<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wrapup of NAB Round 1 week 2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/wrapup-of-nab-round-1-week-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/wrapup-of-nab-round-1-week-2</link>
	<description>Expert Weekly AFL Tips, AFL Round wrap ups, Dream Team info &#38; tips on how to play and understand AFL</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:21:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: 2009 NAB Round One pt3 &#124; Expert AFL Tips, AFL Game &#38; Dream Team reviews along with featured AFL articles. The A to F to L of Australian Football.</title>
		<link>http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/wrapup-of-nab-round-1-week-2/comment-page-1/#comment-6217</link>
		<dc:creator>2009 NAB Round One pt3 &#124; Expert AFL Tips, AFL Game &#38; Dream Team reviews along with featured AFL articles. The A to F to L of Australian Football.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 06:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/?p=555#comment-6217</guid>
		<description>[...] games of this extended round with the other four games broken over two weeks (Week Ones games &amp; Week Twos games). Chris Yarren has a lot talked about him, now its his chance to let his Football do the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] games of this extended round with the other four games broken over two weeks (Week Ones games &amp; Week Twos games). Chris Yarren has a lot talked about him, now its his chance to let his Football do the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jermayn</title>
		<link>http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/wrapup-of-nab-round-1-week-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3245</link>
		<dc:creator>Jermayn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:15:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/?p=555#comment-3245</guid>
		<description>@Tristan - I wonder how much had to do with Ben Cousins?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Tristan &#8211; I wonder how much had to do with Ben Cousins?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tristan Heffernan</title>
		<link>http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/wrapup-of-nab-round-1-week-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3236</link>
		<dc:creator>Tristan Heffernan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/?p=555#comment-3236</guid>
		<description>Re: Mick Gardiner

He has been out of touch for about 4 years - not the least affected by some extra curricular activities.  Surprised the Saints kept him on the list at all

&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;em&gt;Tristan Heffernans last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://diehardfooty.com/2008-afl-draft-review-north-melbourne-kangaroos&quot;&gt;2008 AFL Draft Review - North Melbourne Kangaroos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: Mick Gardiner</p>
<p>He has been out of touch for about 4 years &#8211; not the least affected by some extra curricular activities.  Surprised the Saints kept him on the list at all</p>
<p><abbr><em></em><em>Tristan Heffernans last blog post..<a href="http://diehardfooty.com/2008-afl-draft-review-north-melbourne-kangaroos">2008 AFL Draft Review &#8211; North Melbourne Kangaroos</a></em></abbr></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jermayn</title>
		<link>http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/wrapup-of-nab-round-1-week-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3207</link>
		<dc:creator>Jermayn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:25:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/?p=555#comment-3207</guid>
		<description>@AussieRulesBlog - enjoyed your article and the bit about any deliberate rushed behind will be punished confuses me a bit. I have listed a few interesting quotes from the article. If this is true, then what Riewoldt said on the weekends game in the commentary box is wrong and the way the umpires have umpired this rule is wrong. Someone is making a big mistake...
&lt;blockquote&gt;- &quot;A free kick will &lt;strong&gt;now be awarded for any deliberate rushed behind&lt;/strong&gt;&quot;
- &quot;Feedback the AFL received after the grand final was that clubs and coaches &lt;strong&gt;would deliberately rush more and more behinds&lt;/strong&gt; if the rule was not changed&quot;
- &quot;A free kick is already paid for deliberately putting the ball out of play in all other areas around the ground and &lt;strong&gt;this allows for a similar criteria to be used&lt;/strong&gt; in the case of deliberate rushed behinds.&quot;
- &quot;The &lt;strong&gt;benefit of the doubt&lt;/strong&gt; will be given to a defender &lt;strong&gt;who is under direct pressure in a contest&lt;/strong&gt;, or whose primary goal is to &lt;strong&gt;spoil or touch the ball&lt;/strong&gt; before it goes through for a goal.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Taken from this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=70858&quot;&gt;article from AFL.com.au&lt;/a&gt;

Using these &#039;rules&#039; as criteria especially the &#039;similar criteria&#039; as deliberate out of bounds the 3 questionable weekend incidents need to be looked at:
1) Brian Lake&#039;s punching the ball over could be accepted as the right decision.
2) The St Kilda punch over the line even though he was uncontested 10m+ out, under no pressure should have been a free kick.
3) and Gilbee (think it was him) turn and run towards the goals and kicking over the line also should have been a free kick.

