Analysis Scott Selwood Debate

[TheOutrageBus]

Well look who needs to settle down buddy. Saw it on the night and still didn't get it. Normally would have to remove Selwood surgically from Dusty at a stoppage you said. Completely full of it. That's why this board has descended the way it has. Absolute crap being propagated unchallenged, because the mostly with it fans just get sick of dealing with such crap. You made the statement buddy not me. There was no stoppage, they even approached the play from different positions altogether. Selwood wasn't even running with him at the time. You actually do need to revisit it. Because you clearly have no idea what actually happened. The biggest mistakes in the direct lead up were Hurn not covering Dusty rolling forward into the play from his position, or whoever else was closer when he came through from midfield, Selwoods poor tackle technique and Hurn being stepped and beaten ( though depending how far you want to go back you could argue about the way it was coming out of defence prior anyway)
None of that was even presented in the 5 second video though. Instead we get a misrepresentation of the play from another cut and paste video edit. Go and watch the reply buddy, It sounds like you need to. There was no stoppage.

Defend that all you like, however this is indefensible from the vice captain when a game is in the balance.

 

[TheOutrageBus]

Or this:


One shocker by itself is not a huge issue, as long as he is contributing positively to the game. But when it becomes multiple shockers then questions need to be asked about why he is in the team.

 

[inbetween]

The original video loop wasnt the best video to highlight Selwood's weaknesses or to used as evidence against Selwood's spot on the team.
It was a defensive lapse by him (which isn't characteristic of him) but it was also a defensive lapse by them team collectively.

Dustin Martin casually playing on past a sleeping defence doesn't scream "Get Selwood off the team" to me.
Hence Goosecat's remarks about the quality of footage selection and the associated analysis.

A better example would be the play where he gets pinged for holding the ball in our forward 50 towards the end of the game because it shows his poor decision making. So if someone could get that up; would be much appreciated.

 

[Smotie]

To video or not to video...



How dare you show video evidence of our players. It's not right I tell you. It's too revealing.

The other point about videos is I find it funny how people go to huge length to justify n error by player which is revealed in the video. The best one was "its not his job to tackle!" When shown a video of priddis not tackling someone running past. Hahaha

 

[new breed]

Videos are for amateurs who have limited ability to retain information or sequences .

 

[MrKK]

OMG, really. Hold Martins arm and make him come back. From a stoppage none the less.
Where you really there or is that made up as well? Surgically remove Selwood from Martin at the stoppage you say. It wasn't even from a stoppage, there was no stoppage (well unless you call everyone ceasing to play but Dusty for a couple of seconds, a stoppage).
This is what I mean. Apparently it's ok now to just jump in and make up any bullshit. Say you know what happened, even when you have absolutely no idea.
Seriously guys, make your points but can we please actually give an impression of knowing something. It's just embarrassing. Out of all the opportunities you might have regarding Scooter, this one is bullshit.
Non of that changes what I've said earlier about Selwoods performances and contract negotiations etc and for any posters to imply otherwise (which this one didn't) would be dishonest.

I'm pretty certain it was Selwood that gave away the free kick in that situation - he took Martin high, heard the whistle and stopped while Martin ran off and kicked a goal. 100% his fault.

 

[Goosecat]

I'm pretty certain it was Selwood that gave away the free kick in that situation - he took Martin high, heard the whistle and stopped while Martin ran off and kicked a goal. 100% his fault.

You're right about the tackle, which I mentioned in a different post as being poor. So here we are again starting the whole back and forth over interpretations and what happened and who said what because the 5 second grab of original video didn't even show the tackle, or the lead up, or Hurns effort and on and on.
Now people start putting up more 5 second grabs or less to show how this was poor and that was poor because people think I said Selwood was great or something, Not true. Read my posts prior to bullshit video grab apparently showing how lazy Selwood was by not chasing Dusty, or that he should have had Dusty by the arm because it was a stoppage, except it wasn't. No one even mentions the fact it was a rebound entry, there was no stoppage and Selwood had run flat stick all the way back from the wing to get there to try and help out (only to screw up the tackle unfortunately).
That's what happens with this whole edited video thing that's taken over the board. Misrepresentation.
Make your points all you like. But this bullshit misrepresentation of particular plays by short editing videos, should be called out when it's a falsehood and edited propaganda.
It all started in the other thread and now continues thanks to the poor moderation of that thread and the precedent it set.
Truthfulness is all that is required. A quality lacking around here lately.

