ball movement as well as trying to get a cheap free kick. They should have a free kick paid against them for "in the back". In the old days, if you laid on a players back, it was deemed to be "in the back".

If we punished the players jumping on the players who dived on the ball, then the players who have dived on the ball would have no excuse. They would have to push the ball out immediately or get holding the ball.

 

[Pistol Night]

Nick Daicos (40 disposals @ 82%, 747 metres gained

Nick subtly telling everyone he is a jet.

40 touches at 82% efficiency in the wet is off the charts. For a first year player its mind boggling.

 

[Everybody Panic]

I agree that ginnivan is not the first to have been free-kicked when the ball was out. It doesnt happen a lot but it does happen.

My understanding is that the aim of the "dive on the ball rule" was to move the ball on. Players were diving on the ball to stop ball movement.

However, the players jumping on the back of players laying on the ball are now the ones guilty of stopping ball movement as well as trying to get a cheap free kick. They should have a free kick paid against them for "in the back". In the old days, if you laid on a players back, it was deemed to be "in the back".

If we punished the players jumping on the players who dived on the ball, then the players who have dived on the ball would have no excuse. They would have to push the ball out immediately or get holding the ball.

It's not in the media, but watch matches and see how many times players flop when a player tackles them, making it look like in the back. I recon we just blow the whistle and throw it up quickly. Screw waiting for rucks. The real issue is how Ginivan has been used by the media to become a villain, and intense scrutiny had driven a narrative that the umpires are being conned. The last few years there's been increased scrutiny on umpiring. And it's clearly working, because every single team's fans are sooking at how bad a run they get after every match.

 

[Ingy]

We beat the umps yesterday.

It isn't often that they select a winner and don't get their way, because they only do it when they think their influence will be the deciding factor, but it happened yesterday.

Super, super satisfying win

 

[Markfs]

It's not in the media, but watch matches and see how many times players flop when a player tackles them, making it look like in the back. I recon we just blow the whistle and throw it up quickly. Screw waiting for rucks. The real issue is how Ginivan has been used by the media to become a villain, and intense scrutiny had driven a narrative that the umpires are being conned. The last few years there's been increased scrutiny on umpiring. And it's clearly working, because every single team's fans are sooking at how bad a run they get after every match.

i dont discount the media's desire to stir up clicks, but i just think the rules need to be worked out so that there is a clear reason to pay a free kick a certain way. If a player is free kicked for diving on the ball to stop play, then the player on top of them should be free kicked for doing the same thing if they are lying on the back of their opponent.

Some people might say that ginnivan got rid of the ball illegally by pushing it out, but are players expected to handball it or kick it when they are sprawled on the ground? I think pushing it out is the intention of the law. If not, then make it illegal to dive on the ball..... make it illegal to take possession of the ball if you're not on your feet. Supporters would go crazy at that interpretation but at least it would be consistent.

Currently the rules people are adjusting interpretation as a knee jerk to what's happening rather than look at the whole game...

 

[domus]

I agree about other players. But it's hard for umpires, and players only make it harder. Is bending low to push into a tackle high? Is dropping the knees high. What about the Selwood arm raise?

Regarding Ginivan, I think he did dive on it (from memory) and then the ball came out the back. Players get pinged for this constantly. The tackling player holds the ball in, and the player on the ground holds their arm out showing they don't have it. If he had prior, then should have been illegal disposal imo. But AFL rules are so ambiguous. It's by far the hardest sport in the world to umpire. With players trying to constantly trick them. Fans will always notice the 5 bad calls against them and not the 5 bad calls for them.

There must come a point when the ball is a metre away from the player deemed to be in possession and being deliberately sat on by an opponent when it simply becomes a ball up.
He had it in his possession for less than a second. If Ginnivan is being punished for trying to rort the rules then how is what Taylor Walker did any different?

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

I don’t think Ginnivan ever really had the ball under him. He certainly dived into the contest and was first in, but after a couple of seconds of scrambling, Tex Walker was literally hugging the ball to his chest. It was a ludicrous decision in my view, although I agree with your last comment.

They really just need to start paying those holding the ball but the other way round. He should have blown the whistle and as Tex walked back to take the kick, said 'na mate its a Collingwood free kick you didn't make any attempt to dispose of it'.

 

[Everybody Panic]

i dont discount the media's desire to stir up clicks, but i just think the rules need to be worked out so that there is a clear reason to pay a free kick a certain way. If a player is free kicked for diving on the ball to stop play, then the player on top of them should be free kicked for doing the same thing if they are lying on the back of their opponent.

Some people might say that ginnivan got rid of the ball illegally by pushing it out, but are players expected to handball it or kick it when they are sprawled on the ground? I think pushing it out is the intention of the law. If not, then make it illegal to dive on the ball..... make it illegal to take possession of the ball if you're not on your feet. Supporters would go crazy at that interpretation but at least it would be consistent.

Currently the rules people are adjusting interpretation as a knee jerk to what's happening rather than look at the whole game...

I don't like the diving on the ball rule. But if it works like prior, then yeh the player needs to handball or kick it out. Football is not a sport where you're meant to get the ball and then just drop it and push it away. Now it happens every game though and only get's called 50% of the time. And now players know if the other player dives on it they can smother it and get a free kick.