View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Member 7167
"What Good Fortune For Governments That The People Do Not Think" - Adolf Hitler.
Joined: 18 Dec 2008 Location: The Collibran Hideout
|
Post subject: | |
|
Dunit wrote: | Any team that has Jake King on it can STFU about tagging, scragging and trying to get under the skin of opponents... |
AFL rule 173FC
The tactic of tagging can only be deemed to infringe the rules of the game if the antagonist wears a guernsey that only displays the colours of black and white.
AFL rule 193FC
Any player wearing a black and white guernsey and standing within 30 meters of their goal should be deemed to be invisible if that person is being held onto or infringed in any manner. If this person remonstrates in any way a penalty kick should be immediately awarded to the opposing player.
AFL rule 202FC
Individuals wearing black and white guernseys are deemed to not exist above the shoulder when a opposing players are within 1 metre. |
|
|
|
|
MattyD
Joined: 19 Apr 2010 Location: Kew
|
Post subject: | |
|
So just got Bucks Brief where he mentions Macaffer's tagging.
I am very impressed with Bucks' take on it.
Bucks was:
"pleased with his application to the task" and was "mystified by some of the frees given against him."
Bucks also said: "I have spoken to the umpiring department" and apparently the umpiring department's response is to send Buckley footage of examples of "missed free kicks."
Does that mean they think there should have been more given against Macaffer? bloody hell. I have two words: Crowley and Cloke. Think about that.
The umpires hate our guts. Do we need any more proof? |
|
|
|
|
Redlight
Joined: 11 Jun 2009
|
Post subject: | |
|
MattyD wrote: | So just got Bucks Brief where he mentions Macaffer's tagging.
I am very impressed with Bucks' take on it.
Bucks was:
"pleased with his application to the task" and was "mystified by some of the frees given against him."
Bucks also said: "I have spoken to the umpiring department" and apparently the umpiring department's response is to send Buckley footage of examples of "missed free kicks."
Does that mean they think there should have been more given against Macaffer? bloody hell. I have two words: Crowley and Cloke. Think about that.
The umpires hate our guts. Do we need any more proof? |
I think the story goes (I may have read it on here, apologies to the OP if so!) that Bucks was surprised by the criticism and asked for clarification from the umpires, asking them to supply a video with the free kicks that should have been paid if Caff was out of line.
Apparently they replied with a video of only two incidents, one of which the club thinks is 50/50.
So basically Bucks asked them to put up or shut up and they had nothing. Glorious! |
|
|
|
|
OEP
Joined: 12 Jan 2007 Location: Perth
|
Post subject: | |
|
Love Buckley's response in this article to both the hysteria being created by the press, Cotchin's complaints, and the unnecessary remarks by Hayden Kennedy.
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8830582
After all this attention on the subject when Collingwood asked for clarification all they could find we're two incidents where they, the umpiring board, believed Caff may have infringed on Cotchin, and of those two the Pies believe one was "questionable".
Go Caff destroy your next victim. _________________ A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
Collingwood Crackerjack
Joined: 28 Jul 2008 Location: Canberra
|
Post subject: | |
|
Tannin wrote: | Trent Cotchin: 8 disposals, 1 mark, 0 goals, plus 5 more disposals from free kicks, no frees agaist
Brent Macaffer: 16 disposals, 8 marks, 1 goal, no frees, 1 free against.
Yup. They should change the rules. Next time, Cotchin should be required to tag Macaffer, 'coz Macaffer was very clearly the better player on the night, with more marks, more disposals, and a goal. (Scored later in the game when Cotchin had been reduced to such uselessness that his tagger started running off him.) How many disposals do you reckon 'Caff would get with Cotchin tagging him? |
Absolutely. At the end of the day its a numbers game, and Caff beat him soundly.
If he doesn't like it, eff off and play basketball _________________ "The last thing he expected WAS THE FIRST THING HE GOT!!!!!"
© Collingwood Crackerjack, 1992 |
|
|
|
|
Brown26
Joined: 14 Sep 2001 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
|
Post subject: | |
|
I love Buckley's response, and agree whole heartedly. I agree with everyone who thinks that McCaffer's tactics are no better or worse than Crowleys and with everyone who thinks that the media (and umpires) love Crowley...
BUT
be prepared for 20 free kicks against McCaffer in the first quarter... It'll get ugly. We may have to sub him off. I'd definitly start him on the HFF not as a tagger. This is the biggest media and umpiring beat up since McKee learned how to jump, and the result will be the same. 3 votes C Judd...
- Ben |
|
|
|
|
MattyD
Joined: 19 Apr 2010 Location: Kew
|
Post subject: | |
|
Did anyone else notice how differently the umpires interpreted this week?
They put the whistle away and North got a paltry 8 frees to our 11.
11 is about average for us, perhaps a little less than average. But only 8 for an opponent of ours? Unheard of
Perhaps there was a need to take attention away from umpiring for a little while. I also noticed Macaffer was less aggressive this week.
I can't help but wonder if we had played essendon or Carlton yesterday that the crowd would have been more vocal. It was only North.... |
|
|
|
|
|