SA Footy

MW wrote:

Booney wrote:Rent - property etc. Sorry if the link was tenuous.

Ironically your link is living rent free

Its like 10,000 spoons, when all you need is a knife

Booney wrote:

Not sure its going to be umpired a whole lot better albeit the terminologies are clearer real time is going to be a quick second judgement call still.

Not really that much of a change...….personally i always considered a drop the same as the duck so really they are pretty much the same thing. Going to be interesting to see how Ginnivan is umpired with the difference between 'staying low' vs dropping/ducking. The one Ginnivan is good at is when he picks up the ball in a low position, stays in the bent position and swivels which isn't really a drive either.

The hard one to umpire is going to be the shrug, especially given when a player tackles high the bloke in possession attempts to fend off vs raises the tackler umpire. I can see that causing even further grey area and inconsistency.

Not sure about the rule in the drive that says 'near' stationary. That's as grey as it comes, surely he either stationary or not stationary.

The rule of the week is now : Duck and get tackled high whilst holding the ball = holding the ball

My concern is this latest version of rule of the week change is too close to finals or too late in the season to implement
If the AFL wanna change rules I think they should do it pre season, or better still pre draft
'

This has been the rule for quite awhile now they just haven't been applying it correctly.

Zelezny Chucks wrote:This has been the rule for quite awhile now they just haven't been applying it correctly.

Joel Selwood started doing from day 1.
Now Ginni has perfected it.

You are correct its been a rule from day dot just not played by the umps.

tigerpie wrote:

Zelezny Chucks wrote:This has been the rule for quite awhile now they just haven't been applying it correctly.

Joel Selwood started doing from day 1.
Now Ginni has perfected it.

You are correct its been a rule from day dot just not played by the umps.

Difference between Selwood and Ginnivan is Selwood denied it whereas Ginnivan bragged it was his intention to do it and get the free.

MW wrote:

tigerpie wrote:

Zelezny Chucks wrote:This has been the rule for quite awhile now they just haven't been applying it correctly.

Joel Selwood started doing from day 1.
Now Ginni has perfected it.

You are correct its been a rule from day dot just not played by the umps.

Difference between Selwood and Ginnivan is Selwood denied it whereas Ginnivan bragged it was his intention to do it and get the free.

I still say Selwood doesn't "duck" as such but definitely drops his knees & rolls the shoulder to gain a free.
Ginnivin just stays low & dives his head into the opponent, Rowe is just as bad but they're not the only ones now doing it

cracka wrote:

MW wrote:

tigerpie wrote:

Zelezny Chucks wrote:This has been the rule for quite awhile now they just haven't been applying it correctly.

Joel Selwood started doing from day 1.
Now Ginni has perfected it.

You are correct its been a rule from day dot just not played by the umps.

Difference between Selwood and Ginnivan is Selwood denied it whereas Ginnivan bragged it was his intention to do it and get the free.

I still say Selwood doesn't "duck" as such but definitely drops his knees & rolls the shoulder to gain a free.
Ginnivin just stays low & dives his head into the opponent, Rowe is just as bad but they're not the only ones now doing it

Agree about Ginnivin, he is most likely to get done for the drive rule. In saying that the rule says front on where I find ginnivin tends to go across players when they come from a 45 degree angle. Look at the one against the Crows on the weekend that definitely wasn't what I would call front on.

Booney wrote:

Clear as mud.

Another rule that's become more grey than before. Thanks for the clarification AFL!

whufc wrote:

cracka wrote:

MW wrote:

tigerpie wrote:[quote="Zelezny Chucks"]This has been the rule for quite awhile now they just haven't been applying it correctly.

Joel Selwood started doing from day 1.
Now Ginni has perfected it.

You are correct its been a rule from day dot just not played by the umps.

Difference between Selwood and Ginnivan is Selwood denied it whereas Ginnivan bragged it was his intention to do it and get the free.

I still say Selwood doesn't "duck" as such but definitely drops his knees & rolls the shoulder to gain a free.
Ginnivin just stays low & dives his head into the opponent, Rowe is just as bad but they're not the only ones now doing it

Agree about Ginnivin, he is most likely to get done for the drive rule. In saying that the rule says front on where I find ginnivin tends to go across players when they come from a 45 degree angle. Look at the one against the Crows on the weekend that definitely wasn't what I would call front on.[/quote]Weightman is the worst. His knees turn to jelly when someone gets within 5m

Not sure where to ask this.

Does the dollars & length of the contract Brodie Grundy is currently on have to stay the same if he moves clubs. Can he agree to a new contract at a different club for less money & length. Eg if his current contract has 5 more years at 1.5 million a year, can he agree to a 3 year 1 million a year contract.

cracka wrote:Not sure where to ask this.

