Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Viking3 wrote:Definition of debate
noun-
a formal discussion on a particular matter, in which opposing arguments are put forward:
You don't debate plugger. You tell people they are wrong because you are all knowing.
I could construct pages on this topic but posters don't like seeing responses clogging up the various topics.
Also disappointed.
That isnt true. Your imagination is getting in the way of facts. When did i say you were wrong. I told you about Davey and gave a reason why I think you are wrong. I gave answers to your questions or made statements on what your reading of the rule is. If you cant handle debating it then fine. Very disappointing though. Could have been a good discussion if you told me what was incorrect with what i said. Its your choice though so now you are on the list.
Viking3 wrote:Definition of debate
noun-
a formal discussion on a particular matter, in which opposing arguments are put forward:
You don't debate plugger. You tell people they are wrong because you are all knowing.
I could construct pages on this topic but posters don't like seeing responses clogging up the various topics.
Also disappointed.
That isnt true. Your imagination is getting in the way of facts. When did i say you were wrong. I told you about Davey and gave a reason why I think you are wrong. I gave answers to your questions or made statements on what your reading of the rule is. If you cant handle debating it then fine. Very disappointing though. Could have been a good discussion if you told me what was incorrect with what i said. Its your choice though so now you are on the list.
Your very first retort started with "Davey did no such thing". You did not say, gee, your being a bit harsh or I don't think he would have done that. That's a pretty definitive statement, which cannot be read in any other manner other than you inferring I was wrong. That is not imagining anything and is the truth. You said it!
Happy to debate anytime, with any poster.
Give me one flag & I'll go to my grave a happy man.
Viking3 wrote:Definition of debate
noun-
a formal discussion on a particular matter, in which opposing arguments are put forward:
You don't debate plugger. You tell people they are wrong because you are all knowing.
I could construct pages on this topic but posters don't like seeing responses clogging up the various topics.
Also disappointed.
That isnt true. Your imagination is getting in the way of facts. When did i say you were wrong. I told you about Davey and gave a reason why I think you are wrong. I gave answers to your questions or made statements on what your reading of the rule is. If you cant handle debating it then fine. Very disappointing though. Could have been a good discussion if you told me what was incorrect with what i said. Its your choice though so now you are on the list.
Your very first retort started with "Davey did no such thing". You did not say, gee, your being a bit harsh or I don't think he would have done that. That's a pretty definitive statement, which cannot be read in any other manner other than you inferring I was wrong. That is not imagining anything and is the truth. You said it!
Happy to debate anytime, with any poster.
And you said this. Davey propped (read squibbed) and avoided the inevitable contact. There was no IMO or maybe he did this. Its exactly the same thing. Love you to explain the difference apart from you calling an AFL footballer a squib.
That a very definitive statement which cannot be read in any other manner and not even inferring he was gutless. This is not imagining anything and is the truth. You said it. Happy to debate anytime.
Viking3 wrote:Definition of debate
noun-
a formal discussion on a particular matter, in which opposing arguments are put forward:
You don't debate plugger. You tell people they are wrong because you are all knowing.
I could construct pages on this topic but posters don't like seeing responses clogging up the various topics.
Also disappointed.
That isnt true. Your imagination is getting in the way of facts. When did i say you were wrong. I told you about Davey and gave a reason why I think you are wrong. I gave answers to your questions or made statements on what your reading of the rule is. If you cant handle debating it then fine. Very disappointing though. Could have been a good discussion if you told me what was incorrect with what i said. Its your choice though so now you are on the list.
Your very first retort started with "Davey did no such thing". You did not say, gee, your being a bit harsh or I don't think he would have done that. That's a pretty definitive statement, which cannot be read in any other manner other than you inferring I was wrong. That is not imagining anything and is the truth. You said it!
Happy to debate anytime, with any poster.
And you said this. Davey propped (read squibbed) and avoided the inevitable contact. There was no IMO or maybe he did this. Its exactly the same thing. Love you to explain the difference apart from you calling an AFL footballer a squib.