 

[Eaglemaniac]

You're right about the tackle, which I mentioned in a different post as being poor. So here we are again starting the whole back and forth over interpretations and what happened and who said what because the 5 second grab of original video didn't even show the tackle, or the lead up, or Hurns effort and on and on.
Now people start putting up more 5 second grabs or less to show how this was poor and that was poor because people think I said Selwood was great or something, Not true. Read my posts prior to bullshit video grab apparently showing how lazy Selwood was by not chasing Dusty, or that he should have had Dusty by the arm because it was a stoppage, except it wasn't. No one even mentions the fact it was a rebound entry, there was no stoppage and Selwood had run flat stick all the way back from the wing to get there to try and help out (only to screw up the tackle unfortunately).
That's what happens with this whole edited video thing that's taken over the board. Misrepresentation.
Make your points all you like. But this bullshit misrepresentation of particular plays by short editing videos, should be called out when it's a falsehood and edited propaganda.
It all started in the other thread and now continues thanks to the poor moderation of that thread and the precedent it set.
Truthfulness is all that is required. A quality lacking around here lately.

That's all great Goose, but when there is a video that goes over all his involvements in the play in the one game, and the majority of them are complete **** ups, then that's not cherry picking all his mistakes for the season and making him look like he cant play. He was woeful on Friday night, and he doesn't deserve his spot in the team, so people have every right to point that out using video if they want to. We're all passionate fans, otherwise we wouldn't be here, and so when our MC continues to pick certain players over others when they haven't done the work (in these passionate fans eyes), then that player and the MC are going to cop some heat.

 

[Godfather32]

It's all about the video trend on the board that became endemic in the Priddis thread. It's become a West Coast board specialty since the continual abuse of it in the other thread. This thread was being discussed fine until the "edited" video crap started again. You go to the Geelong board and see them roasting their own captain but you wont see any "edited" video of his plays. No doubt they could cherry pick any number, as is possible if you are such that likes to search through a games entire video then cut out 1 particular piece, ignoring the rest. They don't though. You could go to the Collingwood board and see their roast of Jesse White thread, but not an edited bullshit video in site. The Watts thread on the Melbourne board, crickey they could edit a brilliant piece of negative video for that, once again though you'll be lucky to find any negative focussed video "edits".
This board on the other hand, got taken over for a period by a group of zealots in the Priddis thread, spending hours and hours cutting and editing video to selectively produce as evidence and the whole idea has flowed from there.
Just cut and edit video to suit, post away and be as negative as possible. It doesn't even matter if it misrepresents. It's a cancer particular to this board, the roots of which began and were allowed to continue in the Priddis thread, where applying Rules 2 and 2a of the posting rules for this board, which used to be applied and enforced once upon a time to stop that kind of crap, were completely disregarded.

Mother of god, this video scourge is taking over the board, I saw two videos on the WAFL thread today!! I'm not sure I can handle it anymore, it's almost like technology, bandwidth, software and availability of footage online have all improved to such an extent that people can create physical evidence to back up their arguments, it's not fair anymore!!
And don't get me started on rule 2 and 2a, this board is such a mess!

For those playing at home I would argue that the only person being irrational at the moment is Goosecat himself, I would say that most others in this thread have discussed the issues calmly and rationally.
2. Be constructive. If you want to discuss a negative or controversial topic, discuss it rationally and look at how the problem can be sensibly solved.
Frac: Minor to Mid.

And I know it used to really annoy me when in the middle of the Priddis thread someone would somehow start a new thread about Cousins being allowed back at the club, Judd being evil or good or blaming our performances on club administrators. I mean I wasn't even aware that you could start a thread within a thread, but it must be so.