AFL fails imo</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@AussieRulesBlog &#8211; enjoyed your article and the bit about any deliberate rushed behind will be punished confuses me a bit. I have listed a few interesting quotes from the article. If this is true, then what Riewoldt said on the weekends game in the commentary box is wrong and the way the umpires have umpired this rule is wrong. Someone is making a big mistake&#8230;</p>
<blockquote><p>- &#8220;A free kick will <strong>now be awarded for any deliberate rushed behind</strong>&#8221;<br />
- &#8220;Feedback the AFL received after the grand final was that clubs and coaches <strong>would deliberately rush more and more behinds</strong> if the rule was not changed&#8221;<br />
- &#8220;A free kick is already paid for deliberately putting the ball out of play in all other areas around the ground and <strong>this allows for a similar criteria to be used</strong> in the case of deliberate rushed behinds.&#8221;<br />
- &#8220;The <strong>benefit of the doubt</strong> will be given to a defender <strong>who is under direct pressure in a contest</strong>, or whose primary goal is to <strong>spoil or touch the ball</strong> before it goes through for a goal.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Taken from this <a href="http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=70858">article from AFL.com.au</a></p>
<p>Using these &#8216;rules&#8217; as criteria especially the &#8216;similar criteria&#8217; as deliberate out of bounds the 3 questionable weekend incidents need to be looked at:<br />
1) Brian Lake&#8217;s punching the ball over could be accepted as the right decision.<br />
2) The St Kilda punch over the line even though he was uncontested 10m+ out, under no pressure should have been a free kick.<br />
3) and Gilbee (think it was him) turn and run towards the goals and kicking over the line also should have been a free kick.</p>
<p>AFL fails imo</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aussierulesblog</title>
		<link>http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/wrapup-of-nab-round-1-week-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3192</link>
		<dc:creator>aussierulesblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 12:04:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/?p=555#comment-3192</guid>
		<description>See my post &quot;AFL should be free-kicked: “dropping the ball”&quot; re the rushed behinds . . .

BTW, haven&#039;t you changed your tune on this? See http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/rushed-behind-rule-changed

It&#039;s not four boundary umps that has done for Gardiner. He&#039;s always been rather &#039;unco&#039;. In the slower game of three of four years ago, his height was of greater value than the downside of his mobility/skill. If he was breaking Dal Santo&#039;s sternum with every tap out, he would probably still be more valuable than his downside. Trouble is, he&#039;s not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>See my post &#8220;AFL should be free-kicked: “dropping the ball”&#8221; re the rushed behinds . . .</p>
<p>BTW, haven&#8217;t you changed your tune on this? See <a href="http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/rushed-behind-rule-changed">http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/rushed-behind-rule-changed</a></p>
<p>It&#8217;s not four boundary umps that has done for Gardiner. He&#8217;s always been rather &#8216;unco&#8217;. In the slower game of three of four years ago, his height was of greater value than the downside of his mobility/skill. If he was breaking Dal Santo&#8217;s sternum with every tap out, he would probably still be more valuable than his downside. Trouble is, he&#8217;s not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jermayn</title>
		<link>http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/wrapup-of-nab-round-1-week-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3182</link>
		<dc:creator>Jermayn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 05:52:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/?p=555#comment-3182</guid>
		<description>@AussieRulesBlog: Why did the AFL not say this then? I agree that this maneuver needs to stamped out. I wish the AFL dealt in Black and White decisions for once.

&lt;blockquote&gt;Has the game left a super-tall unco-ordinated ruckman in its wake? Saturday night he looked lost.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Yes I agree with that, especially with  bringing in the four boundary umpires. Do not forget that ~5 years ago, he was the best ruckman in the AFL and now he will struggle to get a game for St Kilda let alone the VFL.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@AussieRulesBlog: Why did the AFL not say this then? I agree that this maneuver needs to stamped out. I wish the AFL dealt in Black and White decisions for once.</p>
<blockquote><p>Has the game left a super-tall unco-ordinated ruckman in its wake? Saturday night he looked lost.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yes I agree with that, especially with  bringing in the four boundary umpires. Do not forget that ~5 years ago, he was the best ruckman in the AFL and now he will struggle to get a game for St Kilda let alone the VFL.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aussierulesblog</title>
		<link>http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/wrapup-of-nab-round-1-week-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3177</link>
		<dc:creator>aussierulesblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:16:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/?p=555#comment-3177</guid>
		<description>Perhaps it IS only the Bowden Manoeuvre that the trial rule will penalise. The last thing we need is umpires making judgement calls on intent for free kicks on the goal line. Look how well it works on deliberate-out-of-bounds!

When Richo does the ordinary, week in and week out, as well as he OCCASIONALLY does the extraordinary, I&#039;ll happily jump on the bandwagon.

Interesting that you mention Gardiner in the St Kilda comment. Has the game left a super-tall unco-ordinated ruckman in its wake? Saturday night he looked lost. In his defence, it has been a long, long time since he played any decent amount of footy at the elite level. There&#039;s a BIG step down to VFL level these days. I&#039;m not sure there&#039;s a place for him in the 2009 version of senior AFL.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps it IS only the Bowden Manoeuvre that the trial rule will penalise. The last thing we need is umpires making judgement calls on intent for free kicks on the goal line. Look how well it works on deliberate-out-of-bounds!</p>
<p>When Richo does the ordinary, week in and week out, as well as he OCCASIONALLY does the extraordinary, I&#8217;ll happily jump on the bandwagon.</p>
<p>Interesting that you mention Gardiner in the St Kilda comment. Has the game left a super-tall unco-ordinated ruckman in its wake? Saturday night he looked lost. In his defence, it has been a long, long time since he played any decent amount of footy at the elite level. There&#8217;s a BIG step down to VFL level these days. I&#8217;m not sure there&#8217;s a place for him in the 2009 version of senior AFL.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jermayn</title>
		<link>http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/wrapup-of-nab-round-1-week-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3176</link>
		<dc:creator>Jermayn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:40:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/?p=555#comment-3176</guid>
		<description>The problem is that fairly blatant was the uncontested mark 10m out and he punch it across the goal line, if thats not blatant what is? Or are we only talking about walking over the line with the ball? If this is the case why not say so?

