Paul 'Poppy' Puopolo is Lindsey Thomas' successor as the weakest and worst player in the league


#81

So if you bend over to pick up the ball and get taken high, it’s your fault. If you have the ball and drop your knees or lift your arms though, it’s still a free.

So guys who go hard for the ball have been “disincentivised” but cheats like Thomas can continue as before.


#82
I don't like him at all but in this case it is more about the game than the playa. The umpires need to get on top of it.

and yet there’s hundreds of players in the same game not doing it.

Indeed but there are also plenty who are clever enough to exploit the rules. Selwood bending at the knees whenever he gets tackled springs to mind. I don’t like it but if a player is clever enough to earn a free because of a crappy umpire interpretation, fair play to him (except when they are playing against us of course).

Calling it ‘clever’ is one thing (which it isn’t), calling it ‘fair play’ is another thing entirely.

I didn’t call it fair play. I actually put it down to poor umpire interpretations. The sum of my view is that if a player is smart enough to milk a free kick because of poor umpiring interpretations, fair play to him. Does that make sense? Darren Bewick used to be the master of it.

I guess not. You’ve used the term ‘fair play’ twice now and both times i’m reading it as ‘he’s exploiting a rule in a way that is not in the spirit of the game’.

I treat it the same as “he hit him off the ball but there were no cameras pointed at them so fair play to him”.


#83
So if you bend over to pick up the ball and get taken high, it's your fault. If you have the ball and drop your knees or lift your arms though, it's still a free.

So guys who go hard for the ball have been “disincentivised” but cheats like Thomas can continue as before.


I’m surprised The Fan Disincentiviser wasn’t Wayne Campbell’s nickname through his playing coaching and ump bossing career.

#84

Remind umpires that free kicks are paid against someone, not for someone.
Wouldn’t fix everything, but would change the context we have now for the better.


#85
Remind umpires that free kicks are paid against someone, not for someone. Wouldn't fix everything, but would change the context we have now for the better.

■■■■■■■ well said.

the cynic in me though, reckons people who think a person can earn the reward of someone else being punished are the kind of people who find umpiring an attractive career.


#86
I don't like him at all but in this case it is more about the game than the playa. The umpires need to get on top of it.

and yet there’s hundreds of players in the same game not doing it.

Indeed but there are also plenty who are clever enough to exploit the rules. Selwood bending at the knees whenever he gets tackled springs to mind. I don’t like it but if a player is clever enough to earn a free because of a crappy umpire interpretation, fair play to him (except when they are playing against us of course).

Calling it ‘clever’ is one thing (which it isn’t), calling it ‘fair play’ is another thing entirely.

I didn’t call it fair play. I actually put it down to poor umpire interpretations. The sum of my view is that if a player is smart enough to milk a free kick because of poor umpiring interpretations, fair play to him. Does that make sense? Darren Bewick used to be the master of it.

I guess not. You’ve used the term ‘fair play’ twice now and both times i’m reading it as ‘he’s exploiting a rule in a way that is not in the spirit of the game’.

I treat it the same as “he hit him off the ball but there were no cameras pointed at them so fair play to him”.

You’ve clearly never lived with Scottish backpackers. I have no problems with you having a different opinion to me but I suspect we would have a similar POV on the role umpiring has in removing the milking of head high contact free kicks from the game.
Let's keep it within the AFL's purview.

The problem is, what can the umpires do? These players aren’t ducking their heads per se so that interpretation can’t be applied. An accidental head high tackle is still a free kick. So what we’re asking is the umpires to guess whether a player dropping their knees is intentional to draw the free or whether they are simply falling and the opponent is laying a clumsy tackle. Relies on so much guesswork and inexact interpretations and that is, in general, becoming an even bigger problem these days.

I don’t know how to fix it to be honest.


#87

This issue isn’t something that is about the way a game is adjudicated. It is more about something that needs to be made an example by the AFL themselves.

The AFL essentially need to advise that ducking, milking free kicks and dropping the knees when receiving contact is not only a blight on the game but dangerous as part of the contest. And hence if during post match reviews the AFL deems a player to have performed in a manner that is not in spirit of the contest that the player will be fined $1000 by the match review panel.

I mean ffs they fines Jetta for diving and that was hardly a blight on the contest.

Target the perpetrators instead of messing with the rules.


#88

Here’s my draconian solution.

It’s effin hard to constantly and correctly adjudicate things like intentional ducking while on the ground. On TV, it’s pretty easy. That’s why we have ‘reviews’ for goals and also for report-able offenses.

So…umpires adjudicate as best they can in-game. If it’s an obvious dive, it’s a free against etc.
In review, post game, when you can see things clearly…if a player has intentionally dived for a free or head-high, then a penalty can apply - to the entire team. See, it’s useless making it a fine. So Lindsay pays $5k to get a free and goal - big effin deal. That’s just buying goals. Noooo…

In my Draconian world, a cheating ■■■■ diver will cost the team % points. I’ll say ‘2% per dive’.
Take that, c*cksucker.


#89

You should send that to Wayne Campbell.

