Roos/Crows at the Goldy

[LBT]

Welsh is Shit??!! Meanwhile Geelong put up with the supremely talented Kent Kingsley for how long?

[Psyber]

The Johncock one was a shocker but it was no worse than the 50m against Archer WTF was up with that?, in general I thought the Roos got a rough deal HOWEVER it was in no way the difference

Griffin had marked the ball already before the impact, and where Archer leapt from was so far back it gave him no chance of contesting the ball or punching it away - the only aim was impacting the back of the player in front. He would have been back on the ground by the time he reached the fall of the ball. His intent was clear!

[Dutchy]

The Johncock one was a shocker but it was no worse than the 50m against Archer WTF was up with that?, in general I thought the Roos got a rough deal HOWEVER it was in no way the difference

Griffin had marked the ball already before the impact, and where Archer leapt from was so far back it gave him no chance of contesting the ball or punching it away - the only aim was impacting the back of the player in front. He would have been back on the ground by the time he reached the fall of the ball. His intent was clear!

bullshit....he didnt mark it

[Psyber]

Welsh is Shit??!! Meanwhile Geelong put up with the supremely talented Kent Kingsley for how long?

Welsh has his problems - he gets occasional high scores because the Crows are winning, not because he is effective in tight situations. However, if the Crows play the type of game they did in this match, and they don't make the mistake again of trying to rely on Welsh as the primary goal scorer, he may earn his place with his opportunistic skills. He is no good in tight situations, but has potential given room to move.

[Psyber]

The Johncock one was a shocker but it was no worse than the 50m against Archer WTF was up with that?, in general I thought the Roos got a rough deal HOWEVER it was in no way the difference

Griffin had marked the ball already before the impact, and where Archer leapt from was so far back it gave him no chance of contesting the ball or punching it away - the only aim was impacting the back of the player in front. He would have been back on the ground by the time he reached the fall of the ball. His intent was clear!

bullshit....he didnt mark it

I watched the replays very closely - he he took it cleanly and had it firmly in his hands for seconds before the impact jarred it loose, and probably some of his teeth too! The real issue was the intent of the leap into his back and the impossibility of it putting Archer into a position to legitimately spoil the mark with a fist to the ball.

[Dutchy]

yes if you watch the replays IN SLOW MO it always looks like a mark....

[Psyber]

yes if you watch the replays IN SLOW MO it always looks like a mark....

"The real issue was the intent of the leap into his back and the impossibility of it putting Archer into a position to legitimately spoil the mark with a fist to the ball."

[Dutchy]

Have no problem with the free kick, but how can it be 50m as well?

[Booney]

Well done Crows. I didn't see the game, did they open it up and play a more attacking game last night?

regards,

REB

They did until half time when the lead was set,from there on it was played on thier terms.

[Psyber]

Have no problem with the free kick, but how can it be 50m as well?

I reckon an attempt to deliberately injure a player by jumping into his back is worth a couple of matches as well, given the obvious lack of intent to do anything but injure!

The kick plus 50 metres was because the umpire saw it as I did - mark taken, then, at least reckless, impact into the players back, that had no intent other than impact - that is, he was not playing the ball.

Even if he leapt at Griffin's back before Griffin had actually taken the mark, his intent was still the same - to use the impact to dislodge the ball he couldn't punch away, either at the point of marking or just after, and hope to get away with it. Players have commonly done this when they know they are in a hopeless position and can't legitimately spoil with a fist because they have been too far behind, and for too long they have gotten away with it. Their aim is to intimidate and discourage players from even trying to take the marks, or to dislodge the ball while injuring the player.

Rather than encourage that deliberate brutality I think we should encourage skills like good positioning and judgement and quick responses to the flight of the ball. The Gladiatorial era has to end if Soccer is not to become the dominant sport in the long run. It is the same problem we have with the Irish over the hybrid game - they don't like that culture either!

[sydney-dog]

Psyber

I would of spewed if the 50m paid against Archer was paid against the crows

Yes, Archer attacked the contest hard and his spoil was sloppy, so the free kick was justified, but he was no late, my view, it looked a lot worse because Griffen was backing back... the 50m should not of been paid, a player can not possibly pull out of that type of contest

[Hondo]

LMAO. Welsh is shit.

REB, one of your kids was using the computer you must have been logged in to the site still ...

[Psyber]

Psyber

I would of spewed if the 50m paid against Archer was paid against the crows

Yes, Archer attacked the contest hard and his spoil was sloppy, so the free kick was justified, but he was no late, my view, it looked a lot worse because Griffen was backing back... the 50m should not of been paid, a player can not possibly pull out of that type of contest

I wouldn't have spewed - I'd have seen it as fair the other way too. It is a matter of principle. I can't object to unnecessary impact for the sake of impact without objecting when the team I support does it too.

My view is that Archer was not at a "contest" - he was too late getting there to contest anything. It was not a spoil because there was no way he was going to get a fist anywhere near the ball, let alone mark it himself. It was going to be taken in Griffins hands well beyond his possible reach, and he knew that, so he went for impact into the player's back, hoping to get away with causing a spill that way.

It looks like a normal contest because we have become used to seeing the umpires ignore it, and hearing thugs like Dermot Brereton say, "It's part of the game." It has been an unfortunate "part of the game", and it is why I chose to play Hockey instead and would not encourage any kid of mine to play AFL. It would be an even better game to watch and play if the emphasis were on skill instead of deliberately injuring people. Of course that moves us more toward Gaelic Football perhaps.

