Barry vs Goose

[stellation]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
I think it is original post. I was in a hurry - someone came to my desk just as I was editing.

"Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick"
"I'm busy"
"Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick"
"I'm busy"
"Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick"
"I'm busy"
"Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick"
"I'm busy"
"Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick"
"I'm busy"
"Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick"
"I'm busy"
"Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick"
"I'm busy"
""Nick, Nick, Nick, Nick"
"Okay, what is it?"
"Do you... ummm... forgot..."

[NMWBloods]

Are you the guy sitting on the other side of my wall giggling...?

[stellation]

Yes. Buy me a coffee and a danish and I will stop.

[royboy42]

What ARE you guys rambling about?

[j s]

Originally posted by royboy42
What ARE you guys rambling about?

Shhhh! It's supposed to be a secret!

[Justice]

Originally posted by cruiser
... remember the DH ...

Any reference to a DH could now be referred to as a "Dean Brogan"

Cheers

Justice

[swantastic]

Originally posted by giant
The point of my OP was that Maguire represents the female of the species. Otherwise I would've called the thread "Barry vs Gander".

Too subtle for this crowd. Where's Swantastic when I need him/her?

bloke.just here to help

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by giant
The point of my OP was that Maguire represents the female of the species. Otherwise I would've called the thread "Barry vs Gander".

Too subtle for this crowd. Where's Swantastic when I need him/her?

Too many blockheads needing everything spelled out.

[SimonH]

Sorry to be miles off the topic (whatever that currently is), but that article ain't too flash. Hinds repeatedly pronounces that the finding that the hit occurred in play was a 'loophole' that hasn't been 'closed'. That is just nonsense.

So how could you 'close' it? A subrule like, "Regardless of anything else, a hit is not in play if the ball is more than 30 metres away"? It's not hard to think of examples where that rule would produce an absurd result (freeze the incoming ball in flight and determine how far away it was at the time of the hit). Why not a subrule that says, "Regardless of anything else, all offences involving anyone over 100kg are deemed to be at least medium grade impact"? Something is either "in play", or it's not: the Tribunal is paid to interpret a regular English phrase in a common-sense way.

I don't know why anyone would regurgitate the hype about Hall/Maguire, and not mention the incident in the same game in which Stephen Powell refused to shake Adam Goodes' offered hand: an amazingly low gesture that is seen on the field far less often than striking. That alone was enough reason to not feel the slightest bit of pity for the Saints when they lost.

I for one hope that Powell gets a game... and gets the biggest towelling up by Goodes that the world has ever seen.

[Eala ?ireann]

Booing ruins matches. Pure bad sportsmanship!

[cruiser]

Originally posted by Eala ?ireann
Booing ruins matches. Pure bad sportsmanship!

You must experience a lot of ruined games. What do you do when an ump makes a really bad decision?

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by SimonH
I don't know why anyone would regurgitate the hype about Hall/Maguire, and not mention the incident in the same game in which Stephen Powell refused to shake Adam Goodes' offered hand: an amazingly low gesture that is seen on the field far less often than striking. That alone was enough reason to not feel the slightest bit of pity for the Saints when they lost.

I for one hope that Powell gets a game... and gets the biggest towelling up by Goodes that the world has ever seen.

I have mentioned the punch by Powell on here several times this week, I consider that to be more serious than not shaking hands, especially when Hall was cited for doing exactly the same thing. In both cases it was caught on camera, but Hall was reported and Powel wasn't. Just another example of the inconsistency of the tribunal.

[giant]

Originally posted by SimonH
Sorry to be miles off the topic (whatever that currently is), but that article ain't too flash. Hinds repeatedly pronounces that the finding that the hit occurred in play was a 'loophole' that hasn't been 'closed'. That is just nonsense.

So how could you 'close' it? A subrule like, "Regardless of anything else, a hit is not in play if the ball is more than 30 metres away"? It's not hard to think of examples where that rule would produce an absurd result (freeze the incoming ball in flight and determine how far away it was at the time of the hit). Why not a subrule that says, "Regardless of anything else, all offences involving anyone over 100kg are deemed to be at least medium grade impact"? Something is either "in play", or it's not: the Tribunal is paid to interpret a regular English phrase in a common-sense way.

As mentioned in the OP, the online version of this article was quite different to the SMH paper version - no doubt catering for Sydney vs Melbourne audiences. So perhaps you're blaming Hinds for editorial licence-taking.

My understanding was that the impact of the "in play/behind play" ruling had been diminished in any event so in asense the "loophole" has in fact been closed.

[Piobaireachd]

Originally posted by giant
As mentioned in the OP,

You guys are just messing with my head now aren't you.

[liz]

Originally posted by giant

My understanding was that the impact of the "in play/behind play" ruling had been diminished in any event so in asense the "loophole" has in fact been closed.

There is still one point differential between the two. In-play used to attract one point on the MRC scale and behind the play two points. Now it is nil and one respectively.

So in that respect the "loophole" hasn't been closed.

When the Swans successfully fought the Hall case they referred (I believe) to the DVD that the AFL had distributed pre-season to all clubs showing what was considered in-play and what was behind the play. This apparently included one example where the play was at least as far away from the incident in question as it was in the Hall-Maguire incident and yet classified it as in-play. Thus it was the AFL's very own interpretational material that supported the Swans' assertion that Hall was in-play.

If the AFL wanted to tighten up on this interpretation, you would think they would be likely to do it via providing details of this reinterpretation to the clubs at the start of the year, quite probably via another DVD.