2a. The 'Done To Death' List. The following topics have been flogged repeatedly on this board and dragging them up again is a waste of time. New threads on these issues may be locked or deleted without notice.
- Ben Cousins should be allowed back to the club.
- Chris Judd is a terrible/wonderful/nice/evil person.
- Club administrators are to blame for our performances.

 

[Godfather32]

Videos are for amateurs who have limited ability to retain information or sequences .

You should probably write a letter to the club then, they'll be pleased to know that the videos they show to players during their weekly review makes them amateurish and that they only need them because they have a limited ability to retain information.

 

[The Dodger]

Read my posts prior to bullshit video grab apparently showing how lazy Selwood was by not chasing Dusty, or that he should have had Dusty by the arm because it was a stoppage, except it wasn't. No one even mentions the fact it was a rebound entry, there was no stoppage and Selwood had run flat stick all the way back from the wing to get there to try and help out (only to screw up the tackle unfortunately).
That's what happens with this whole edited video thing that's taken over the board. Misrepresentation.
Make your points all you like. But this bullshit misrepresentation of particular plays by short editing videos, should be called out when it's a falsehood and edited propaganda.
It all started in the other thread and now continues thanks to the poor moderation of that thread and the precedent it set.
Truthfulness is all that is required. A quality lacking around here lately.

I have asked you a question that you wont answer and I will ask again; should Selwood have tried to hold Martin up after the free kick?

Also you give me crap about my version of events. It was a stagnant F50 entry from the Tigers after a mark on the half forward flank. And guess who is jogging slowly to get back into position? Thats right Selwood. If that is your flat stick then yikes. Just in case you want to get all uppity again and claim all this is bullshit I thought I would post the replay link for you. For the purposes of this argument I have taken it from when the previous free kick to a Richmond player was paid and in it you will see Hurn...well how can I put this?...you will see Hurn hold up Vickery as he tries to run off after the kick was paid. Im not sure how he managed to get a hold of him...or why he bothered...we will leave that for another debate but whats important is he did. Now after Selwood jogs into defence he gives away a free kick (=stop in play or cease however brief...whatever you want to call it) and proceeds to let Martin waltz past him. The irony of your flailing is that this whole play watched in its entirety looks even worse for him than the 5 second job IMO. Thats the beauty of the video...people say things how they saw it but its not until the cold hard footage in your face do you see that flat stick never really happened. Here it is: http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-r...02&eventType=free&seek=1465&videoQuality=high

Enjoy

You are giving it far more weight than was intended. It is just a 5 sec grab that shows he wasn't switched on. That is all it is. Again no one is saying "Selwood doesn't deserve to be in the team because he didn't hold Martin up".

And as for your high ground discussion on rules of the board you have broken probably nearly all on your way to being the gatekeeper of what is allowed as discussion. Not on the rules of this board, but I am pretty sure is site wide rules is the discussion of the moderators doing their job. So well done you probably have done quite well in that regard. But I understand you are gatekeeping for some unknown reason so in the event that someone else may have broken team board rules you are entitled to break nearly all + a entire site rule to be said gatekeeper.

The next time you dont agree with something...thrashing out a few "its all bullshit" "a real discussion doesnt include this" "you are all remembering it wrong and a video doesn't help that" doesnt help. It actually isnt great for discussion as the impact that 5 sec vid was meant to have is now over stated because of your propogating

Remember as the arbiter for truthfulness its important you get this right. I look forward to how this misrepresents what happened.

 

[Godfather32]

I have asked you a question that you wont answer and I will ask again; should Selwood have tried to hold Martin up after the free kick?

