AFL round 14 ‘Round-Up’
Says it all.
I wonder what ‘the highlight’ of round 14 was? Amazingly the St Kilda v Geelong ‘game of the century’ lived up to all the hype and expectation, and then some. How long since you’ve seen a game that good, that exciting and of such a high calibre by both sides? I can’t recall one. Let’s hope the two meet in the GF and do it all over again (with the same result!).
I don’t want to harp on about the Saints’ win – and neither do they - so I’ll just say that it’s better to have won it than lost it, despite the denials coming out of the Geelong camp. As for the rest of the round, here’s the ’round-up’ with my ’expert’, incisive and smart arse ’witty’ comments:
Essendon lost to Collingwood : In what I’d describe as ‘the anti-climax of the year’. I wasn’t impressed by either side, although it’s good to let the C’wood fans ‘think’ they’re a chance this year – they’re not.
Melbourne defeated West Coast : No surprise, given the ‘Stynes factor’. The sad part is I reckon the Melbourne players will think that’s all they had to do and next week they’ll be back to their lack-lustre selves. I doubt they’ll win another game this year and, in some ways, this performance was an indictment of the players and the whole club. It shouldn’t take something like Stynes’ serious illness to get them to go in hard and play a game out.
Pt Adelaide defeated Brisbane : Denying me another ‘perfect 8′. On form, Port were no chance but then again, the ‘golden rule’ said they’d win because when two interstate sides play … yeah, PICK THE HOME TEAM !
Richmond lost to Adelaide : And the people on the Gold Coast where it was played couldn’t care less. Neither could I.
Bulldogs defeated annihilated Hawthorn : How good was it to see Footscray kick 13 goals to nothing in the first half? Last year’s Premiers are a joke, a rabble and … cactus. Good. As for the Bulldogs, well they’re very good and they’ll finish well clear of 13 other clubs and … that’s about it. Hey, Akers is still a force!
Sydney defeated Nth Melbourne : A lot of people have written the Swans off this year but I reckon they’re still a chance for top 4. A lot of people have written North off too – including me.
Fremantle lost to Carlton : After leading at 3/4 time – again! Trust Freo to be the only team in the past few years to lose to Carlton away from Melbourne. But I knew they would!
St Kilda defeated Geelong : I think enough has been said about this game. Well OK then, not quite enough. This game proved that St Kilda has a better balance of attack & defence whereas Geelong are very heavily reliant on that dynamic mid-field. Mind you, it’s served them pretty well. Great game. Special mention to Michael Gardiner, not just for ‘that mark’ and winning goal, but also for his whole performance and the amazing resurrection of his once defunct career.
Highlight of the round : Yes, that’s right, see above.
Lowlight: The Friday night fizzer at The G in front of 80,000 fans, who should all receive a refund for paying good money to see Collingwood & Essendon try to out-bore each other with their dumb, silly, short-game brand of footy played around the boundary line. What a yawn and what a pity there had to be a winner.
Tipping results: Ray 7, Baldrick 5
Year to date: Ray 80, Baldrick 80 (game on!)
Contact: ray@grevilleagardens.com
Click 
St.Kilda, can’t be beaten.
Forget that, who’s going to win the tipping contest? 80 apiece.
The highlight was a former drug cheat taking a winning mark that included dangerous high contact.
Of course he’s a “former” drug user – he played for West Coast. But we’ve straightened him up at ‘drug free’ St Kilda (we got over the party drugs in the 70s & 80s). As for the “high contact”, Taylor should just keep his head out of the way when the big men are flying for the ball.
Hehe wah. You’re even more one eyed than me.
I say fair play, it was a reckless attempt at a mark which he carried off. Poor Harry was a casualty in the exchange. His injury was unintentional, Gardiner seemed to have eyes only on the ball, that might explain why it fell in his arms. Had he not have taken the mark, it may well have been called reckless but these are the vagaries of a totally inconsistent application of stupid rules. How many times have we seen a dangerous attempt at a mark paid if they hold it and then if it drops they pay a free kick. Try explaining the rules to a person new to the game.
As for who wins the tipping between us Raymond, who cares? Not even an infamous ABC Fridge magnet to the winner. And whilst I make ridiculous tips like I did with the draw with no chance of picking up a point…….
it was a reckless attempt at a mark which he carried off
Somehow you just contradicted yourself. How can it be “reckless” if he carries it off? What was he supposed to do, hang back and say to himself,
“Oh look, the scores are level, there’s a minute to go, Luke Ball has kicked the ball beautifully to the top of the square hoping one of us big guys will fly in and mark it and win the game for us. I’m on the fat side with a perfect run at it, I think if I really make a big effort I can grab it. Oh but hang on, young Harry is in there and I wouldn’t want to knock him over in the process. That would be reckless of me.”
It’s not soccer!
Was a great mark, was fishing for a reaction Ray. Fair answer. I’ll say nothing about the other St Kilda goal kicker who should be in jail for rape. (Joke Ray, a joke)
My real highlight of the round was being out on Saturday night and asking someone if they could read the score in the corner of the TV because I could not believe that in the third quarter the Western Bulldogs were 88 and Hawthorn 4.
Loved that Bulldogs game too.
