Round 18 stuff

Carlton vs North Melbourne
St.Kilda vs Fremantle
GWS vs Geelong
Port vs Melbourne
W.Bulldogs vs Essendon

Kangaroos
Freo
Cats
Port but come on Melb.
Essendon

Carlton beat North Melbourne by 33 points.

Did pick North

Fremantle
Geelong
Port Adelaide
Essendon

St.Kilda beat Fremantle by 58 points.

Margin was 75 at one stage late in the 3rd quarter.

Geelong defeated GWS by 7 points.

Port won by 3 points.

A fair amount of help from the umpiring, mind you.

Essendon beat Western Bulldogs by 7 points

Dean Cox has today announced he will be retiring at seasons end.

6 time AA, 2008 B&F and 2006 Premiership player amongst 250 games, fantastic career.

sapaul wrote:Port won by 3 points.

A fair amount of help from the umpiring, mind you.

  

You were watching Port v Melbourne, yes?

Every man and his dog could see you had a fair run in that last quarter Boonster!   

Haha....  

Not that the umpiring impacted upon the result.....just the margin.  

And Schulz' exceptional boot.

Melbourne had their chances to ice it regardless of the umpires. They didn't take them, and Port did.

I only saw the second half, apparently Melbourne had a good run in the first half? I wouldn't know...then again Port supporters whinged about the umpiring in the Showdown.

To be honest, Melbourne probably had the better of it in the main, Port probably had the better of it in the right areas. ie - F50.

Holding the ball again the worst "rule of the day". It was impossible to pick.

Booney wrote:To be honest, Melbourne probably had the better of it in the main, Port probably had the better of it in the right areas. ie - F50.

Holding the ball again the worst "rule of the day". It was impossible to pick.

That rule at present.....farcical is an understatement.

Yesterday I saw Viney get pinged holding the ball when he gathered it and was in the thought process of beginning to handball when pounced on by 2 port players, and got pinged. Would have had .2 of a second between possession and tackle.

I am bewildered at that interpretation at times..

I doubt anybody on the planet knows what the rule is intended to police.
What is written is not the way they interpret it.
That they can "interpret" it differently without actually changing the rules is where the farce is.
Basically the afl can doctor rules to suit itself.

I watched yesterday's game and what they (the umpires) are doing is largely contributing to the unruly mess of a spectacle the game has become.

- far too long to blow the whistle for a ball up. Aka the "rolling maul". What a great name for it.
- what is a free for "in the back", "around the neck", "a throw" is almost as unpredictably bad as holding the ball
- they pick about 2 out of 5 of those transgressions and mainly when the ball is not moving.

If the free is there, call it I say. Otherwise why have the rule?
Players will adapt to how they apply the rules. it is farcical that they "interpret" them to make a spectacle. Surely the players make the spectacle not the umpires.

I just don't get what they continually try to make out of what is already a great game if left alone.

don't blame the umpires Chambo, they are only umpiring to instructions, the problem therefore is higher up than them

there was a holding the ball decision in the last qtr

it was on Melbournes half forward flank on the western side

Melbourne had a 2 on 1 opportunity

a Melbourne player grabbed the ball and was immediately tackled quite well by Ebert?? I think it was.

if you watch it closely the Melbourne player wanted to get the ball out but it was Ebert who held the ball in - quite cleverly really, but im not sure how it was holding ball when there was no prior opportunity and the player pinged was the player wanting to keep the ball moving...

bayman wrote:don't blame the umpires Chambo, they are only umpiring to instructions, the problem therefore is higher up than them

Yes indeed. Should have said that.
It would be very interesting to hear what discussion occurs between the Rules Committee and the Umpiring Director and then in turn the umpires.
How much of a game of Chinese Whispers is it?

It probably isn't, but you gotta wonder what the heck they are trying to do to the game.

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:

bayman wrote:don't blame the umpires Chambo, they are only umpiring to instructions, the problem therefore is higher up than them

Yes indeed. Should have said that.
It would be very interesting to hear what discussion occurs between the Rules Committee and the Umpiring Director and then in turn the umpires.
How much of a game of Chinese Whispers is it?

It probably isn't, but you gotta wonder what the heck they are trying to do to the game.

Nothing- its justifying their employment.

If you cant do anything constructive, **** off I say.

West Coast vs Richmond
Brisbane vs Gold Coast
Hawthorn vs Sydney
Collingwood vs Adelaide

valleys07 wrote:

Chambo Off To Work We Go wrote:

bayman wrote:don't blame the umpires Chambo, they are only umpiring to instructions, the problem therefore is higher up than them

Yes indeed. Should have said that.
It would be very interesting to hear what discussion occurs between the Rules Committee and the Umpiring Director and then in turn the umpires.
How much of a game of Chinese Whispers is it?

It probably isn't, but you gotta wonder what the heck they are trying to do to the game.

Nothing- its justifying their employment.

If you cant do anything constructive, **** off I say.

Very well said   

Richmond defeated West Coast by 17 points.

West Coast would have only been a game outside the 8 had they won. They were ordinary.

Vickery will be suspended for sure, i'll guess at least 5 weeks but it wouldn't surprise me if it was up to 7 weeks..........i thought Richmond wanted it more & most definitely worked harder than West Coast for the majority of the night & deserved their win