Also you give me crap about my version of events. It was a stagnant F50 entry from the Tigers after a mark on the half forward flank. And guess who is jogging slowly to get back into position? Thats right Selwood. If that is your flat stick then yikes. Just in case you want to get all uppity again and claim all this is bullshit I thought I would post the replay link for you. For the purposes of this argument I have taken it from when the previous free kick to a Richmond player was paid and in it you will see Hurn...well how can I put this?...you will see Hurn hold up Vickery as he tries to run off after the kick was paid. Im not sure how he managed to get a hold of him...or why he bothered...we will leave that for another debate but whats important is he did. Now after Selwood jogs into defence he gives away a free kick (=stop in play or cease however brief...whatever you want to call it) and proceeds to let Martin waltz past him. The irony of your flailing is that this whole play watched in its entirety looks even worse for him than the 5 second job IMO. Thats the beauty of the video...people say things how they saw it but its not until the cold hard footage in your face do you see that flat stick never really happened. Here it is: http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-r...02&eventType=free&seek=1465&videoQuality=high

Enjoy

You are giving it far more weight than was intended. It is just a 5 sec grab that shows he wasn't switched on. That is all it is. Again no one is saying "Selwood doesn't deserve to be in the team because he didn't hold Martin up". I have asked you a question that you wont answer and I will ask again; should Selwood have tried to hold Martin up after the free kick?

And as for your high ground discussion on rules of the board you have broken probably nearly all on your way to being the gatekeeper of what is allowed as discussion. Not on the rules of this board, but I am pretty sure is site wide rules is the discussion of the moderators doing their job. So well done you probably have done quite well in that regard. But I understand you are gatekeeping for some unknown reason so in the event that someone else may have broken team board rules you are entitled to break nearly all + a entire site rule to be said gatekeeper.

The next time you dont agree with something...thrashing out a few "its all bullshit" "a real discussion doesnt include this" "you are all remembering it wrong and a video doesn't help that" doesnt help. It actually isnt great for discussion as the impact that 5 sec vid was meant to have is now over stated because of your propogating

Remember as the arbiter for truthfulness its important you get this right. I look forward to how this misrepresents what happened.

So dishonest

 

[TheOutrageBus]

You're right about the tackle, which I mentioned in a different post as being poor. So here we are again starting the whole back and forth over interpretations and what happened and who said what because the 5 second grab of original video didn't even show the tackle, or the lead up, or Hurns effort and on and on.
Now people start putting up more 5 second grabs or less to show how this was poor and that was poor because people think I said Selwood was great or something, Not true. Read my posts prior to bullshit video grab apparently showing how lazy Selwood was by not chasing Dusty, or that he should have had Dusty by the arm because it was a stoppage, except it wasn't. No one even mentions the fact it was a rebound entry, there was no stoppage and Selwood had run flat stick all the way back from the wing to get there to try and help out (only to screw up the tackle unfortunately).
That's what happens with this whole edited video thing that's taken over the board. Misrepresentation.
Make your points all you like. But this bullshit misrepresentation of particular plays by short editing videos, should be called out when it's a falsehood and edited propaganda.
It all started in the other thread and now continues thanks to the poor moderation of that thread and the precedent it set.
Truthfulness is all that is required. A quality lacking around here lately.

So this is made up propaganda? Not evidence of the lack of skill from a mediocre player?

 

[TheOutrageBus]

And the blind bombs we all love

 

[Godfather32]

So this is made up propaganda? Not evidence of the lack of skill from a mediocre player?

You missed his awesome kick that lead to that situation in the first place

 

[3socks]

I for one certainly hope this new fangled video technology never takes off. The only way I want to hear about the games is when I receive my hand written message, via horse delivered post, informing me of events that happened in a game played three weeks ago.

 

[The Dodger]

So dishonest

I have written to the AFL site and said that they shouldn't put links to free kicks, goals, F50 marks etc in the match replay as it doesn't allow for context.

 

[Goosecat]

I have asked you a question that you wont answer and I will ask again; should Selwood have tried to hold Martin up after the free kick?

