Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Cotchin having sook about Caff

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Member 7167 Leo

"What Good Fortune For Governments That The People Do Not Think" - Adolf Hitler.


Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Location: The Collibran Hideout

PostPosted: Mon Apr 14, 2014 4:32 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MattyD 



Joined: 19 Apr 2010
Location: Kew

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 5:34 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Redlight 



Joined: 11 Jun 2009


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:04 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
OEP Pisces



Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:14 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Collingwood Crackerjack 



Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Canberra

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 7:25 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Brown26 



Joined: 14 Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2014 9:40 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
MattyD 



Joined: 19 Apr 2010
Location: Kew

PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:30 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

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....
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group