Agree. I hope Jenkins doesn’t get up, he’s the one I worry about kicking a bag. Hartley would be the right match up for him imo
I’m happy to back Hurley in, Jenkins ain’t that good.
But yeah, Hartley is certainly the right match up for him.
1 Like
Based on the Law of Essendon are ■■■■.
1 Like
Is there one you don’t think that sun shines out of their backside?
1 Like
It’s one of those weeks that I wish boot still had the ban hammer
Langford has a billions more potential than Ambrose.
But what Ambrose has over a lot of players is a work ethic and heart that will always win over pure talent.
6 Likes
Potential is such a dirty word. Basically saying the player could be ok but they’re currently ■■■■
He was, but he literally nearly killed Weitering by shunting him into Hurley’s head.
Loved the floating chest mark he took in the third qtr…he is getting the most out of himself
1 Like
Checked the stats, … Guess who had the highest 1% ers yet again …
Bit down on disposal efficiency though, … only went at 80% tonight. 
Somehow ends up last in the list for AFL Fantasy points, … which proves yet again what a
crock of 
they are.
(Lol, this borked out puritanical swear filter just censored the poop emoji, … fkn lol)
3 Likes
Played well in a tough outing.
That marking of his own kick was elite. I have never seen that before.
3 Likes
He didn’t actually mark his own kick there, he just marked the ball.
The commentators couldn’t see that what happened was he got his foot under the ball, which was kicked out of the backline by a Crow, and then he followed it up and took the mark with a 2nd grab, … no different than if it had come off his fist.
A surprisingly good umpiring decision.
10 Likes
Played well again, has become our best KPD
[quote=“BLOODSTAINED_DEVILS, post:2461, topic:1063, full:true”]
He didn’t actually mark his own kick there, he just marked the ball.
The commentators couldn’t see that what happened was he got his foot under the ball, which was kicked out of the backline by a Crow, and then he followed it up and took the mark with a 2nd grab, … no different than if it had come off his fist.
A surprisingly good umpiring decision.
[/quote]Once it comes off his foot doesn’t it become a ‘new’ kick though which has to travel 15m? I mean if instead of poppping up to him it ricocheted out of on the full it would have counted as a kick then.
3 Likes
Interestingly, took game high intercept marks [ 3 ], and this is an emerging feature of his game having taken 2-3 in several of the previous games.
A quick check reveals it is not common for players to take more than 3 intercept marks in any game except for freaks like Jeremy McGovern and Jake Carlisle when he was on fire.
2 Likes
[quote=“GuzzLG, post:2463, topic:1063, full:true”]
All that is correct if it comes off his boot to someone else, or as you say, OOBOTF, … but if you take it yourself, it would have to be a second touch/grab mark.
And it’s really the only reason the ump could pay it,… because I don’t think you can actually mark your own kick, o/wise we’d surely see it happen at times. It’s not that hard to kick the ball high enough to run after it and mark it past 15 metres, … and even if you could, that one clearly did not travel the 15…
The ump incorrectly paid the mark
/discussion
Pretty sure I’ve seen marks that at some point touched the marking player under the knees?
1 Like
A Mark is taken if, in the opinion of the field Umpire, a Player catches or takes control of the football:
(a) within the Playing Surface; and
(b) after it has been Kicked by another Player a distance of at least 15 metres; and
© which has not touched the ground or been touched by another Player during the period when the football was Kicked until it was caught or controlled by the Player.
So according to the rule book Paddy could have actually kicked the ball as far as he likes and still be paid themark
2 Likes
Hmm. Depends on whether his kick cancels clause B or not. I’d like to think that’s written in the “interpretations” somewhere, but I somehow doubt it is.