Also you give me crap about my version of events. It was a stagnant F50 entry from the Tigers after a mark on the half forward flank. And guess who is jogging slowly to get back into position? Thats right Selwood. If that is your flat stick then yikes. Just in case you want to get all uppity again and claim all this is bullshit I thought I would post the replay link for you. For the purposes of this argument I have taken it from when the previous free kick to a Richmond player was paid and in it you will see Hurn...well how can I put this?...you will see Hurn hold up Vickery as he tries to run off after the kick was paid. Im not sure how he managed to get a hold of him...or why he bothered...we will leave that for another debate but whats important is he did. Now after Selwood jogs into defence he gives away a free kick (=stop in play or cease however brief...whatever you want to call it) and proceeds to let Martin waltz past him. The irony of your flailing is that this whole play watched in its entirety looks even worse for him than the 5 second job IMO. Thats the beauty of the video...people say things how they saw it but its not until the cold hard footage in your face do you see that flat stick never really happened. Here it is: http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-r...02&eventType=free&seek=1465&videoQuality=high

Enjoy

You are giving it far more weight than was intended. It is just a 5 sec grab that shows he wasn't switched on. That is all it is. Again no one is saying "Selwood doesn't deserve to be in the team because he didn't hold Martin up".

And as for your high ground discussion on rules of the board you have broken probably nearly all on your way to being the gatekeeper of what is allowed as discussion. Not on the rules of this board, but I am pretty sure is site wide rules is the discussion of the moderators doing their job. So well done you probably have done quite well in that regard. But I understand you are gatekeeping for some unknown reason so in the event that someone else may have broken team board rules you are entitled to break nearly all + a entire site rule to be said gatekeeper.

The next time you dont agree with something...thrashing out a few "its all bullshit" "a real discussion doesnt include this" "you are all remembering it wrong and a video doesn't help that" doesnt help. It actually isnt great for discussion as the impact that 5 sec vid was meant to have is now over stated because of your propogating

Remember as the arbiter for truthfulness its important you get this right. I look forward to how this misrepresents what happened.

Switched on, he was freakin stuffed. You would know that if you really looked at the link you've posted. At least it's not an edited piece of propaganda, so that's a refreshing change. Hurn hold up Vickery on the mark you say. Not bad considering there was no free kick to Vickery, period. You are probably confusing it with the free kick that was paid to Maric, but hey you obviously know what's going on.
The ball then gets kicked to forward 50, where Lecras, Hurn, and Crips get done at ground level and ends up being won by Hunt giving to Lids and if you look you might just notice Selwood has run up positioning well to cover the inside play and then run forward knowing where it's going. Lids inside 50 to some great work by Darling and oh look Selwood has run all the way there to provide help and an option. Darling gives to Shuey and Selwood immediately bolts forward, reading the play, before the ball even hits Shueys hands. Shuey to a clear Masten who has options to switch with only big Vickery 10m away but instead turns to boundary and proceeds to use the get out of jail kick to the wing where Richmond have all the numbers. (That is the decision Simmo will focus on). The only two Eagles blokes there, amongst 4 Richmond players as it's supposed to be desperate release only are Hill bolting up from forward and guess who Selwood, who's now run all the way there to try and even out numbers. and hold up the rebound entry that was always gonna come from Mastens poor decision. He ends up standing the mark. Grimes forward to Cotchin with a now tired Selwood covering inside options and making his way back to help the rebound entry he suspects is gonna happen. Cotchin makes the kick inside 50, Wellingham spoils, Ellis knocks it out of Priddas hands (good play). Now Selwood gets to this contest to help out by finding enough energy to sprint to tackle Griffiths who hands off to Dusty coming from midfield (who should have been covered, in an ideal world) but rebound entries are tough to cover which is why the Masten decision is the biggest mistake. He comes off Griffith and finds Dusty immediately and probably out of sheer exhaustion and forward momentum can't get down to tackle Dustys hips and reaches out at the ball, getting him high. He is absolutely spent and the ump immediately calls play on advantage when everyone has stopped at the whistle, except Dusty. That's the reality. That's what the coaching group will see because they will analyse the tapes properly. Not cherry pick and edit some bullshit propaganda piece and because they will weigh all the pros and cons around the play.
If we start getting genuine analysis, rather then bullshit edits that's a good outcome.
There is nothing wrong with commenting on MOD application in general. Has always been the case and if you were half as knowledgeable as you claim to be it would be no surprise.
The Priddis thread should never have been allowed to continue as it did under rules 2 and 2a. We are still living with the ramifications.

