Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
1. Our lack of a good ruckman - Without Brad Ottens you guys would struggle and we would more than likely dominate you in the clearances.
What I find interesting about all this is looking at the replay no one has really mentioned the simple fact that Mackie standing nearby doesnt react to Pendlebury waltzing away from the stoppage and Varcoe only goes at him half hearted without laying a glove on him. Why? Cos the whistle went. Geelong's defence had been stellar all night and our work at the stoppages was very good too. IF the play was let on, the talking point of the decision would be how unfair this rule is to the opposing side who has no idea how to react. Geelong kept Collingwood to 9 goals and you took most of your chances during the game unlike us who squandered many of ours. To see a goal like that without any real opposition because of a flawed advantage rule in a game Collingwood deserved to lose anyway is something I am sure you'll all get over fairly quickly; Or not!!
I understand there's an interesting take on the Pendlebury decision "On The Couch" tonight.
Exactly. That's my issue with it (both the hype around this decision, and the rule itself). The advantage rule, as it stands, has massive problems. At least 2 Geelong players just stopped when the whistle blew during that incident. Both were in the position to tackle Pendlebury, and neither did due to the whistle. If the whistle never went, I have no doubt Pendlebury would have been tackled, before getting his kick off. Watch it yourself, I've looked at it a number of times, and it seems pretty clear to me.
Similar principle to what happened in the Hawthorn-Saints game today. A Hawthorn player was paid advantage and didn't even know it, was about 25 out and just stopped as he had no idea what to do. By the time he realised he was supposed to be playing on, he missed what should have been a gimme. Play on stood, they got a point, and Hawthorn were dis-advantaged by the rule, not advantaged.
...snip...
All this AFL talk of whether the umpire was right or wrong re the Pendlebury incident is not as relevant as the fact that the AFL have overlooked some massive issues and the rule is IMO, broken in its current state. Of course the AFL themselves just don't admit to making errors so nothing will be done this year.
I doubt the rule will remain as it currently stands (please) next season, but we will see. It would be nice if the test involved whether the whistle caused a change to what would have been the natural flow of the play. If so, then no advantage can be paid, as there is potentially a massive distortion to what would have been the natural outcome (what the rule is supposed to allow, I presume).
Gerard Healy said:A lot of people are showing signs of short-term memory loss because the same folk who were panning the advantage rule last year are back complaining about this season's interpretation pining for the old one.
The problem is it's the same rule in many ways. Another attempt at trying to fix an issue in the game that is unfixable.
The Scott Pendlebury incident late in Friday night's clash between Collingwood and Geelong has brought the rule into sharp focus once more but this is not a new issue.
That decision was an umpire error but delivered the right result. If you look closely at the vision all the players in the vicinity of the contest, with the exception of Pendlebury, stopped when the whistle blows.
From there, you can't hand the Magpies the advantage. The ball needs to go back to ruckman Cameron Wood because play wasn't continuous.
According to the AFL rules committee, the player and not the umpire are deciding if there is an advantage to a team in playing on after a free kick in 2011.
That sounds fine in theory but the umpire is still being asked to adjudicate on whether play is continuous or not which is fundamentally what happened last year.
What's different is that if the player elects to take the advantage and misses a goal for instance it isn't brought back to get a second chance? That remains a good outcome of the change.
Aussie Rules is the only game in the world that orders players to stop on the whistle yet wants to offer advantage if it is there.
The whistle will halt at least some players in a contest which means the game is not taking its natural course.
Adding to the mess is if you have the ball and don't stop on the whistle and the free kick is not to your side, there’s the risk of giving away a 50-metre penalty. It's a harsh punishment for a player who is incorrect in assessing if it's his team's footy or not.
The rules committee are having a bit each way with no advantage allowed from a centre bounce. In doing so they acknowledge the difficulties ruck duels present for this rule but dont apply it to stoppages around the ground. It should apply to all.
