Toast Round 2 = Western Bulldogs 70-76 Collingwood

[jmac70]

Should have been 50 meter penalty period.

The mark was done and the contest came a second after.

Whether it's a suspension or not is subjective. But definition of 50m for sure.

Spot on.
50 meter penalty and game over.
Hard to understand how the umpire could have come to a different decision

 

[jmac70]

So.
Eventually watched the replay, pen and pad in hand.
Recorded each free, non free, etc.

Last quarter Dog Bailey Dale was clearly hard done by with the intional OOB call.
Pies did not score from the free.
If it wasnt paid it would have a boundary throwin.

You could argue the free slightly advantaged the Pies.

Apart from that I really could not find a free for Collingwood that was not there.

There were plenty for both sides
which were debatable starting with the first of the game which
cost Collingwood a goal.

Numerous obvious free were missed.

I could argue most would have resulted in more frees to Collingwood.

I invited the Dogs board to point out which free kicks to Collingwood were not there.

Reality is it's the nulerical differential which is driving the
outrage.

Ignore the number and try and find some bias and it's a long bow to draw.

Eagerly waiting some specifics.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

We got more frees because the dogs were beaten in the air around the ground and gave up frees. We also had a much higher pressure rating, resulting in them being second to the ball.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Why did Maynard get off for the smother? Quite simply it wasn't deemed careless, by either the MRO or the tribunal despite the massive outcome. And multiple players last year were concussed without a suspension. They don't get done unless it's deemed careless.

Because Brayshaw zigged when he should have zagged. And because flying smothers weren’t specifically in the rulebook. And because Maynard didn’t punch anybody in the face after missing the ball by a metre.

 

[granniewolf]

I just watched the replay of the match. Seeing replays from multiple angles of Reef on the ground, am wondering if the Footscray player who fell on top of his lower legs could have worsened the injury.
Is that likely?

Apart from that, I thought it was a great game. Was like a GF.

 

[MagpieJo]

well that was fun!!!! not as fun ads last week!

Maybe look where the ball is going!!



but he kept on fighting and getting the ball back!




i cant figure this out! ned had just kicked the ball, whats the other guy doing?



surely this should have been 50?




dainty class!















hmm, wakey wakey!


i coulda kicked it in heels!










man that kids blowin!

 

[MagpieJo]

cheers! full album: https://www.flickr.com/photos/192627852@N07/albums/




kick the goal and work less!











ouch



THE WINNING GOAL!

 

[jmac70]

cheers!




kick the goal and work less!











ouch



THE WINNING GOAL!

Great photos. Did you take them?

 

[Scodog10]

Honestly if Moore did that I’d expect him to miss weeks, and I’m not just saying that.

You mean like Maynard did when he collected Lloyd? It was a rather curious discussion to listen to on Crunch time with Edmund twisting himself into knots explaining why Lobb wouldn’t go and then being incapable of connecting the dots on why he would go for the exact same contact if Cox was concussed.

IMO, the MRO assessment needs an overhaul on how we treat high contact with a clearer emphasis on outcomes contributing to penalties.

 

[jmac70]

You mean like Maynard did when he collected Lloyd? It was a rather curious discussion to listen to on Crunch time with Edmund twisting himself into knots explaining why Lobb wouldn’t go and then being incapable of connecting the dots on why he would go for the exact same contact if Cox was concussed.

IMO, the MRO assessment needs an overhaul on how we treat high contact with a clearer emphasis on outcomes contributing to penalties.

It’s pretty simple.
If a player is not concussed, there is no case to answer

 

[MagpieJo]

Great photos. Did you take them?

yes i did, thankyou

this is my flickr account, check out the grand final video! its better with music but if i upload with Simply the best and We are the champions, i get warnings! https://www.flickr.com/photos/192627852@N07/albums/

 

[Scodog10]

It’s pretty simple.
If a player is not concussed, there is no case to answer

Which is wrong and not currently explicitly stated within the MRO’s guidelines. Take Crisp’s tackle on West if that’s Starcevich instead the streak is now over. Cox having the ability to take a hit prevented Lobb from having a 3 week holiday which is just wrong with what we don’t know about concussion.

 

[Apex36]

Why did Maynard get off for the smother? Quite simply it wasn't deemed careless, by either the MRO or the tribunal despite the massive outcome. And multiple players last year were concussed without a suspension. They don't get done unless it's deemed careless.

