#AFL Round 9 Weekly Discussion Thread

[707]

Very satisfying that short turd got his come upance today against the winless Lions. Wonder what he said in his presser, maybe Brisbane got away with blue murder in their forward line because Hawks seemed inept in defence. Must have been a lot of easy goals out the back like Ronke got last week.

Hawks got talked up on the back of wins against bottom sides, Tigers the same. So glad to see the miracle rebuild at Glenferrie was just a mirage! Reckon today another team may have been struck off the list of possible destinations by GC Tom Lynch.

[jcroz29]

Bulldogs back to their throwing best.

I thought the same when watching the footage on Game Day


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mountain Man]

"I do believe that Fagan is better qualified to coach against the Hawks than us after being In the inner sanctum for so long"

But Fagan would have been part of the planning of how to beat the Swans; at which the Hawks were pretty successful in Fagan's time there.

[liz]

I don't think Fagan would be trying to get his team to do different things to beat specific opponents. At this stage of their development, he'd be just trying to get them to play the way he wants them to play, and if it works against a particular team, all the better. But the focus would be primarily internal and on how they play, rather than how the opposition plays.

[stevoswan]

Who's surprised with this below?! Stupid decision, now entrenched with all the other crap decisions from past weeks with robotically repeated AFL 'ticks of apporoval'.....our game is going downhill.

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/Umps-Got-It-Right-AFL.jpg

Sorry, link only, I don't seem to be able to upload actual images atm.

[stevoswan]

Who's surprised with this below?! Stupid decision, now entrenched with all the other crap decisions from past weeks with robotically repeated AFL 'ticks of apporoval'.....our game is going downhill.

http://s.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/Umps-Got-It-Right-AFL.jpg

Sorry, link only, I don't seem to be able to upload actual images atm.

To the above, I'll add Titus O'Reilly's take on it.

".........resulted in just two (WB) goals for the whole game and the umpires could put their hands up for at least one of them.

One of them came from the idiotic slide rule that the AFL put in place a while ago with the amount of thought you?d expect from them."

The Monday Knee Jerk Reaction: AFL Round Nine@ | Titus O'Reily

[Hotpotato]

The best this week from Titus:

?Watching this insipid performance was made worse for Hawks fans, given Luke Hodge was directing a lot of the traffic for the Lions and playing very well himself.

It was like wandering down the street hungover, unwashed and in your tracksuit pants, only to bump into your ex who looks terrific and is surrounded by a bunch of younger, more attractive friends.

In the end, it was a perfect first win of the season for the Lions, fulfilling the promise they have been showing, while for the Hawks, it means a lot more coffees with Gillon are in Alastair Clarkson?s future.?

https://www.titusoreily.com/afl/monday-knee-jerk-reaction-afl-round-nine%C2%A0

[707]

I love Titus, always seems to get it spot on!

[stevoswan]

I love Titus, always seems to get it spot on!

He's brilliant......required reading every week!

[liz]

I love Titus, always seems to get it spot on!

Except for his comment on "the sliding rule". I reckon he's missed the mark on this one.

While people continue to refer to it as "the sliding rule", they will continue to misunderstand it. It has nothing to do with sliding and everything to do with choosing to go to ground and, in the process, taking out an opponent's legs. I do think it is sometimes over-officiated, with even minor contact to an opponent's leg sometimes penalised (it is "forceful contact" that is prohibited). But the one paid against Talia was entirely correct and a good example of why the rule was introduced. I found comments on social media that Webb caused the contact to be fanciful. He wasn't able to stop in his tracks once Talia chose to go to ground.

[dejavoodoo44]

Except for his comment on "the sliding rule". I reckon he's missed the mark on this one.

While people continue to refer to it as "the sliding rule", they will continue to misunderstand it. It has nothing to do with sliding and everything to do with choosing to go to ground and, in the process, taking out an opponent's legs. I do think it is sometimes over-officiated, with even minor contact to an opponent's leg sometimes penalised (it is "forceful contact" that is prohibited). But the one paid against Talia was entirely correct and a good example of why the rule was introduced. I found comments on social media that Webb caused the contact to be fanciful. He wasn't able to stop in his tracks once Talia chose to go to ground.

Historically, my only real problem with the rule, was that they arbitrarily decided that it no longer existed, during the 2016 GF.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, I probably wouldn't have paid the Talia one, given that he was sliding away from the Dogs player, and that should minimise the chance of injury.

[stevoswan]

Except for his comment on "the sliding rule". I reckon he's missed the mark on this one.