 

[Matera92]

Switched on, he was freakin stuffed. You would know that if you really looked at the link you've posted. At least it's not an edited piece of propaganda, so that's a refreshing change. Hurn hold up Vickery on the mark you say. Not bad considering there was no free kick to Vickery, period. You are probably confusing it with the free kick that was paid to Maric, but hey you obviously know what's going on.
The ball then gets kicked to forward 50, where Lecras, Hurn, and Crips get done at ground level and ends up being won by Hunt giving to Lids and if you look you might just notice Selwood has run up positioning well to cover the inside play and then run forward knowing where it's going. Lids inside 50 to some great work by Darling and oh look Selwood has run all the way there to provide help and an option. Darling gives to Shuey and Selwood immediately bolts forward, reading the play, before the ball even hits Shueys hands. Shuey to a clear Masten who has options to switch with only big Vickery 10m away but instead turns to boundary and proceeds to use the get out of jail kick to the wing where Richmond have all the numbers. (That is the decision Simmo will focus on). The only two Eagles blokes there, amongst 4 Richmond players as it's supposed to be desperate release only are Hill bolting up from forward and guess who Selwood, who's now run all the way there to try and even out numbers. and hold up the rebound entry that was always gonna come from Mastens poor decision. He ends up standing the mark. Grimes forward to Cotchin with a now tired Selwood covering inside options and making his way back to help the rebound entry he suspects is gonna happen. Cotchin makes the kick inside 50, Wellingham spoils, Ellis knocks it out of Priddas hands (good play). Now Selwood gets to this contest to help out by finding enough energy to sprint to tackle Griffiths who hands off to Dusty coming from midfield (who should have been covered, in an ideal world) but rebound entries are tough to cover which is why the Masten decision is the biggest mistake. He comes off Griffith and finds Dusty immediately and probably out of sheer exhaustion and forward momentum can't get down to tackle Dustys hips and reaches out at the ball, getting him high. He is absolutely spent and the ump immediately calls play on advantage when everyone has stopped at the whistle, except Dusty. That's the reality. That's what the coaching group will see because they will analyse the tapes properly. Not cherry pick and edit some bullshit propaganda piece and because they will way all the pros and cons around the play.
If we start getting genuine analysis, rather then bullshit edits that's a good outcome.
There is nothing wrong with commenting on MOD application in general. Has always been the case and if you were half as knowledgeable as you claim to be it would be no surprise.
The Priddis thread should never have been allowed to continue as it did under rules 2 and 2a. We are still living with the ramifications.

Holy wall of text Batman!

 

[Godfather32]

Has always been the case and if you were half as knowledgeable as you claim to be it would be no surprise.
The Priddis thread should never have been allowed to continue as it did under rules 2 and 2a. We are still living with the ramifications.

If you were half as knowledgeable as you claim to be you wouldn't be ranting and raving like a lunatic in the face of overwhelming evidence of Selwood's poor play. Videos or no videos he played a terrible game of football against Richmond.
And as for rules 2 and 2a, you're more in danger of breaking rule 2 than anyone else in this thread and 2a makes no mention of Priddis whatsoever.

 

[Godfather32]

I have written to the AFL site and said that they shouldn't put links to free kicks, goals, F50 marks etc in the match replay as it doesn't allow for context.

Personally I don't think they should post match replays at all, they're just for those amateurs amongst us who don't have the ability to retain information.

 

[The Dodger]