I concede I have a bias because my recognition, at 14, of my need to keep my vision and kidneys intact for the sake of my career plans forced me to make the choice to quit footy for Hockey, just as Peter Oatey, for example, gave it up for his career as a Neurosurgeon, and for tennis.

[Dutchy]

your dribble makes sense if you have never played the game at senior level

[Psyber]

your dribble makes sense if you have never played the game at senior level....
and elsewhere "Fair dinkum EHL, get on with life, Umpires have always made mistakes and been questionable (esp if your team loses) but you really have to move on."

Dutchy, we were disagreeing over the issue without being abusive or petulant - I haven't called your opinion dribble [or drivel]. Let us be adult about it!

I'll agree to disagree and not comment further if you don't lean towards implicit abuse, and we can mutually respect our different opinions and perspectives on the issue.

It is true I did not play senior football for the reasons I gave, but I did go on with Hockey, Judo, Archery, Wrestling, and foil and epee Fencing, and an acquaintance was killed Fencing - but it was an accident not deliberate, and not by me. I did accidentally dislocate a friend's elbow at Judo.

As I said, it is deliberate intent to injure I object to, not accidental injury incidental to healthy, even vigorous, competition, and that is the issue that may be the death of Aussie Rules in the long run - it is why the Irish are dubious about continuing the international competition.

[SCD]

On the umpiring - Just to clarify my comments - I actually umpired over 100 amature league games and I am a level 1 accredited umpire (I actually got invited out to the SANFL acadamy a few years ago, with a few guys who are now doing SANFL reserves / League.. - but I was too lazy to train 5 - 6 nights a week).
The Archer decision was a stinker.. Pay the mark for courage, pay the free for in the back - but they happened at the same time, Archer was off the ground (knees and elbows basically tucked in) trying to spoil the ball - definately not a 50m penalty, even as a Crows supporter, thought it was a joke. In saying that - we have had a pretty rough ride this year, mainly due to our style of play, they go good and bad - take it as it comes, you win some, you lose some I say...

The Game...
Big step forward in the 1st half from the Crows. 3rd quarter was a bit disappointing they went back to Tempo footy, but probably a sign that Craigy doesn't back his blokes to run out 4 quarters playing the attacking style maybe??
They were prepared to back their skills and move the ball long and quick to a one on one contest. This assisted their forward structure greatly.. Really made the Kangas scramble and they didn't handle the constant pressure all that well..

The midfield have now dominated the last 2 weeks.. Scott Thompson is in outstanding form and really at the $151 to win the brownlow - would be surprising many with the votes he would have...
I still have my concerns though about the creative ability of Doughty / Shirley / Van Berlo in the same midfield.. I think with Radar and Birdman to both come back one of them will go - to get more drive in the midfield, which as SD has said - will enable better midfield rotations....

I disagree with SD on something - Perrie.. I think the Crows have made a decision to go big in the forward line (not sure I agree) but with Perrie / McGregor / Bock roaming from the wing to goal square, they can be very dangerous, with Welsh / Roo / (Porplyzia/Douglas/Vince) as the crumbers... leaving Radar and Burton to roam forward from their wings... it all of a sudden does give us plenty of options and makes us look dangerous - with attacking midfielders of Goodwin / Edwards.. it makes the crows look very stong on paper...

More important then all of that, with the Power winning - the Crows will be no worse then 5th after 11 rounds and with 6 home games left, no doubt for me they should be aiming for at least a 15 / 7 finish - which should be a top 4 finish now with Birdman / Radar / Goodwin / Perrie to return + match fitness for Roo / Stiffy / McGregor. All looks good for the Crows to really steam home and give themselves a realistic chance come September - in what is an open competution...

[Psyber]

I never umpired but I did do some lectures to trainers for the SANFL many years ago on "Psychology and Sport Performance." after Keith Le Page got me to fill in for him and Rick Montiadis encouraged me. The SANFL lost interest after I declined to teach "Motivation Technique" to under 14 coaches, saying I thought it was inappropriate to apply those techniques to that age group! Presumably they found someone who would. Rick later approached me about helping out at Woodville prior to the merger, as Keith had done at Norwood, but I was too busy by then.

The various views of what happened here clearly support studies of perception that suggest we don't all see the same thing the same way - you know, "We have five witnesses and here are the six different descriptions!"

So, I'll drop it.

[NFC]

The Johncock one was a shocker but it was no worse than the 50m against Archer WTF was up with that?, in general I thought the Roos got a rough deal HOWEVER it was in no way the difference

Griffin had marked the ball already before the impact, and where Archer leapt from was so far back it gave him no chance of contesting the ball or punching it away - the only aim was impacting the back of the player in front. He would have been back on the ground by the time he reached the fall of the ball. His intent was clear!

bullshit....he didnt mark it

Cmon mate, the mark was as clear as day!

[Dutchy]

The Johncock one was a shocker but it was no worse than the 50m against Archer WTF was up with that?, in general I thought the Roos got a rough deal HOWEVER it was in no way the difference

Griffin had marked the ball already before the impact, and where Archer leapt from was so far back it gave him no chance of contesting the ball or punching it away - the only aim was impacting the back of the player in front. He would have been back on the ground by the time he reached the fall of the ball. His intent was clear!

bullshit....he didnt mark it

Cmon mate, the mark was as clear as day!

exactly my point...it was at night

[Blue Boy]

Did any one see if the 50 was for anything Archer may of said ???