#42 Adam Saad


No I didn’t and I’m disappointed that you did!


Watching Bartlett had it’s moments.
As a kid I saw a little old lady lean over the fence and whack him with her brolly.
Football gold.


And has there ever been a better comb over grace a footy team?


Lol I remember that. KB maybe the reason for a couple of rule changes.
Holding the ball if tackled while bouncing, and no more brollys at the footy. :joy:


The bouncing action started before he was tackled. So it’s play on. If he bounced while been tackled it dropping the ball.


It doesn’t work that way.
The rule is there so that you don’t bounce as you’re about to get tackled.


What Deckham said.


I have no problem with the bounce being considered “still in possession”… to avoid the Bartlett situations BUT I still believe the tackler must lay a proper tackle. I know it isn’t currently interpreted like that but I’d love to see a change. So the “bouncer” still has to be held or otherwise impeded from recovering the ball… not touched by a fingernail…


AFL umpires dept review last year had McKenna free as umpire error, because it wasn’t a tackle. I hadn’t known they saw it that way.

Watched a bit of port- Geelong last night. At one stage a ball carrier (not bouncing, it must be said) took a while to get the ball off under a sort-of, not quite, sliding tackle. The ump clearly yelled “play on, no tackle”.

I reckon these are promising signs (that they undestand a tackle needs to be a tackle). Personally I’d have paid Saad play on, but that’s much more grey than McKenna. I’d concede Saad got tackled (although it didn’t nail him completely) but I reckon he got the ball off reasonably quickly. Under the rules the question is whether his kick was “immediate” once tackled, as he had prior. I reckon the bounce should have been irrelevant under the rules.

The game is better with Saad allowed as play on, imo. I would hope they trend towards that. But rest easy on the McKenna call - they agree it was wrong!


My question is why we leave it up to the umpires?
It’s a hard enough job to enforce the rules, they shouldn’t be the ones making up the rules / “interpretations”.

If/when I run the AFL as a benevolent dictatorship, first thing I’d do would be review all the rules so they actually reflect how the game is played and umpired, not how it was played in the 1910s.


Can I be your trusted Lieutenant and secret executioner?

You could keep your hands clean while I eliminated those no longer needed, and perhaps re-educate some others.


Can you take it back to how it was played in 1985?


I liked that footy a lot but whatever you do with rules or interpretations of them, the game won’t be played like it was then because of coaching approaches, which is tied to fitness and skill levels available to those coaches.


Yeah I agree. The McKenna one was a joke last year. I didn’t have a problem with the Saad one though cause that was been consistently called over the years.


I don’t rate Saad at all.

Didn’t know what the big fuss was about getting this guy. Yeah he is quick, yeah he can run past players, and yeah he can straight into trouble too.


A lot of blind running today. Seems to be under the impression that him breaking a line will encourage a team mate to provide a target…


Gold Coast are above us on the ladder, poor bloke.


Saad is a wonderful get for us, but does need to assess the option. He also looked to be carrying an injury today. Barely broke pace.


Did anyone break pace today?


Surprised by the criticism of him.
Only guy who tried to create something off half back instead of chipping it around.
Also goes in hard .
I rate him.