Come on AussieRulesBlog, Richo was the man on Sunday...

Have to agree that St Kilda are in for a long year, without Riewoldt and Kosi they look lost and toothless up front. They dominated the rucks (even with M Gradiner stuffing up every time he touched the ball) and yet their midfield of over rated players of Ball, Dal Santo etc could not dominate and give their side any benefit. Think they need to give up on some of their players and get rid of them (Ball, Dal Santo, Clarke, Gardiner, Kosi etc).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem is that fairly blatant was the uncontested mark 10m out and he punch it across the goal line, if thats not blatant what is? Or are we only talking about walking over the line with the ball? If this is the case why not say so?</p>
<p>Come on AussieRulesBlog, Richo was the man on Sunday&#8230;</p>
<p>Have to agree that St Kilda are in for a long year, without Riewoldt and Kosi they look lost and toothless up front. They dominated the rucks (even with M Gradiner stuffing up every time he touched the ball) and yet their midfield of over rated players of Ball, Dal Santo etc could not dominate and give their side any benefit. Think they need to give up on some of their players and get rid of them (Ball, Dal Santo, Clarke, Gardiner, Kosi etc).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: aussierulesblog</title>
		<link>http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/wrapup-of-nab-round-1-week-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3161</link>
		<dc:creator>aussierulesblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:22:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/?p=555#comment-3161</guid>
		<description>Riewoldt said during the call of the Brisbane-Saints game that the clubs had been told a rushed behind would have to be &quot;fairly blatant&quot; was the terminology he used I think. Clearly, the AFL have cocked this one right up by not providing a useful definition of the interpretation for the paying spectators and TV viewers. Hell, even the media blokes don&#039;t know how it&#039;s supposed to work.

I know you&#039;ve got a thing going for Richo, Jermayn, but get serious.

First look at both Freo Hille and Rich. Hille looked more assured and more dangerous, but clearly both can play a bit.

Dogs will always find themselves just a little short of a flag with Johnson as their go-to man up forward (pardon the word play). When it looked like Darcy could play the square with Johnson roaming and crumbing a few years back, they looked like a dangerous unit. It&#039;s going to be tough without a couple of bigger blokes. Young Grant has got a decent pair of hands though. Took some very good contested marks Friday night. Sadly, his kicking accuracy is similar to Richo&#039;s.

Extras:
Saints looked pretty ordinary early. Long year ahead.
Tigers looked as ordinary as usual early. Longer year ahead.
Freo midfield looks pretty exciting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Riewoldt said during the call of the Brisbane-Saints game that the clubs had been told a rushed behind would have to be &#8220;fairly blatant&#8221; was the terminology he used I think. Clearly, the AFL have cocked this one right up by not providing a useful definition of the interpretation for the paying spectators and TV viewers. Hell, even the media blokes don&#8217;t know how it&#8217;s supposed to work.</p>
<p>I know you&#8217;ve got a thing going for Richo, Jermayn, but get serious.</p>
<p>First look at both Freo Hille and Rich. Hille looked more assured and more dangerous, but clearly both can play a bit.</p>
<p>Dogs will always find themselves just a little short of a flag with Johnson as their go-to man up forward (pardon the word play). When it looked like Darcy could play the square with Johnson roaming and crumbing a few years back, they looked like a dangerous unit. It&#8217;s going to be tough without a couple of bigger blokes. Young Grant has got a decent pair of hands though. Took some very good contested marks Friday night. Sadly, his kicking accuracy is similar to Richo&#8217;s.</p>
<p>Extras:<br />
Saints looked pretty ordinary early. Long year ahead.<br />
Tigers looked as ordinary as usual early. Longer year ahead.<br />
Freo midfield looks pretty exciting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jermayn</title>
		<link>http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/wrapup-of-nab-round-1-week-2/comment-page-1/#comment-3156</link>
		<dc:creator>Jermayn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 06:53:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kick2kick.net/afl/?p=555#comment-3156</guid>
		<description>So do you agree James that if the injury happened to an umpire or a know big name footballer the issue would be bigger than what it is currently? I know St Kilda are not happy and the AFL umpires have cleared the umpire who tripped Robert. 

I can guarantee it would have not been the same result if it was Robert who tripped the umpire...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>So do you agree James that if the injury happened to an umpire or a know big name footballer the issue would be bigger than what it is currently? I know St Kilda are not happy and the AFL umpires have cleared the umpire who tripped Robert. </p>
<p>I can guarantee it would have not been the same result if it was Robert who tripped the umpire&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