That a very definitive statement which cannot be read in any other manner and not even inferring he was gutless. This is not imagining anything and is the truth. You said it. Happy to debate anytime.[/quote]
Your right, it is the same thing, but I'm not shying away from what my opinion is or anything that I've said, so I can't see the point in you paraphrasing it.
I haven't said anyone's opinion is incorrect. You're the one changing his story from you were wrong ("Davey did no such thing") to "when did I say you were wrong".
Thank you and goodnight.
Give me one flag & I'll go to my grave a happy man.
Viking3 wrote:Yep, I've seen it!!! A number of times actually. Why would I comment on it if I hadn't???
So, all umpiring decisions are correct according to your post, seeing as you are specifically pointing me to his ruling.
Davey propped (read squibbed) and avoided the inevitable contact, knowing all too well that under the new rule he would be rewarded for doing so. Put on a great show too!!
Our ex-own Jason Gram would have loved the new rule and how it is being interpreted. Get to the ball second and get rewarded. That's not how our game should be played.
Mind you, and I repeat, if a player slides in to take out the player WITH the ball, then yes, he should be penalised.
The Rules Panel's screwing around of all things 'how football should be played' is ruining our great game very quickly.
Davey did no such thing. You do realise that Davey was tripped by the player sliding in so if umpires hadnt become lax on that rule it should have been a free for tripping. I have a serious question. Have you followed footy for a while because sliding in to get the ball is a relatively new thing. There is no need to slide in. Players 10 years ago got the ball first without sliding in.
And can you tell me the rules that are ruining the game. Not the ones you dont like, the ones that are ruining the game and how those particular rules are ruining the game.
Alwyn Davey wrote:I planted my feet and as soon as he hit my legs I sort of just went with the roll over. We've been training the last two weeks with tackling and the sliding rule as well, so yeah, it's paying off.
The bottom line is that Davey avoided going for the ball and waited for a free kick.
The first game of the 2013 season sees the new rule exploited.
Well done, AFL Rules Committee, well done!
Life Long Saint wrote:
The bottom line is that Davey avoided going for the ball and waited for a free kick.
The first game of the 2013 season sees the new rule exploited.
Well done, AFL Rules Committee, well done!
Maybe we can exploit it in similar ways depending on how the rule is interpreted from here on in.
Viking3 wrote:Yep, I've seen it!!! A number of times actually. Why would I comment on it if I hadn't???
So, all umpiring decisions are correct according to your post, seeing as you are specifically pointing me to his ruling.
Davey propped (read squibbed) and avoided the inevitable contact, knowing all too well that under the new rule he would be rewarded for doing so. Put on a great show too!!
Our ex-own Jason Gram would have loved the new rule and how it is being interpreted. Get to the ball second and get rewarded. That's not how our game should be played.
Mind you, and I repeat, if a player slides in to take out the player WITH the ball, then yes, he should be penalised.
The Rules Panel's screwing around of all things 'how football should be played' is ruining our great game very quickly.
Davey did no such thing. You do realise that Davey was tripped by the player sliding in so if umpires hadnt become lax on that rule it should have been a free for tripping. I have a serious question. Have you followed footy for a while because sliding in to get the ball is a relatively new thing. There is no need to slide in. Players 10 years ago got the ball first without sliding in.
And can you tell me the rules that are ruining the game. Not the ones you dont like, the ones that are ruining the game and how those particular rules are ruining the game.
Alwyn Davey wrote:I planted my feet and as soon as he hit my legs I sort of just went with the roll over. We've been training the last two weeks with tackling and the sliding rule as well, so yeah, it's paying off.
The bottom line is that Davey avoided going for the ball and waited for a free kick.
The first game of the 2013 season sees the new rule exploited.
Well done, AFL Rules Committee, well done!
Sorry I missed where he said he squibbed it. That is what I was having a go at if you look at a couple of posts. And fancy a player trying to milk a free kick. Cant beleive it. Doesnt change my opinion it will be a good rule.