Maynard wouldn’t have gotten off under the new duty of care rules though, just like Archer didn’t even though it was a very obviously accidental collision.

 

[gouki88]

Why did Maynard get off for the smother? Quite simply it wasn't deemed careless, by either the MRO or the tribunal despite the massive outcome. And multiple players last year were concussed without a suspension. They don't get done unless it's deemed careless.

Wasn't Maynard charged with careless rough conduct, high contact and severe impact initially? Isn't that what we challenged at the Tribunal?

 

[Ctracks]

Many salty deliberate out of bounds videos going around. We were shafted at the SCG last year so consider it payback you campaigners.

Plus JDG getting called for deliberate when Murphy was being helped off the ground against Adelaide.

 

[sideswipe]

][emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji6]" data-quote="jmac[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

It’s pretty simple.
If a player is not concussed, there is no case to answer

That isn’t the situation at all. Theoretically, even if Lobb KO’d Cox, he still wouldn’t have been suspended - because the act wasn’t assessed as a reportable offence.

Anyone talking about an impact assessment on Lobb doesn’t understand the system. The act didn’t make it “into” the Tribunal matrix.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[unplugged]

Watched the replay in full last night and gee... McStay... Kicked 1.3 in what you'd call a pretty bad night. Could have EASILY been 5 goals. Which would mean 8 in 2 weeks. Fine lines.

Also... Quaynor looked completely lost.

 

[sr36]

Wasn't Maynard charged with careless rough conduct, high contact and severe impact initially? Isn't that what we challenged at the Tribunal?

That might have been the charge he was defending at the tribunal, but the MRO cleared him. AFL took it to the tribunal.

 

[sideswipe]

[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji6]" data-quote="gouki[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6]]" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

Wasn't Maynard charged with careless rough conduct, high contact and severe impact initially? Isn't that what we challenged at the Tribunal?

Nope - Kane sent it straight to the Tribunal for a hearing without it being formally assessed. Similar(in theory) to Lobb, we won the argument that it wasn’t a reportable offence.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[tmpies01]

I think the 2024 Pies would have lost this game. We’ve got a bit of that aura back this year, completely different to last. There looks like a hunger and desire to prove people wrong and get back to the top of the mountain again.

Happy with how we turned things around after the GWS loss.

 

[Bald]

So.
Eventually watched the replay, pen and pad in hand.
Recorded each free, non free, etc.

Last quarter Dog Bailey Dale was clearly hard done by with the intional OOB call.
Pies did not score from the free.
If it wasnt paid it would have a boundary throwin.

You could argue the free slightly advantaged the Pies.

Apart from that I really could not find a free for Collingwood that was not there.

There were plenty for both sides
which were debatable starting with the first of the game which
cost Collingwood a goal.

Numerous obvious free were missed.

I could argue most would have resulted in more frees to Collingwood.

I invited the Dogs board to point out which free kicks to Collingwood were not there.

Reality is it's the nulerical differential which is driving the
outrage.

Ignore the number and try and find some bias and it's a long bow to draw.

Eagerly waiting some specifics.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

I hope you don't mind me having a take here - I will include a TL;DR at the end.

Firstly, the numbers are irrelevant. If I tackle you and get you holding the ball, that doesn't mean that somewhere throughout the game you are going to tackle me and get me holding the ball. It's a very simplistic view that's just nonsense. By that logic every game should be a draw, because every team does everything the same. It doesn't work that way.

People are watching the game, they're looking at the numbers and saying it seems odd, which sure, it's not necessarily a common thing to have such a lobsided free kick count but we also played with some of our best players out, so players are instinctively going to play a little bit above themselves and thus perhaps be a little reckless. Our coach said as much post-game.

Now there were a few things that went against both sides late in the game.

• The Nick Daicos non-call on insufficient intent in my opinion is only being highlighted because the Bailey Dale insufficient intent was called. Either both were, or both weren't (and as all things AFL umpiring it's interpretation that was a bit inconsistent). Unfortunately the way it went, both impacted the Dogs. Given Tim English was getting a pantsing all night I'm not sure a throw in was a certainty that we'd end up running the length of the ground and kicking a goal anyway.
• The Mason Cox non-50 was wrong. There absolutely should have been a 50 paid there. This would have most probably resulted in a Collingwood goal.
• There was an incident where Lachie Bramble had his legs taken on the far wing. I think that should have been a free kick. I'm happy to get the time stamp if anyone wants it but I don't have it now. That results in a probable inside 50 for the Dogs, and a possible (although far from probable) score.

