AFL Round 10

[amber_fluid]

Just watched the last 8 mins of the Geelong v Port game at the pub and must admit I only counted up to 24 after Dixon marked it.
Hopefully I'm just pissed and can't count.

Count a bit faster ya tard!

[Wedgie]

Just watched the last 8 mins of the Geelong v Port game at the pub and must admit I only counted up to 24 after Dixon marked it.
Hopefully I'm just pissed and can't count.

Count a bit faster ya tard!

I struggle once I get into double figures.

[amber_fluid]

Just watched the last 8 mins of the Geelong v Port game at the pub and must admit I only counted up to 24 after Dixon marked it.
Hopefully I'm just pissed and can't count.

Count a bit faster ya tard!

I struggle once I get into double figures.

Charlie has the same problem!

[bennymacca]

they showed the vision on 360 of when the clock started. it did start when he marked it.

the issue is with how long he took to get up. should the clock start when they start walking back? potentially.

[Corona Man]

Just watched the last 8 mins of the Geelong v Port game at the pub and must admit I only counted up to 24 after Dixon marked it.
Hopefully I'm just pissed and can't count.

Count a bit faster ya tard!

I struggle once I get into double figures.

Charlie has the same problem!

Charlie can get to double figures?

[Feenix]

they showed the vision on 360 of when the clock started. it did start when he marked it.

the issue is with how long he took to get up. should the clock start when they start walking back? potentially.

Players already milk the clock as it is. If we make it from when the start to walk back they will just waste time getting up.

[MW]

they showed the vision on 360 of when the clock started. it did start when he marked it.

the issue is with how long he took to get up. should the clock start when they start walking back? potentially.

It starts from when they mark it. If it starts from the time the player gets up, they will just lay on the ground for 30 seconds to catch their breath.

[JK]

Lots of discussion about the Dixon incident, thoughts on Jayden Shorts deliberate rushed behind?

[Jim05]

Lots of discussion about the Dixon incident, thoughts on Jayden Shorts deliberate rushed behind?

I didn't mind it but they have to pay them all now

[Booney]

Lots of discussion about the Dixon incident, thoughts on Jayden Shorts deliberate rushed behind?

I didn't mind it but they have to pay them all now

Didn't like it myself, the way Green backed off and threw the arms out should be considered IMO. Short would have known Green was only 1-2m behind him when they took off after the ball, by the time Short got to the ball Green had backed off to 3-4m behind with his arms out and no intention of tackling. Perhaps they can make it "insufficient intent to apply pressure" just to make the rule easier to understand.

Ultimately probably the right call, but as Jim notes, they now need to pretty much pay anything that is rushed.

[Brodlach]

Agreed Booney, I didn't like it either. Not in the spirit of the game. Imagine if that was to win that game the Tigers fans would have lynched the umpires

[Jim05]

Lots of discussion about the Dixon incident, thoughts on Jayden Shorts deliberate rushed behind?

I didn't mind it but they have to pay them all now

Didn't like it myself, the way Green backed off and threw the arms out should be considered IMO. Short would have known Green was only 1-2m behind him when they took off after the ball, by the time Short got to the ball Green had backed off to 3-4m behind with his arms out and no intention of tackling. Perhaps they can make it "insufficient intent to apply pressure" just to make the rule easier to understand.

Ultimately probably the right call, but as Jim notes, they now need to pretty much pay anything that is rushed.

I'd pay everything but the penalty is too high. Just ball it up at the top of the goal square

[Booney]

Lots of discussion about the Dixon incident, thoughts on Jayden Shorts deliberate rushed behind?

I didn't mind it but they have to pay them all now

Didn't like it myself, the way Green backed off and threw the arms out should be considered IMO. Short would have known Green was only 1-2m behind him when they took off after the ball, by the time Short got to the ball Green had backed off to 3-4m behind with his arms out and no intention of tackling. Perhaps they can make it "insufficient intent to apply pressure" just to make the rule easier to understand.

Ultimately probably the right call, but as Jim notes, they now need to pretty much pay anything that is rushed.

I'd pay everything but the penalty is too high. Just ball it up at the top of the goal square

I think most agree with that.

[MW]

Agree Booney. It's like the deliberate out of bounds...18 players throw their arms in the air every time it goes over the line now.
We are slowly turning into Soccer.

[woodublieve12]

Deliberate rush behind rule is a disgrace!!! Never should have been changed.

[bennymacca]

looking through some all time (1965-present) records on AFLTables.com, and it turns out Nat Fyfe had 13 Clangers last week, which was the equal highest ever

[JK]

looking through some all time (1965-present) records on AFLTables.com, and it turns out Nat Fyfe had 13 Clangers last week, which was the equal highest ever

Yep, mentioned it on SEN this week