Does the dollars & length of the contract Brodie Grundy is currently on have to stay the same if he moves clubs. Can he agree to a new contract at a different club for less money & length. Eg if his current contract has 5 more years at 1.5 million a year, can he agree to a 3 year 1 million a year contract.

Why on earth would he do that?

MW wrote:

cracka wrote:Not sure where to ask this.

Does the dollars & length of the contract Brodie Grundy is currently on have to stay the same if he moves clubs. Can he agree to a new contract at a different club for less money & length. Eg if his current contract has 5 more years at 1.5 million a year, can he agree to a 3 year 1 million a year contract.

Why on earth would he do that?

Because apparently he wants out of Collingwood.
I didn't ask if he should, I asked can he.
Plus, it's fair to say he hasn't performed to the standard he was at when he signed the initial 7 year deal

cracka wrote:

MW wrote:

cracka wrote:Not sure where to ask this.

Does the dollars & length of the contract Brodie Grundy is currently on have to stay the same if he moves clubs. Can he agree to a new contract at a different club for less money & length. Eg if his current contract has 5 more years at 1.5 million a year, can he agree to a 3 year 1 million a year contract.

Why on earth would he do that?

Because apparently he wants out of Collingwood.
I didn't ask if he should, I asked can he.
Plus, it's fair to say he hasn't performed to the standard he was at when he signed the initial 7 year deal

More fool Collingwood. If he wants out he's an idiot.

cracka wrote:

MW wrote:

cracka wrote:Not sure where to ask this.

Does the dollars & length of the contract Brodie Grundy is currently on have to stay the same if he moves clubs. Can he agree to a new contract at a different club for less money & length. Eg if his current contract has 5 more years at 1.5 million a year, can he agree to a 3 year 1 million a year contract.

Why on earth would he do that?

Because apparently he wants out of Collingwood.
I didn't ask if he should, I asked can he.
Plus, it's fair to say he hasn't performed to the standard he was at when he signed the initial 7 year deal

He could. If a footballer ever felt guilty about someone signing them to a long term contract, then he'd feel obliged. But this hasn't and wont happen.

Booney wrote:

cracka wrote:

MW wrote:

cracka wrote:Not sure where to ask this.

Does the dollars & length of the contract Brodie Grundy is currently on have to stay the same if he moves clubs. Can he agree to a new contract at a different club for less money & length. Eg if his current contract has 5 more years at 1.5 million a year, can he agree to a 3 year 1 million a year contract.

Why on earth would he do that?

Because apparently he wants out of Collingwood.
I didn't ask if he should, I asked can he.
Plus, it's fair to say he hasn't performed to the standard he was at when he signed the initial 7 year deal

More fool Collingwood. If he wants out he's an idiot.

Totally agree. But can he if he realises money isn't everything. Tom Boyd gave up a lot more for his mental health & happiness & was widely praised.

He could only if Collingwood agree to it otherwise he needs to retire. Not sure what would happen or how long he would need to be out of the game to be able to walk to another club though.

cracka wrote:

MW wrote:

cracka wrote:Not sure where to ask this.

Does the dollars & length of the contract Brodie Grundy is currently on have to stay the same if he moves clubs. Can he agree to a new contract at a different club for less money & length. Eg if his current contract has 5 more years at 1.5 million a year, can he agree to a 3 year 1 million a year contract.

Why on earth would he do that?

Because apparently he wants out of Collingwood.
I didn't ask if he should, I asked can he.
Plus, it's fair to say he hasn't performed to the standard he was at when he signed the initial 7 year deal

Sam McClure trying to remain relevant.
This muckraker should have his accreditation removed.
I wouldn't believe a thing that comes out of his mouth.

Grundy going nowhere!

tigerpie wrote:

cracka wrote:

MW wrote:

cracka wrote:Not sure where to ask this.

Does the dollars & length of the contract Brodie Grundy is currently on have to stay the same if he moves clubs. Can he agree to a new contract at a different club for less money & length. Eg if his current contract has 5 more years at 1.5 million a year, can he agree to a 3 year 1 million a year contract.

Why on earth would he do that?

Because apparently he wants out of Collingwood.
I didn't ask if he should, I asked can he.
Plus, it's fair to say he hasn't performed to the standard he was at when he signed the initial 7 year deal

Sam McClure trying to remain relevant.
This muckraker should have his accreditation removed.
I wouldn't believe a thing that comes out of his mouth.

Grundy going nowhere!

It was Chris Dittmar that said it a couple of weeks ago on their rumour segment