These all happened toward the later stages of the last quarter, so people have a recency bias towards them, and when they see the overall free kick number, combined with their recency bias, they add 1 + 1 and end up with 3.

The TL;DR:
Were the Dogs a little bit disadvantaged in the last part of the game? Sure, I don't think that's an unreasonable view to have, but the numbers are our own doing and I truly don't think you can blame a 5-10 minute period at the end of the last quarter on a result - and it seems based on Bevo's post game presser that he agrees.

 

[Granit1962]

Maynard wouldn’t have gotten off under the new duty of care rules though, just like Archer didn’t even though it was a very obviously accidental collision.

Interesting, reckless behavior needs to be demonstrated prior to a duty of care being upheld I assume except for the bump and head contact? The line is so fine between minor recklessness and a normal footy action.

 

[Pie eyed]

I hope you don't mind me having a take here - I will include a TL;DR at the end.

Firstly, the numbers are irrelevant. If I tackle you and get you holding the ball, that doesn't mean that somewhere throughout the game you are going to tackle me and get me holding the ball. It's a very simplistic view that's just nonsense. By that logic every game should be a draw, because every team does everything the same. It doesn't work that way.

People are watching the game, they're looking at the numbers and saying it seems odd, which sure, it's not necessarily a common thing to have such a lobsided free kick count but we also played with some of our best players out, so players are instinctively going to play a little bit above themselves and thus perhaps be a little reckless. Our coach said as much post-game.

Now there were a few things that went against both sides late in the game.

• The Nick Daicos non-call on insufficient intent in my opinion is only being highlighted because the Bailey Dale insufficient intent was called. Either both were, or both weren't (and as all things AFL umpiring it's interpretation that was a bit inconsistent). Unfortunately the way it went, both impacted the Dogs. Given Tim English was getting a pantsing all night I'm not sure a throw in was a certainty that we'd end up running the length of the ground and kicking a goal anyway.
• The Mason Cox non-50 was wrong. There absolutely should have been a 50 paid there. This would have most probably resulted in a Collingwood goal.
• There was an incident where Lachie Bramble had his legs taken on the far wing. I think that should have been a free kick. I'm happy to get the time stamp if anyone wants it but I don't have it now. That results in a probable inside 50 for the Dogs, and a possible (although far from probable) score.

These all happened toward the later stages of the last quarter, so people have a recency bias towards them, and when they see the overall free kick number, combined with their recency bias, they add 1 + 1 and end up with 3.

The TL;DR:
Were the Dogs a little bit disadvantaged in the last part of the game? Sure, I don't think that's an unreasonable view to have, but the numbers are our own doing and I truly don't think you can blame a 5-10 minute period at the end of the last quarter on a result - and it seems based on Bevo's post game presser that he agrees.

Pretty much sums ip my position.
The numerical disparity points to a bias however examination shows the vast majority of frees were legitimate.

That said in another match many both ways would have been let go.

In replay it was a tough high pressure match befitting the occassion.

Last years Pies would have drawn.

I'm glad thats not the case this season.

On SM-G975F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[sideswipe]

Interesting, reckless behavior needs to be demonstrated prior to a duty of care being upheld I assume except for the bump and head contact? The line is so fine between minor recklessness and a normal footy action.

A duty of care is a constant, rather than something that is upheld. In assessing potential reportable incidents, one of the considerations is whether the player actions in any contested element were conducted within acceptable bounds to protect health and safety, minimise injury, etc.

Sounds all well and good, but applying that to a particular incident isn't always easy.

I was certainly surprised to see Lobb not treated as careless which with a high high grading would have givern him two weeks.

Not sure how a fist to the face doesn't make it to careless.

Reckless isn't a term used by the tribunal anymore.

 

[mumblingpie]

Surely it’s a false rumour that Ugle Hagan attended NRL game and not the Dogs/Pies game

 

[Apex36]

A duty of care is a constant, rather than something that is upheld. In assessing potential reportable incidents, one of the considerations is whether the player actions in any contested element were conducted within acceptable bounds to protect health and safety, minimise injury, etc.

Sounds all well and good, but applying that to a particular incident isn't always easy.

I was certainly surprised to see Lobb not treated as careless which with a high high grading would have givern him two weeks.

Not sure how a fist to the face doesn't make it to careless.

Reckless isn't a term used by the tribunal anymore.

This is what I’ve been arguing the whole time.