Alwyn Davey wrote:I planted my feet and as soon as he hit my legs I sort of just went with the roll over. We've been training the last two weeks with tackling and the sliding rule as well, so yeah, it's paying off.
The bottom line is that Davey avoided going for the ball and waited for a free kick.
The first game of the 2013 season sees the new rule exploited.
Well done, AFL Rules Committee, well done!
Sorry I missed where he said he squibbed it. That is what I was having a go at if you look at a couple of posts. And fancy a player trying to milk a free kick. Cant beleive it. Doesnt change my opinion it will be a good rule.
There is a case for being a called a squib when a player deliberately avoids a contest.
Is milking a free (and knowing that you'll always get it) not exploiting a rule? I don't really see the difference. As the umpires are never going to call play on in that situation.
Once again, an obvious committee room rule that will clearly have unintended consequences.
Sorry I missed where he said he squibbed it. That is what I was having a go at if you look at a couple of posts. And fancy a player trying to milk a free kick. Cant beleive it. Doesnt change my opinion it will be a good rule.
There is a case for being a called a squib when a player deliberately avoids a contest.
Is milking a free (and knowing that you'll always get it) not exploiting a rule? I don't really see the difference. As the umpires are never going to call play on in that situation.
Once again, an obvious committee room rule that will clearly have unintended consequences.
He played for a free so if you thinks thats squibbing it so be it. Lots of squibs in the AFL then. Just about every type of free can have a player milking it. Doesnt matter if its a new or old rule. Doesnt make it a bad rule. How about giving it a chance to see if it works. Most do work and most improve the game. I know you think some dont. And i reckon the AFL rules committee know there will be unintended consequences will every rule change. They still have the new rule because they think it will improve the game.
Sorry I missed where he said he squibbed it. That is what I was having a go at if you look at a couple of posts. And fancy a player trying to milk a free kick. Cant beleive it. Doesnt change my opinion it will be a good rule.
There is a case for being a called a squib when a player deliberately avoids a contest.
Is milking a free (and knowing that you'll always get it) not exploiting a rule? I don't really see the difference. As the umpires are never going to call play on in that situation.
Once again, an obvious committee room rule that will clearly have unintended consequences.
He played for a free so if you thinks thats squibbing it so be it. Lots of squibs in the AFL then. Just about every type of free can have a player milking it. Doesnt matter if its a new or old rule. Doesnt make it a bad rule. How about giving it a chance to see if it works. Most do work and most improve the game. I know you think some dont. And i reckon the AFL rules committee know there will be unintended consequences will every rule change. They still have the new rule because they think it will improve the game.
I never said he was a squib because he played for a free. I said he was a squib because he avoided the contest. The Selwood boys play for frees all the time but they go into the contest to do so. Ergo, not squibs. Davey, avoided a contest. Ergo, is a squib.
If you try and milk a free for a high tackle by throwing the head back or a push in the back by throwing yourself forward the umpire can choose to call "play on". I don't see how the umpire can pay anything but a free under this rule.
The chance to see if it works should have been a number of pre-season competitions. Not four weeks of it and rush it in. Or trial it in the VFL, SANFL, WAFL or TAC Cup.
Remember the ill-fated play on for kicking backwards rule? They trialled that for at least one season in the VFL and it showed that it did nothing to stop flooding so it never made it in to the AFL. That was a rule well thought out and well trialled.
That's your model!
He said he played for the free. He knew the new rule. Or do you only believe a little of what he said. Anyway you are right.
And i remember the kicking backwards rule. The AFL rules committee never even wanted that rule. It was a pre season rule i think for one year and a VFL rule for about 3. it wasnt one that the rules committee even wanted trailed. They knew it wouldnt work.
plugger66 wrote:And i remember the kicking backwards rule. The AFL rules committee never even wanted that rule. It was a pre season rule i think for one year and a VFL rule for about 3. it wasnt one that the rules committee even wanted trailed. They knew it wouldnt work.
