Two points:
I've said all along, that players like Dangerfield, Dusty etc are on an "easier" grading than others. What one player gets as a poor disposal and a clanger, they don't. Danger turned the ball over on Monday, and it directly resulted in a Hawthorn goal. No clanger was recorded. Lobb kicked the ball around 35 metres while under pressure, to a contest, albeit a contest where the opposition held an advantage, and was given a clanger.
Put players like Lobbs clangers on a tape like that Martin Tackle tape, and then compare it to some of Dangerfield's "non-clangers", and you will be equally mystified. The callers, and those that make these decisions are only human, but I've been saying it for years, they have favourite players they are starry eyed over, that can do very little wrong. Sometimes they get awarded CP's, where in same situation the mere mortal's just get P's. Sometimes their efforts seemed to get over graded, when compared to an identical act a minute or two later.
Unfortunately, the opposite happens too. Sometimes they take a set against a player, and he can't do anything right.
Lobb again last week. Took a contested mark, in the Def arc, and kicked a long effective kick, and received a total of 4 points.
Not even 2 minutes later, Finlayson did exactly the same thing, and received a total of 13 points.
It's inexplicable, as are many parts of the scoring of this game we love. Why do players who started a game well, seemingly rewarded more points, for very little effort, later in the game, compared to players who have had a bad night? Time after time I have seen a scenario, particularly when it looks like the game is over, where player A doing well in a game, say on 120 with 5 minutes to go, will mark and goal, and get his full points awarded. Then moments later, or even just before, player B, who is struggling along on 50 points, does the same, and gets a total of about 6 points. How is one worth more than the other, just because player A was having a good night compared to player B?
Very frustrating!
My second point on the Dusty tape is, while I can't see all 7 should have been awarded tackles, try watching it with this definition in mind:
A pressure act, involving physical contact with the opposition ball carrier, that results in a stoppage, turnover or the ball going into dispute.
One or two of the doubtful ones become tackles, using that (my own) definition.
Still, no doubt in my mind, if that was say Florent, and not Martin, it might have resulted in 4 or 5 tackles being awarded, not 7.
I've said all along, that players like Dangerfield, Dusty etc are on an "easier" grading than others. What one player gets as a poor disposal and a clanger, they don't. Danger turned the ball over on Monday, and it directly resulted in a Hawthorn goal. No clanger was recorded. Lobb kicked the ball around 35 metres while under pressure, to a contest, albeit a contest where the opposition held an advantage, and was given a clanger.
Put players like Lobbs clangers on a tape like that Martin Tackle tape, and then compare it to some of Dangerfield's "non-clangers", and you will be equally mystified. The callers, and those that make these decisions are only human, but I've been saying it for years, they have favourite players they are starry eyed over, that can do very little wrong. Sometimes they get awarded CP's, where in same situation the mere mortal's just get P's. Sometimes their efforts seemed to get over graded, when compared to an identical act a minute or two later.
Unfortunately, the opposite happens too. Sometimes they take a set against a player, and he can't do anything right.
Lobb again last week. Took a contested mark, in the Def arc, and kicked a long effective kick, and received a total of 4 points.
Not even 2 minutes later, Finlayson did exactly the same thing, and received a total of 13 points.
It's inexplicable, as are many parts of the scoring of this game we love. Why do players who started a game well, seemingly rewarded more points, for very little effort, later in the game, compared to players who have had a bad night? Time after time I have seen a scenario, particularly when it looks like the game is over, where player A doing well in a game, say on 120 with 5 minutes to go, will mark and goal, and get his full points awarded. Then moments later, or even just before, player B, who is struggling along on 50 points, does the same, and gets a total of about 6 points. How is one worth more than the other, just because player A was having a good night compared to player B?
Very frustrating!
My second point on the Dusty tape is, while I can't see all 7 should have been awarded tackles, try watching it with this definition in mind:
A pressure act, involving physical contact with the opposition ball carrier, that results in a stoppage, turnover or the ball going into dispute.
One or two of the doubtful ones become tackles, using that (my own) definition.
Still, no doubt in my mind, if that was say Florent, and not Martin, it might have resulted in 4 or 5 tackles being awarded, not 7.