Switched on, he was freakin stuffed. You would know that if you really looked at the link you've posted. At least it's not an edited piece of propaganda, so that's a refreshing change. Hurn hold up Vickery on the mark you say. Not bad considering there was no free kick to Vickery, period. You are probably confusing it with the free kick that was paid to Maric, but hey you obviously know what's going on.
The ball then gets kicked to forward 50, where Lecras, Hurn, and Crips get done at ground level and ends up being won by Hunt giving to Lids and if you look you might just notice Selwood has run up positioning well to cover the inside play and then run forward knowing where it's going. Lids inside 50 to some great work by Darling and oh look Selwood has run all the way there to provide help and an option. Darling gives to Shuey and Selwood immediately bolts forward, reading the play, before the ball even hits Shueys hands. Shuey to a clear Masten who has options to switch with only big Vickery 10m away but instead turns to boundary and proceeds to use the get out of jail kick to the wing where Richmond have all the numbers. (That is the decision Simmo will focus on). The only two Eagles blokes there, amongst 4 Richmond players as it's supposed to be desperate release only are Hill bolting up from forward and guess who Selwood, who's now run all the way there to try and even out numbers. and hold up the rebound entry that was always gonna come from Mastens poor decision. He ends up standing the mark. Grimes forward to Cotchin with a now tired Selwood covering inside options and making his way back to help the rebound entry he suspects is gonna happen. Cotchin makes the kick inside 50, Wellingham spoils, Ellis knocks it out of Priddas hands (good play). Now Selwood gets to this contest to help out by finding enough energy to sprint to tackle Griffiths who hands off to Dusty coming from midfield (who should have been covered, in an ideal world) but rebound entries are tough to cover which is why the Masten decision is the biggest mistake. He comes off Griffith and finds Dusty immediately and probably out of sheer exhaustion and forward momentum can't get down to tackle Dustys hips and reaches out at the ball, getting him high. He is absolutely spent and the ump immediately calls play on advantage when everyone has stopped at the whistle, except Dusty. That's the reality. That's what the coaching group will see because they will analyse the tapes properly. Not cherry pick and edit some bullshit propaganda piece and because they will way all the pros and cons around the play.
If we start getting genuine analysis, rather then bullshit edits that's a good outcome.
There is nothing wrong with commenting on MOD application in general. Has always been the case and if you were half as knowledgeable as you claim to be it would be no surprise.
The Priddis thread should never have been allowed to continue as it did under rules 2 and 2a. We are still living with the ramifications.

Yikes. You couldn't misconstrue what happened anymore if you tried. At no point did Selwood run flat tack as you called it. He jogged into position along with a number of players jogging. I didn't say the free kick was to Vickery. I will write it again and maybe you can comment on the relevant information there. You are correct the free was to Maric...but who had the ball...and why would Hurn hold him up? Heres my take on why...the ump could call advantage and you know what...it wouldn't make **** all difference that Vickery had the ball. It would be advantage and Vickery would have been able to run forward of the play. Is that true? "Freakin stuffed" "Finding enough energy" "Sheer exhaustion" "Absolutely spent" ? It was 3/4 the way through the first quarter and despite the picture you are trying to paint the video footage shows him barely breaking out of a light jog only really stepping up the intensity right when he gave away the free.

Commenting on moderators is in site rule no.1, it says "Publicly complaining about, ranting over and criticising moderators and their actions is not accepted"

 

[Goosecat]

Holy wall of text Batman!

I know, I was in a hurry. I like it though, Paragraphs are over rated.

 

[Eaglemaniac]

I know, I was in a hurry. I like it though, Paragraphs are over rated.

Just like actual visual evidence right?

 

[Outback Eagle]

Yikes. You couldn't misconstrue what happened anymore if you tried. At no point did Selwood run flat tack as you called it. He jogged into position along with a number of players jogging. I didn't say the free kick was to Vickery. I will write it again and maybe you can comment on the relevant information there. You are correct the free was to Maric...but who had the ball...and why would Hurn hold him up? Heres my take on why...the ump could call advantage and you know what...it wouldn't make **** all difference that Vickery had the ball. It would be advantage and Vickery would have been able to run forward of the play. Is that true? "Freakin stuffed" "Finding enough energy" "Sheer exhaustion" "Absolutely spent" ? It was 3/4 the way through the first quarter and despite the picture you are trying to paint the video footage shows him barely breaking out of a light jog only really stepping up the intensity right when he gave away the free.

Commenting on moderators is in site rule no.1, it says "Publicly complaining about, ranting over and criticising moderators and their actions is not accepted"

It is easy to be critical of sewood. I found it very easy. He hesitates and often kicks backwoods, and he misses some sitters in front of goal.
BUT, on reflection, after seeing Crotchin destroy a top class midfield unit ( a few times) was Selwood who dominated Crotchin last week? Is he that good a tagger or did Crotchin just have a bad night?