Players, commentators and fans can watch a pair of grappling ruckman go at it and hear the whistle go with no idea who is getting the free kick. Again, the game is not taking its natural course and the advantage too often disadvantages the flat-footed players waiting for an indication of the free.
We have experimented with signalling advantage without an accompanying whistle in the NAB Cup of 2003 and it didn't provide the answer. Players said they preferred the certainty of hearing the whistle and the supporters were left confused also.
So, what do we do about it? The football community needs to ask itself if the rule is truly worth the confusion it brings. I would say no.
The time has come at season's end to discard it and just give the free kick to the player who was offended against. It is a basket case rule at the present time as it was in the past which is making a tough job nigh impossible for umpires.
If the death of the advantage rule led to a spate of 'professional free kicks' we already have the remedy at our disposal. Pay a free kick and award a 50-metre penalty as is the case for players dumped unnecessarily after they have disposed of the ball as a penalty for professional free kicks designed to slow play.
Scrapping the rule would end the confusion and give the side who has been handed a free kick clear possession. The team who has conceded the free kick would not be disadvantaged as seriously as they can be at the present time.
Yes, there might be the odd occasion when a side is slowed and misses an otherwise advantage, but that is the best solution to a rule that will never work.
Sadly there is a long time to go in this season before it is changed as no doubt it will be.
A mate of mine also reminded me that late in the third quarter Hawkins gets a free from a ruck contest, we have possession with Corey running away, and the ball was brought back similarly. If the Umps had the interpretation wrong then at least they were consistent on the night.
Every club has bad losers and winners. I don't see Collingwood as being any different. More of them?
I've said it here before.
I swore 20 years ago I would never go to another Pies game again.
I relented and went to a North game with some mates 10 years ago.
I had no emotional involvement and I still couldn't believe the vitriol
Not sure how long I'll live. Hopefully another 30-40. But never again.
They don't realise how feral their supporter group is because all 70,000 of them are feral. Easily the largest base of ferals in the known universe.
My mate is a bloody good, articulate solicitor and all round nice guy. The nicest guy. And he openly admits he turns feral when the ball is bounced.
Passion will do that! Really though, I don't see that much difference between Collingwood, Geelong, or any other team in the AFL. Supporters will always look for someone to blame for a loss, especially if your team is up the top end of the ladder. If you go to the Brisbane, Adelaide boards you will see they genuinely believe they are crap at the moment. Most of us blame the umpires, use injuries as excuses, etc. We don't like to admit we were outplayed.
Good post, and I agree with all you say.
We're all passionate supporters, but thankfully the vast majority temper it with good grace, sportsmanship and sensibility.
Unfortunately, each team has it's feral supporters, and we're no different.
I think that there is a difference. Our feral supporters want to neck players after the team has a win against the the former undefeated and reigning Premiership side.
What other team has supporters of that nature?
Glad to say that Gerard Healy appears to agree with the point I was trying to make. I have included his article on the subject (from Fox Sports) below:
http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl.../story-e6frf3e3-1226056909009?from=public_rss
/quote]
I agree with everything you said in principle except I don't think the advantage rule was ever designed in relation to the what the opposition is doing. Indeed, most of the time the advantage rule disadvantages the opposition. For me, if the ball hits the ground then I reckon you must say that it could go either way. But he gathered it on the full. I think the fact that other players are standing around is not relevant. I don't think the ump considers that at least do they? You can imagine what that would mean - if you don't want advantage to be paid, stand around and don't attempt to tackle. But I agree with you that there is something wrong with the rule. I like the idea of American football-style that you can decline the free kick. Play on would be automatic unless the team pulls it up (I know that that is what we theoretically already have).
I think the decision was clearly wrong but it had no impact on the result. Umpiring errors are part of the game and always will be. Collingwood players made front on contact six or so times with no Geelong frees and I think the Pies got two frees that way
Question for this week "Why are Carlton supporters such big ****ing whingers?".
Looks like the Collingwood dregs are still taking the loss to Geelong badly
Example #1
Example #2
Example #3
They are such bad losers.I rest my case your Honour