-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
Originally Posted by
jeemak
TD a blown whistle has never been the signal for play on.
Wood made a mistake. Yes the umpire should have called play on, but Wood should have waited for the umpire to call play on.
It was a brain fade on his behalf pure and simple.
Agree with you, but 'Move it ON!' and 'play ON!' are too similar for mine. Good opportunity for umpires assoc. to review the phrases they're teaching the umpires to use on the field.
'And the Western suburbs erupt!'
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
1. We found a way to lose that game. We dominated the 2nd and 3rd quarters and didn't score nearly enough.
2. The umpires ruined that game.
3. Once we getting our forward line working properly we are capable of some big scores.
They've done studies you know, 60% of the time, it works every time!
Brian Fantana.
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
Originally Posted by
jeemak
TD a blown whistle has never been the signal for play on.
Wood made a mistake. Yes the umpire should have called play on, but Wood should have waited for the umpire to call play on.
It was a brain fade on his behalf pure and simple.
Fair enough. My bad.
They say Burt Lancaster has one, but I don't believe them.
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
Originally Posted by
jeemak
TD a blown whistle has never been the signal for play on.
Wood made a mistake. Yes the umpire should have called play on, but Wood should have waited for the umpire to call play on.
It was a brain fade on his behalf pure and simple.
Technically you're right.
However, is Woods action deserving of a 50 meter penalty, and then a free shot on goal as his punishment? How did Woods actions disadvantage GWS to the point where they deserved a shot on goal? Baring in mind that kicking a goal is the objective of the entire game and should be earned rather than gifted?
I don't understand the rationale for the rule, would be happy to hear what other's think it is
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
Originally Posted by
Stefcep
Technically you're right.
However, is Woods action deserving of a 50 meter penalty, and then a free shot on goal as his punishment? How did Woods actions disadvantage GWS to the point where they deserved a shot on goal? Baring in mind that kicking a goal is the objective of the entire game and should be earned rather than gifted?
I don't understand the rationale for the rule, would be happy to hear what other's think it is
I'm struggling with your question. Are you saying players shouldn't be penalised for running over the mark.....in this case by a couple of metres? What do you think the umpire should do?
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
The 50 was there against Wood. If a GWS player ran over the mark while Stringer was lining up I wouldn't be saying give the GWS player the benefit of the doubt. Wood had to be and must be in future sure the ump called play on. Waiting an extra second wouldn't have impacted the game but running over the mark 60 out from goal certainly does.
They've done studies you know, 60% of the time, it works every time!
Brian Fantana.
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
Originally Posted by
always right
I'm struggling with your question. Are you saying players shouldn't be penalised for running over the mark.....in this case by a couple of metres? What do you think the umpire should do?
A 50 metre penalty is too severe IMO. Bring back the 15 m.
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
1. GWS operate in common law and not in equity. Toby Greene should have gone into his shell (rat hole?) after cheaply belting Daniel, not turned the game and win it for his "club". That's not how the story is supposed to go.
2. Intercept markers who play on no one in particular are the future of the CHB position. Geez that Nick Haynes can go; hope his groin has been stitched back into one piece.
3. Dominating play and being disgustingly inefficient in front of goal actually does cost you games sometimes. Who knew? We need Dickson back in the worst way.
I'd add in that Clay Smith is nowhere near AFL standard at the moment but I think most of us already knew that.
- I'm a visionary - Only here to confirm my biases -
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
Originally Posted by
S Coast Simon
And finally Macrae nearly lost his head in the dying seconds 15 out directly in front
More like 45 out. Would have been an outside chance to make the distance, and probably would have gone for a pass
If you kicked five goals and Tom Boyd kicked five goals, Tom Boyd kicked more goals than you.
Formerly gogriff
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
Originally Posted by
boydogs
More like 45 out. Would have been an outside chance to make the distance, and probably would have gone for a pass
Only 6 games after a premiership and that patented Bulldogs nihilism has already set it.
- I'm a visionary - Only here to confirm my biases -
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
Just some observations from the game :
- Jong needs to demand the ball on the lead and take those marks . He dropped a few on the lead. His got all the physical attributes to be an elite player just needs to take the first option and do something with the ball. The Long bomb in he last quarter was just frustrating . His won 2 BOG in a vfl final he is more than good enough. I just want him to achieve and reach his potential
- when green was awarded the 50 m Penaly he grabbed smith face and started shaking his Chin. Why did the ump not overturn the free.? The umps are ruining the game too many 50 m frees Awarded in games now. There were a couple yesterday in hawks vs saints
- Dunkley needs to work on his kicking. Your a forward go back and have confidence in kicking the goals. The play on was terrible and his other miss in the last quarter
It was a very frustrating game to watch we did not deserve to win it, but main concern is our goal kicking 9.19 not going to win this games
Last edited by macca; 01-05-2017 at 03:28 AM.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
Originally Posted by
macca
Just some observations from the game :
- Jong needs to demand the ball on the lead and take those marks . He dropped a few on the lead. His got all the physical attributes to be an elite player just needs to take the first option and do something with the ball. The Long bomb in he last quarter was just frustrating . His won 2 BOG in a vfl final he is more than good enough. I just want him to achieve and reach his potential
- when green was awarded the 50 m Penaly he grabbed smith face and started shaking his Chin. Why did the ump not overturn the free.? The umps are running the game too many 50 m frees Awarded in games now. There were a couple yesterday in hawks vs saints
- Dunkley needs to work on his kicking. Your a forward go back and have confidence in kicking the goals. The play on was terrible and his other miss in the last quarter
It was a very frustrating game to watch we did not deserve to win it, but main concern is our goal kicking 9.19 not going to win this games
Green raked his face. Should have been reported again. High, intentional, low impact = weeks. There is no reason whatsoever any player should be gripping an opponents face when the ball is not in play.
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
Originally Posted by
SonofScray
Green raked his face. Should have been reported again. High, intentional, low impact = weeks. There is no reason whatsoever any player should be gripping an opponents face when the ball is not in play.
Stupidly if the ball was in play he'd have received a free kick.
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
-
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Likes
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
Originally Posted by
SonofScray
Green raked his face. Should have been reported again. High, intentional, low impact = weeks. There is no reason whatsoever any player should be gripping an opponents face when the ball is not in play.
Should have been a reversal. They've warned him enough and suspensions/frees will either force him to change his game or force Cameron to force him.
-
Re: Three things you've learned-round 6 v the Plastics.
Originally Posted by
SonofScray
Green raked his face. Should have been reported again. High, intentional, low impact = weeks. There is no reason whatsoever any player should be gripping an opponents face when the ball is not in play.
No way was it reportable.....a free kick probably. I think some are getting carried away because of the individual involved.
I used to hate seeing umpires paying free kicks or reversing them for incidental high contact. I reckon they are pretty good at knowing when players are milking free kicks nowadays.....which is not to say that Smith was guilty of this.
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken.