Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 27/06/2024 at 15:42, unapologetic pedant said:

Geelong v Essendon at the MCG this Saturday night is listed as a Cats home game. 

Fair dinkum, the crowd will exceed 40k. But Kardinia Park is not exactly Shark Park. How can pollies justify spending so much public money on a stadium in Geelong when big games are moved to Melbourne? 

55k crowd at the MCG. On the low side of expectations, unless SP knows otherwise. Meantime, over the way, disappointing turnout at Storm v Raiders. Some rain around apparently. Not much of an excuse, plenty of cover at both stadia. Origin week in Melbourne possibly a factor. Overall, unsure what conclusions to draw.

On the field, bad defeat for Bombers blows a hole in their top 4 credentials. Storm roll on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


5 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

On the field, bad defeat for Bombers blows a hole in their top 4 credentials. 

Just seen the highlights.

Third quarter, Essendon player called Menzie runs the ball through the goal for a behind. Umpire gives a free kick to Geelong. Commentator says something about "players within...", then pronounces it a "perplexing decision". 

Over to you @Sports Prophet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Just seen the highlights.

Third quarter, Essendon player called Menzie runs the ball through the goal for a behind. Umpire gives a free kick to Geelong. Commentator says something about "players within...", then pronounces it a "perplexing decision". 

Over to you @Sports Prophet.

A defender can’t concede a “rushed behind” unless he is under immediate pressure. If an umpire deems him to have deliberately conceded a “behind” without being under immediate pressure, then instead of a point, the attacking team (by way of field position) will be awarded a free kick.

I didn’t see the incident, but it is an opinion call by an umpire, similar to whether a pass was deemed forward or not in RL but far less prevalent than debatable forward/not forward pass decisions. 

So I would assume the Essendon player was not considered by the umpire to be under “immediate pressure” when he conceded the point. Commentators thought otherwise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

So I would assume the Essendon player was not considered by the umpire to be under “immediate pressure” when he conceded the point. Commentators thought otherwise.

Alternative scenario - 

Menzie waits a second, looking for a teammate to kick or pass to. Gets caught in two minds. Geelong players close in. Menzie is now under "immediate pressure" and runs the ball through the goal. I suspect "prior opportunity" then comes into the equation?

The incident is akin to a Soccer goalkeeper coming under pressure and conceding a corner. He isn't subject to additional sanction if he had "prior opportunity" to boot the ball upfield. Before the back-pass rule was introduced, he could just pick it up. 

22 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I didn’t see the incident, but it is an opinion call by an umpire, similar to whether a pass was deemed forward or not in RL but far less prevalent than debatable forward/not forward pass decisions. 

False analogy. Whether a pass travelled forward out of the hands is ultimately a matter of fact not opinion, however hard it may be to accurately ascertain. Artificial devices could potentially make such decisions, if the technology were sufficiently reliable. No machine could ever measure "immediate pressure" or "prior opportunity". 

These nebulous AFL values correspond to the "use it or lose it" command in Rugby Union. They are more like moral judgements than hard-and fast laws. No coincidence that both games are handling codes with no natural means of limiting possession. Rather ironic that you were on my side of the argument regarding the RU deliberate knock-on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Alternative scenario - 

Menzie waits a second, looking for a teammate to kick or pass to. Gets caught in two minds. Geelong players close in. Menzie is now under "immediate pressure" and runs the ball through the goal. I suspect "prior opportunity" then comes into the equation?

The incident is akin to a Soccer goalkeeper coming under pressure and conceding a corner. He isn't subject to additional sanction if he had "prior opportunity" to boot the ball upfield. Before the back-pass rule was introduced, he could just pick it up. 

False analogy. Whether a pass travelled forward out of the hands is ultimately a matter of fact not opinion, however hard it may be to accurately ascertain. Artificial devices could potentially make such decisions, if the technology were sufficiently reliable. No machine could ever measure "immediate pressure" or "prior opportunity". 

These nebulous AFL values correspond to the "use it or lose it" command in Rugby Union. They are more like moral judgements than hard-and fast laws. No coincidence that both games are handling codes with no natural means of limiting possession. Rather ironic that you were on my side of the argument regarding the RU deliberate knock-on.

The deliberate knock on matter was a simple point of common sense as far as I was concerned. The common calls in RU really anger me and then the subsequent yellow cards given absolutely infuriate me.

The under pressure rule doesn’t concern me. If an umpire’s decision is different to my take on an incident, I can usually get past it because it’s their call and at worst, I am happy to settle for an umpire to make a mistake because they are human. More than increase technology into the decision making process.

There may be some “nebulous” rules as you put it. Another would be “deliberately kicking the ball out of bounds”. I don’t see issue with it.

In my opinion what is more annoyingly nebulous is a RL referee’s ”licence” to determine which of the dozens of offences to the laws of the game in a single match will go unpunished, rather than punishing each offence as they occur. I certainly find myself frustrated more often with a referees decision (or lack thereof) in a single RL match than I will with the decisions of the umpires in a single game of AFL.

Still love them both for what they are. Ice Hockey too. Disappointed the Oilers couldn’t win game 7.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

In my opinion what is more annoyingly nebulous is a RL referee’s ”licence” to determine which of the dozens of offences to the laws of the game in a single match will go unpunished, rather than punishing each offence as they occur. 

Unless you adduce specific evidence, this is a meaningless claim.

 

7 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

I certainly find myself frustrated more often with a referees decision (or lack thereof) in a single RL match than I will with the decisions of the umpires in a single game of AFL.

You force me to be blunt and patronising -

I don't believe you understand the game of Rugby League. Have you ever read the rulebook?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Unless you adduce specific evidence, this is a meaningless claim.

Any number of offside players (markers or players not back 10 or kick chasers). Any number of play the balls not played with the foot. Any number of scrum feeds delivered into the second row. Any number of high contact. To name just a few. There are dozens in any single match.

6 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

You force me to be blunt and patronising -

I don't believe you understand the game of Rugby League. Have you ever read the rulebook?

Patronising indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/06/2024 at 04:41, unapologetic pedant said:

Just seen the highlights.

Third quarter, Essendon player called Menzie runs the ball through the goal for a behind. Umpire gives a free kick to Geelong. Commentator says something about "players within...", then pronounces it a "perplexing decision". 

Over to you @Sports Prophet.

For someone who can`t stand the game you seem to watch an awful lot of it.

I can take about 20 seconds and am reminded that it hasn`t improved.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, The Rocket said:

I can take about 20 seconds and am reminded that it hasn`t improved.

I've been trying to enjoy AFL since the late 80s. Not much luck, so far.

Main purpose of checking out a highlights package is the hope of making sense of the rules. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Any number of offside players (markers or players not back 10 or kick chasers). Any number of play the balls not played with the foot. Any number of scrum feeds delivered into the second row. Any number of high contact. To name just a few. There are dozens in any single match.

This confirms my belief that you don't understand how the rules of RL should be applied.

Tolerance of permissive ambiguity in AFL combined with intolerance of judicious discretion in NRL is indicative of personal preference. Also explains why we're stuck with the bunker and captain's challenge in NRL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/07/2024 at 08:44, unapologetic pedant said:

Unless you adduce specific evidence, this is a meaningless claim.

 

You force me to be blunt and patronising -

I don't believe you understand the game of Rugby League. Have you ever read the rulebook?

He's a fumbleball fan first and formost.

Look how he defends the Anglo-Irish 99% of the time.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

He's a fumbleball fan first and formost.

Probably a fair assessment.

5 hours ago, lucky 7 said:

Look how he defends the Anglo-Irish 99% of the time.

In his defence, SP is ploughing a lonely furrow on TRL. Furthermore, on AOB threads, RL supporters are free to promote their interest in various other sports without being branded as trolls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/07/2024 at 19:55, unapologetic pedant said:

I've been trying to enjoy AFL since the late 80s. Not much luck, so far.

Main purpose of checking out a highlights package is the hope of making sense of the rules. 

Yeah, I`ve heard of people using similar reasons for reading Playboy.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 02/07/2024 at 18:39, unapologetic pedant said:

This confirms my belief that you don't understand how the rules of RL should be applied.

Tolerance of permissive ambiguity in AFL combined with intolerance of judicious discretion in NRL is indicative of personal preference. Also explains why we're stuck with the bunker and captain's challenge in NRL.

Putting your “belief” aside (ridiculous as it is) and your thoughts on ambiguity vs discretion, I only had to watch Parra v Bunnies tonight to reaffirm my belief that the “forward pass” in RL is probably the most subjective judgement in world sport (outside synchronised swimming).

Not only do I think it is the most subjective judgement in world sport, I also think that of all the most subjective judgements in world sport, the “forward pass” would also be the most commonly disputed judgement to have the bearing on the outcome of a sporting fixture.

Edited by Sports Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 03/07/2024 at 16:10, lucky 7 said:

He's a fumbleball fan first and formost.

Alliteration aside, so what if I was?

Edited by Sports Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

 

Not only do I think it is the most subjective judgement in world sport, I also think that of all the most subjective judgements in world sport, the “forward pass” would also be the most commonly disputed judgement to have the bearing on the outcome of a sporting fixture.

You obviously don't watch soccer, particularly the current Euros, the handball rule has caused many a game to be decided by a farcical decision. It urgently needs a rethink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

You obviously don't watch soccer, particularly the current Euros, the handball rule has caused many a game to be decided by a farcical decision. It urgently needs a rethink.

I do not watch soccer (much), correct. I reckon a suspect forward pass in RL is far more prevalent than a potential handball in soccer. In fact I know it is because there are many every match of RL, vs only one or two per average (at best) in soccer.

I would say there is easily at least two tries a week in NRL which are scored and included a “subjective” forward pass. I don’t remember there being that many prominent “handball” decisions per week in the PL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I do not watch soccer (much), correct. I reckon a suspect forward pass in RL is far more prevalent than a potential handball in soccer. In fact I know it is because there are many every match of RL, vs only one or two per average (at best) in soccer.

I would say there is easily at least two tries a week in NRL which are scored and included a “subjective” forward pass. I don’t remember there being that many prominent “handball” decisions per week in the PL.

As you say you don't watch much soccer. Take it from me, handball controversies are the dominant topic in soccer at most pro levels. With scoring at a premium in soccer games are being decided with the awarding of penalty kicks for ridiculous handball offences. Was it hand to ball or ball to hand? Accidental or deliberate ? In an unnatural position or not ? 

Australia's own Ange Postegoclu getting worked up about it.

 

Edited by HawkMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Not only do I think it is the most subjective judgement in world sport, I also think that of all the most subjective judgements in world sport, the “forward pass” would also be the most commonly disputed judgement to have the bearing on the outcome of a sporting fixture.

There is no way to distinguish a pass which travelled forward a millimetre from one which travelled backward a millimetre. A pass is legal unless clearly forward out of the hands. Any doubt means "Play On".

Such tiny margins have no effect on the play. The only troublesome outcomes are if a legal pass is called forward or a palpably forward pass is missed. Both of which seldom happen. Everything else is fine.

You appear quite relaxed about the management of inevitable uncertainty in AFL -

On 01/07/2024 at 16:32, Sports Prophet said:

The under pressure rule doesn’t concern me. If an umpire’s decision is different to my take on an incident, I can usually get past it because it’s their call and at worst, I am happy to settle for an umpire to make a mistake because they are human. More than increase technology into the decision making process.

On 01/07/2024 at 16:32, Sports Prophet said:

There may be some “nebulous” rules as you put it. Another would be “deliberately kicking the ball out of bounds”. I don’t see issue with it.

But borderline passes in NRL games are a source of unbearable vexation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

Don’t play to the crowd. 

Bit optimistic. Unless we're abiding by the aphorism that three's a crowd.

And it is a perfectly fair assessment. N.B. "probably".

Although (as your subsequent post implies), not of great significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.