But it was a good way of giving the rule a chance to work or not work.
We always seem to be trying to push new rules in when they are not necessarily needed.
It smacks of justifying their existence.
plugger66 wrote:And i remember the kicking backwards rule. The AFL rules committee never even wanted that rule. It was a pre season rule i think for one year and a VFL rule for about 3. it wasnt one that the rules committee even wanted trailed. They knew it wouldnt work.
But it was a good way of giving the rule a chance to work or not work.
We always seem to be trying to push new rules in when they are not necessarily needed.
It smacks of justifying their existence.
I never get those comments. Why would they care if they exist. They all have proper jobs and apart from KB no one would even know the people on the committee and secondly they only recommend rule changes. The commission either say yes or no. There may be many that never get through. Most new rules work and most improve the game but you will always find people who hate even the best rule change.
Anyway i hope the rule change works because it will hopefully mean less packs. I dont hink it will make much difference to injuries.
An entity that exists to recommend rule changes would cease to exist if they said to the commission...
"you know what? We've had a good look at the game and don't think we need to make any rule changes or interpretation changes this season."
So, naturally, they make up rules and tweak current ones just to show they're relevant.
gringo wrote:I thought it seemed already to be poorly officiated and given very little common sense application. They seem to have a lot of trouble with the rules they have already why would you load them up with more messily worded rules.
If I was a coach I would be telling them to try to get contact to the legs EVERY TIME someone puts their head over the ball. It's a very easily exploited rule and it will substantially increase head high contact. Joel Selwood will break his own neck for a cheap free- this will be exploited in just the same way and will cause a serious injury and then be scrapped.
Im glad you mentioned selwood.
I have no doubt you would have been one of the people that screamed every time he dived in, got contact above the shoulders and was awarded a free kick.
and if you truly believe the umpires officiate poorly now, then why would you be worried about any changes,
you already believe the standard will not change.
I do think joel selwood ducks into the tackle which once was not played to the person who ducks to make contact. I guess it's wether you think ducking is bending from the waist only or dropping your knees.
Umpires have trouble interpreting the myriad rules already making rules that are hard to interpret can't make it stay the same only make it worse.
I was only talking about the NEW rule not umpiring. Why bring in a rule that they don't know how to apply???
Did you say the contact was forceful? Kidding aren't you!
Give me one flag & I'll go to my grave a happy man.
Viking3 wrote:I was only talking about the NEW rule not umpiring. Why bring in a rule that they don't know how to apply???
Did you say the contact was forceful? Kidding aren't you!
Please read my post. i said it wasnt forceful so it was a wrong decision. Do you only want rules that are paid correctly everytime because that will never happen. So if a new rule comes in and you make a mistake it is a bad rule. Yep that makes sense. And if it is an old rule and you make a mistake it is ok.
Viking3 wrote:Hey Plugs,
What do you think about the ridiculous sliding rule now?
Bl00dy stupid rule, one of many ruining the game.
I think it was an incorrect decision because it was forceful contact below the knees. Is that the only incorrect decision tonight?
I did read your post. As it says "I think it was incorrect because IT WAS forceful contact...."
If they get a decision that wrong it is likely due to the rule itself.
Try and stay focused, we are talking the NEW rule not all rules.
Hope your team wins!!
Give me one flag & I'll go to my grave a happy man.
Viking3 wrote:Hey Plugs,
What do you think about the ridiculous sliding rule now?
Bl00dy stupid rule, one of many ruining the game.
I think it was an incorrect decision because it was forceful contact below the knees. Is that the only incorrect decision tonight?
I did read your post. As it says "I think it was incorrect because IT WAS forceful contact...."
If they get a decision that wrong it is likely due to the rule itself.
Try and stay focused, we are talking the NEW rule not all rules.
Hope your team wins!!
Sorry. I meant wasnt forceful contact and said that earlier in another thread. And whether its a new or old rule makes no difference. They were always new rules once and always made mistakes.