No, I won’t react to your comment Wah, but Baldrick’s definition of “reckless attempt to mark” is way out. It’s not “reckless” if your intent is to mark and your eyes are on the ball. There is a rule for recklessly crashing into packs and making head high contact so the incident was in no way a blight on the game or our rules.
The other highlight for me was seeing Freo crumble again.
Not even an infamous ABC Fridge magnet to the winner
Maybe we need a prize? How about we get the biggest follower of this website to donate something …. an exemption for the winner on his council rates would be nice.
It was a fantastic mark, not denying that, and as you read I indicated that Taylor was unfortunate in landing awkwardly after being accidentally knocked in the head by Gardiner.
You missed my point. I was railing against stupid AFL rules in general, not that incident specifically. Although I was saying that had he not marked it, it “may” have been a free kick. I wouldn’t have given it as a free because there is so much subjective interpretion, that one minute a rule is a rule and the next it ain’t. He took it and hence it was a mark, if he didn’t it ‘might’ have been paid against him.
And using your own logic, I can write a piece of drivel about “oh here comes Gardiner, it’s his birthday and he is a big bloke and I better get out his way”.
He had every right to attempt to mark that ball.
And yes it is not soccer, laissez-faire rules are more appropriate in Australia. We couldn’t over officiate like in soccer where the crowds have left in droves and no-one plays it any more.
Baldrick, if he’d dropped the mark it would not have been a free kick against him because he was clearly flying for the ball. As I said above, there is a rule about recklessly crashing into another player and especially when head high contact is made.
I don’t think the rule in that regard is “stupid”. There are, however, many stupid rules, I agree with that. Blame Andrew & Andy. Here’s one example:
In the last quarter a Geelong player took a mark near St Kilda’s goal line. He went back behind the line and then played on in the other direction while still out of play. The umpire (correctly) called it a ‘rushed behind’ for St Kilda. However, as it was deliberately rushed (ie he deliberately played on) under the new rule for deliberately rushed behinds, the umpire should have awarded St Kilda a free kick, right in front of goals. He didn’t.
I’m not complaining about that but I think it’s one of those anomalies in the game they haven’t sorted out yet or even thought of. The real problem is that umpires don’t enforce the rules correctly in the first place. Actually, there was no need to introduce the ‘deliberate rushed behind’ rule because a deliberately rushed behind is ‘deliberately’ putting the ball out of bounds and there was already a rule for that.
Btw, my piece of “drivel” on Gardiner was not meant to be “logical”, it was irony. You were implying that Gardiner was reckless. The reverse scenario does not apply to Taylor’s situation.
That Taylor rushed behind was harsh. He took the mark inside the line and walked stepped back over the line to have a kick. There’s no way it was deliberate.
He tried to play on by running the other side of the goal post. If you attempt to play on behind the line it’s out of bounds so, in that case it was a rushed behind. And, as the ‘playing on’ was a deliberate and intentional action it’s technically a deliberately rushed behind and the way they’ve worded the new rule it should have been a free to St Kilda.
As I said, I’m not complaining about it, it was more to show Baldrick that it’s the interpretation that is the problem, not the rules. And they’ve mucked this up by introducing a new rule when the old one – deliberate out of bounds – would have done.
But his intention was not to stop play and regroup, such what we saw with thise cheats Hawthorn. He actually passed the ball to a player in the pocket and the ball was called back. He was pinged on a technicality.
The poor bastard also had that unfortunate out on the full when the ball bounced off his leg which resulted in another Gardner goal.
It wasn’t a “technicality”. If you’re taking a kick from a mark or a free from behind the line and you deviate and go to play other than ‘over your mark’ it’s instantly out of bounds. Because you haven’t brought it in correctly.
And he was pinged for that. The deliberate rushed behind rule was made to stop blatant abuse and not in run of play. I think they’ve enforced the rule properly this season.
What actually should have happened there was he was called back to take the kick and a point not registered.
It’s always been the case that if you play on from behind the goal line by heading in another direction before you cross back into the field of play, it’s a rushed behind.
The new rule had nothing to do with the umpire’s decision, and my point was that “technically” – under the new rule – the umpire should have awarded the Saints a free.
But I don’t want to make a big deal about it.
Big Baz is quitting the Swans
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/07/2619145.htm
Thanks Rox. Good riddance to him. St Kilda were better off without him and the Swans will be too. How’s this comment from the ABC comments section:
Big Yin:
07 Jul 2009 2:12:57pm
He only ever got in strife when he retaliated. I hope the likes of Staker & Wakelin are content, now that their actions have helped force Barry out of the game! Pity Barry didn’t break Staker’s jaw, it would have served him right for mauling & hanging all over Barry!
What a dickhead.
I’ve been avoiding your blog since the game, Ray. But to be there was amazing! Saints really did kill it, although to me it was neck and neck throughout the game.. Geelong maybe impressed me more than your boys. Also, my dad is still cursing about the unfairness of the last mark, and to be honest there were a lot of dubious calls. Still the crowd was wild, record breaking attendance and I even clapped for your boys at the end!
Oh well, LuLi, I guess you won’t be convinced that St Kilda was (and is) the better side until we beat you again.
Former Swan Darryl Cresswell has been denied bail on six fraud charges and is being held in Sydney, preparatory to being sent to Qld to face trial.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25749369-661,00.html
The Swans ARE having a good week aren’t they?