| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | To go all the way, we'll need De Goey and probably Treloar back in our side and in good form. Even having De Goey alone, with Howe playing out the game, we would have beaten the Tigers. We have a great side and a great coach. Only anti-Collingwood bias would prevent Bucks from winning coach of the year, given where we were expected to finish by the 'experts' pre-season, and the horrific injury run we have had to contend with. Throughout it all, Bucks has remained resolute and confident in our team. Bucks, I salute you. |
Yep. If the trio of De Goey, Treloar and Moore are in our 22 for the finals, we are a genuine chance to beat anyone. Assuming we don't lose any other key players. Even some chance if Treloar doesn't make it (the least likely of the three).
Paul Roos said the other day that when he was coaching, Collingwood were just about the toughest team you could face, but only for a quarter here or there. This year, he's seeing us sustain that for longer. He said over 4 quarters, but I'd disagree and say it's mostly been over 3 quarters. A closer to full complement of players and we can extend the effort that bit further and beat the very best. We're going to need the planets to align though, as field any underdone players come finals and they'll be found out.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
 |
Johnno75
Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Location: Wantirna
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I reckon Bucks might put a closer watch on Jayden Short next time we play the tigers.
_________________
Human behavioural studies suggest people who use a lot of swear words tend to be more honest & trustworthy. |
|
|
|
|
Cam 
Nick's BB Member #166
Joined: 10 May 2002
Location: Springvale
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Johnno75 wrote: | | I reckon Bucks might put a closer watch on Jayden Short next time we play the tigers. |
At least it happened now and not in the finals.
_________________
Get back on top. |
|
|
|
|
tbaker
Joined: 02 Jul 2018
Location: Q19 Southern Stand MCG
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Cam wrote: | | Johnno75 wrote: | | I reckon Bucks might put a closer watch on Jayden Short next time we play the tigers. |
At least it happened now and not in the finals. |
Well , that remains to be seen, but we'd like to think something has been learnt from that (among other things)
_________________
I find your lack of faith disturbing |
|
|
|
|
qldmagpie67
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I agree the 2 Shoet goals hurt us but someone tell me this
If one of our players followed Short into the protected zone where he receives the ball wouldn't he be pinged first giving them 50m ?
That's the oddity with the rule
The net result would have been the same on both occasions a goal
Considering the injuries we incurred during the game and having to restructure on the run I thought he coached quite well
Cotchin had no impact, we held Martin for the whole of the first half, Rance had little impact, Caddy was barely sighted
That's 4 key planks we did well on
We are yet to play these guys on a even footing
We've never had our best 22 on the field and we've failed to finish the game with 22 players available for rotations
Both times it was only at the death they got us
I actually believe we were the better side for 3/4 on both occasions
But it is what it is |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| qldmagpie67 wrote: | I agree the 2 Shoet goals hurt us but someone tell me this
If one of our players followed Short into the protected zone where he receives the ball wouldn't he be pinged first giving them 50m ? |
That’s a really good question. And even if it’s not the case according to the letter of the law, the umpiring of it is so draconian at times that players would understandably be very unwilling to risk it.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Mon Jul 30, 2018 9:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| That is a hypothetical question. |
|
|
|
|
Raw Hammer
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Location: The Gutter
|
| Post subject: | |
|
As long as you are within 5 metres of an opponent, you can follow them ANYWHERE. Through the mark, in the protected zone, etc.
_________________
Est. 2002 |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ What, really? That's the first I've heard of it! Wasn't that what cost Melbourne the 1987 preliminary final, Jim Stynes following his opponent through the mark?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | To go all the way, we'll need De Goey and probably Treloar back in our side and in good form. Even having De Goey alone, with Howe playing out the game, we would have beaten the Tigers. We have a great side and a great coach. Only anti-Collingwood bias would prevent Bucks from winning coach of the year, given where we were expected to finish by the 'experts' pre-season, and the horrific injury run we have had to contend with. Throughout it all, Bucks has remained resolute and confident in our team. Bucks, I salute you. |
Yep. If the trio of De Goey, Treloar and Moore are in our 22 for the finals, we are a genuine chance to beat anyone. Assuming we don't lose any other key players. Even some chance if Treloar doesn't make it (the least likely of the three).
Paul Roos said the other day that when he was coaching, Collingwood were just about the toughest team you could face, but only for a quarter here or there. This year, he's seeing us sustain that for longer. He said over 4 quarters, but I'd disagree and say it's mostly been over 3 quarters. A closer to full complement of players and we can extend the effort that bit further and beat the very best. We're going to need the planets to align though, as field any underdone players come finals and they'll be found out. |
If you look at some of our wins this year we've been able to break away from teams in the last quarter. What we lack against the top few teams is a bit of strength at the contest which is accentuated by njuries to key players on the field. A criticism of Buckley if you want to call it that is that the luck doesn't seem to run with him. |
|
|
|
|
MatthewBoydFanClub
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Location: Elwood
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| AN_Inkling wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | To go all the way, we'll need De Goey and probably Treloar back in our side and in good form. Even having De Goey alone, with Howe playing out the game, we would have beaten the Tigers. We have a great side and a great coach. Only anti-Collingwood bias would prevent Bucks from winning coach of the year, given where we were expected to finish by the 'experts' pre-season, and the horrific injury run we have had to contend with. Throughout it all, Bucks has remained resolute and confident in our team. Bucks, I salute you. |
Yep. If the trio of De Goey, Treloar and Moore are in our 22 for the finals, we are a genuine chance to beat anyone. Assuming we don't lose any other key players. Even some chance if Treloar doesn't make it (the least likely of the three).
Paul Roos said the other day that when he was coaching, Collingwood were just about the toughest team you could face, but only for a quarter here or there. This year, he's seeing us sustain that for longer. He said over 4 quarters, but I'd disagree and say it's mostly been over 3 quarters. A closer to full complement of players and we can extend the effort that bit further and beat the very best. We're going to need the planets to align though, as field any underdone players come finals and they'll be found out. |
If you look at some of our wins this year we've been able to break away from teams in the last quarter. What we lack against the top few teams is a bit of strength at the contest which is accentuated by injuries to key players on the field. A criticism of Buckley if you want to call it that is that the luck doesn't seem to run with him. |
|
|
|
|
September Zeros
Joined: 04 Oct 2012
Location: Behind you
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Raw Hammer wrote: | | As long as you are within 5 metres of an opponent, you can follow them ANYWHERE. Through the mark, in the protected zone, etc. |
It was my understanding you can never cross the mark - ever and it's an auto 50 - Has this changed?
As for the protected zone its a good question.
_________________
No Pressure, No Diamonds
They used to be a happy team at hawthorn.
________________ |
|
|
|
|
Raw Hammer
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Location: The Gutter
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You’ve ALWAYS been able to follow an opponent through the mark.
Jimmy Stynes simply ran through.
_________________
Est. 2002 |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Maybe I haven't been watching closely enough, but I've never seen an opponent running through the mark without being penalised – whereas I've seen plenty peel off when the guy they're manning does.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Raw Hammer
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Location: The Gutter
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Maybe I haven't been watching closely enough, but I've never seen an opponent running through the mark without being penalised – whereas I've seen plenty peel off when the guy they're manning does. |
You’re definitely not watching closely enough.
Happens regularly enough. You’ll often see the opposition point to his opponent so the umpire knows he’s within 5m.
_________________
Est. 2002 |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