While people continue to refer to it as "the sliding rule", they will continue to misunderstand it. It has nothing to do with sliding and everything to do with choosing to go to ground and, in the process, taking out an opponent's legs. I do think it is sometimes over-officiated, with even minor contact to an opponent's leg sometimes penalised (it is "forceful contact" that is prohibited). But the one paid against Talia was entirely correct and a good example of why the rule was introduced. I found comments on social media that Webb caused the contact to be fanciful. He wasn't able to stop in his tracks once Talia chose to go to ground.

While it was bought in with good intent after the Rohan injury, which admittedly was shocking, it was a knee jerk reaction and is now probably the worst rule in football IMO.....at least because of the way it is being adjudicated. Far too much, it penalises the player who arrives first for the ball, ie; who's object is the ball and rewards the slower (and suddenly conveniently clumsy) player arriving second, who can just fall over the top and receive his ill-earned free kick (Webb).

Making the Talia decision worse, was that the two players were going in basically the same direction and Talia had no choice but too try and knock the ball out of the path of the approaching Bulldog player, who was attempting to kick the ball forward. My initial reaction was 'that's kicking in danger to Talia'.....

It's a contact sport and players are going to fall over occasionally. It's often a stupid interpretation of a rule which is 'hazy' at best. IMO, it should only be paid when the sliding player is coming in from front on and 'forcefully', as the rule states ie: in a manner likely to cause injury, like Thomas on Rohan......side on and same direction smothering or denying possession, like the Talia one, should be play on.....

The final insult is for the AFL to give the Talia decision the 'tick of approval' thereby setting a mindless precedent for the future......but the AFL are becoming very good at that.

[Swansongster]

Historically, my only real problem with the rule, was that they arbitrarily decided that it no longer existed, during the 2016 GF.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, I probably wouldn't have paid the Talia one, given that he was sliding away from the Dogs player, and that should minimise the chance of injury.

I can still picture myself in a bay of Swans fans all standing and screaming with our arms in the air in a collective "WTF" display at that one.

[liz]

While it was bought in with good intent after the Rohan injury, which admittedly was shocking, it was a knee jerk reaction and is now probably the worst rule in football IMO.....at least because of the way it is being adjudicated. Far too much, it penalises the player who arrives first for the ball, ie; who's object is the ball and rewards the slower (and suddenly conveniently clumsy) player arriving second, who can just fall over the top and receive his ill-earned free kick.

Making the Talia decision worse, was that the two players were going in basically the same direction and Talia had no choice but too try and knock the ball out of the path of the approaching Bulldog player, who was attempting to kick the ball forward. My initial reaction was 'that's kicking in danger to Talia'.......

It's a contact sport and players are going to fall over occasionally. It's a stupid interpretation of a rule which is 'hazy' at best. It should only be paid when the sliding player is coming in from front on and 'forcefully', as the rule states, like Thomas on Rohan......side on and same direction smothering or denying possession, like the Talia one, should be play on.

The final insult is for the AFL to give the Talia decision the 'tick of approval' thereby setting a mindless precedent for the future......but the AFL are becoming very good at that.

We can agree to disagree. Talia chose to go to ground and, in doing so, risked injury to the Webb's legs. Maybe I'm over sensitive having witnessed Rohan's injury but I've also seen Hannebery badly injure his PCL and Papley possibly lucky not to injure his after opponents chose to go to ground.

The AFL DVD makes it quite clear that it wants players to remain on their feet wherever possible, and that by choosing to go to ground, they risk giving away a free.

The only ones I think are silly is where both players are close to stationary such that the contact to the standing player's legs is minimal. In these cases the standing player is often the one who moves towards the contest. But the Talia one is, IMO (and the AFL agrees) a classic example of what players aren't allowed to do. I don't see the AFL giving it a tick of approval as setting a "mindless precedent for the future". Rather it is them confirming that an umpire correctly adjudicated the rule in this instance.

[stevoswan]

We can agree to disagree. Talia chose to go to ground.
I've also seen Hannebery badly injure his PCL and Papley possibly lucky not to injure his after opponents chose to go to ground.
The AFL DVD makes it quite clear that it wants players to remain on their feet wherever possible, and that by choosing to go to ground, they risk giving away a free.

He had to, to get to the ball first.....stay on his feet and Webb kicks the ball at least into the goal square or at best, through for a goal.

Hanners and Paps were hit front on, where I agree the rule is correct (even though Hanners didn't receive the free.....but that's another story!).

Also, players don't always 'choose to go to ground', sometimes they have to.

The AFL DVD is just the AFL promoting what is wrong.

As for agreeing to disagree, I think we actually agree that this rule is often misinterpreted and wrongly adjudicated......which, I think, makes it a bad rule. It's almost up there with the lunacy of the 'protected zone'.