I like your draconian thinking!


#90

Lol but a fine is one thing, media exposure for getting a fine for something like that is a WHOLE different kettle of tea.

I am sure he cops it enough but get a fine that put’s it onto a pedestal of him knowing that he is being called out.


#91
This issue isn't something that is about the way a game is adjudicated. It is more about something that needs to be made an example by the AFL themselves.

The AFL essentially need to advise that ducking, milking free kicks and dropping the knees when receiving contact is not only a blight on the game but dangerous as part of the contest. And hence if during post match reviews the AFL deems a player to have performed in a manner that is not in spirit of the contest that the player will be fined $1000 by the match review panel.

I mean ffs they fines Jetta for diving and that was hardly a blight on the contest.

Target the perpetrators instead of messing with the rules.

That seems to be the only way to do it.


#92
This issue isn't something that is about the way a game is adjudicated. It is more about something that needs to be made an example by the AFL themselves.

The AFL essentially need to advise that ducking, milking free kicks and dropping the knees when receiving contact is not only a blight on the game but dangerous as part of the contest. And hence if during post match reviews the AFL deems a player to have performed in a manner that is not in spirit of the contest that the player will be fined $1000 by the match review panel.

I mean ffs they fines Jetta for diving and that was hardly a blight on the contest.

Target the perpetrators instead of messing with the rules.

That seems to be the only way to do it.

But … but … Joel Selwood


#93
So if you bend over to pick up the ball and get taken high, it's your fault. If you have the ball and drop your knees or lift your arms though, it's still a free.

So guys who go hard for the ball have been “disincentivised” but cheats like Thomas can continue as before.

Maximum Disincentivisation.


#94

It comes down to whether they want the game to be played in the right spirit or whether they want their Klinnsman, C Ronaldo, Luis Suarez types in the game. It’s akin to a soccer player rather than just diving, but actually going into the penalty box and going after the defenders’ feet to clip them on purpose thus causing themselves to fall over.

I would argue that there should be no free kick awarded purely because the defender in both AFL & world football were not the ones who caused the infringements but rather the player with the ball so to say that it’s a high contact is technically incorrect. For example, if I put my knee out to mark the ball and you run into my knee on purpose after I’ve extended it, well stiff cheddar. Problem obviously is how do the umps officiate on this… the only real solution at this stage is that use the video replays after games on ones they are not sure about and introduce fines/suspensions for such actions.

If that happens, gees it could end Lindsay’s career the flog.


#95

I wouldn’t put Thomas in the equivalent ilk of those mentioned Soccer players


#96
I wouldn't put Thomas in the equivalent ilk of those mentioned Soccer players

True … even Thomas is harder than those guys


#97

lol


#98

Remember this?

CARLTON spearhead Jarrad Waite isn’t embarrassed by his reprimand for staging, saying he has been able to laugh off the incident with Tiger Jake King.

Waite staged for a free kick shortly after he tackled King to the ground in the third quarter of the Carlton-Richmond game at the MCG last Thursday night.

As Waite lay on top of King briefly, the Tiger toe-poked him in the chest – an action that earned King a $900 fine for unnecessary contact – prompting Waite to put his hand to his face as though he’d been hit.

Waite told AFL.com.au on Thursday he had suffered a blood nose in his tackle on King, but conceded his reaction to the Tiger’s toe-poke had not looked good.

“I wouldn’t say (it was) embarrassing, I’d say more funny,” Waite said.

Clearly if this is the reaction to a charge it isn’t treated harshly enough. That’s issue 1 for me.

Issue 2 is AFL won’t want to admit that it’s umpires are getting constantly fooled into giving frees, so they have set this to ignore mode and only the really obvious ones getting pinged (very occasionally). I doubt this even comes close to being an issue to the AFL


#99

You’d think the media would use the term ‘spirit of the game’ and an article related to this.

It almost writes itself with the self imposed outrage, high horse possibilities and thinking of the children imitating players.


#100
"We say a shrug is OK if there is head high contact. If you drop your knees that will continue to be a free kick because it's really hard to adjudicate if it is not," Campbell said.

So, in summary, they’re not going to change anything.

Thomas and Selwood are experts in high contact inducing techniques, which are done in a range of combinations

  1. Knee drops. Tackling players arm naturally slips upwards relative to players neck.
  2. Shoulder drop. Tackling players arm naturally slips upwards relative to players neck as Thomas drops his shoulder.
  3. Arm lift. Tackling players arm is pushed upwards upwards relative to players neck.

Only practiced by a handful of players. I hate this mainly because most of the 600 players on the AFL lists do not do this.

Then there is the head bump method.
Player with head down deliberately runs into a player to milk a free: Dangerous, you do this, you risk your neck…

Then there are the "advertising " or “acting” techniques.
Throwing the head back: As perfected by Goodes
Diving out of a contest. ( as if pushed in the back… very common in the AFL in all teams including EFC)

Dont like this much, but its quite common and maybe justified if the umpire is in the wrong place. I have some sympathy for players who are pushed in the back during marking contests