View Full Version : The Eagles won today because of a extended period of shocking umpiring.
Absolutely disgraceful umpiring today, was a period there where every F50 entry resulted in a free set shot for an Eagles player, seriously Andy D fkn loves these guys. IT happens every week with WC as well, crowd knew what was going on too....
SWANNIES RULE
12 Aug 2007, 16:04
They were shafted.
whippersnipper
12 Aug 2007, 16:07
Totally agree. The umpiring was pathetic. WCE should count themselves lucky.
Del Piero
12 Aug 2007, 16:09
What a suprise a bandwagoner swan crying.
Don't worry someone will 'make up' a drug controversy to make u feel better. Obviously missed the one sided umpiring last night hey twit...
SWANNIES RULE
12 Aug 2007, 16:11
What a suprise a bandwagoner swan crying.
Don't worry someone will 'make up' a drug controversy to make u feel better. Obviously missed the one sided umpiring last night hey twit...
Free kick count was 29 to 29.
Not exactly 'one sided'
Stenglein's a Champ!
12 Aug 2007, 16:11
It was pretty bad both ways.
But yes, North did cop the worst of it.
swanniez1983
12 Aug 2007, 16:12
What a suprise a bandwagoner swan crying.
Don't worry someone will 'make up' a drug controversy to make u feel better. Obviously missed the one sided umpiring last night hey twit...
Your join date: Aug 07. Who's the bandwagoner?? :rolleyes:
estibador
12 Aug 2007, 16:13
It was always going to happen after the eagles whinged all week about the umpires not protecting them from big bad Freo.
Juddy88
12 Aug 2007, 16:16
Ah yes, what a suprise. The Eagles were the better team so lets try and blame the umpries. It was the umpries and the umpires only
Nothing to do with the good footy they played :rolleyes:
Free kick count was 29 to 29.
Not exactly 'one sided'
Free kick count means **** all
Max zero
12 Aug 2007, 16:16
Your join date: Aug 07. Who's the bandwagoner?? :rolleyes:
Um he joined just after a bad Derby loss? How is that bandwagoning?
Bandwagoning is all the Sept 2005 Swans fans or the 2007 Geelong fans.
The Teflon Dean
12 Aug 2007, 16:18
As a North supporter that has been to most matches since the mid 70's I would rate that the worst umpiring effort against the club since the 1994 preliminary final.
They were negligent enough to be the difference and I will be extremely dissapointed if the club does not jump up and down over todays umpiring effort.
Pathetic.
Del Piero
12 Aug 2007, 16:18
Your join date: Aug 07. Who's the bandwagoner?? :rolleyes:
Not everything is as it seems..!! Just say i am very familiar with your simplistic arguments swanlose 1983
Stormer
12 Aug 2007, 16:18
I thought it was bad, yes, but the impact of it wasn't that great. I did miss most of the 3rd Quarter though.
JKCeagle
12 Aug 2007, 16:19
Absolutely disgraceful umpiring today, was a period there where every F50 entry resulted in a free set shot for an Eagles player, seriously Andy D fkn loves these guys. IT happens every week with WC as well, crowd knew what was going on too....
No chance that the Eagles won because they played better football on the day, or because guys like Grant and Petrie missed gettable clutch goals in the 4th? :thumbsu:
swanniez1983
12 Aug 2007, 16:20
Um he joined just after a bad Derby loss? How is that bandwagoning?
Bandwagoning is all the Sept 2005 Swans fans or the 2007 Geelong fans.
Because apparently join date = date you started following that team. Eagles fans call me a bandwagoner just because I joined up (to this site) in 2006. I'm within my right to say that about any Eagles fan joining up after the 06 GF.
SWANNIES RULE
12 Aug 2007, 16:21
Free kick count means **** all
Not really.
swanniez1983
12 Aug 2007, 16:21
Not everything is as it seems..!! Just say i am very familiar with your simplistic arguments swanlose 1983
:confused:
But I do thankyou for your interest :rolleyes:
Not expecting Richmond to beat West Coast next week but the Tigers will get absolutely crucified by the umpires next week.
In fear of breaking the tv or getting thrown out of a pub.:mad:
Are West Coast the new umpires pets?
Felt sorry for Nth today.:(
Think the end free kick count was 22-19 eagles way.
I thought the eagles got the better run of the free kicks today, but also believe that the egales were just the better team on the day also.
Just shows you how inconsitent the umpires are with the amount of scragging that was let go last week, and much less was given as a free kick this week.
port_rule
12 Aug 2007, 16:26
Absolutely disgraceful umpiring today, was a period there where every F50 entry resulted in a free set shot for an Eagles player, seriously Andy D fkn loves these guys. IT happens every week with WC as well, crowd knew what was going on too....
I think you should blame Firitto before you blame the umpires...
I think you should blame Firitto before you blame the umpires...
Thats one incident, the Eagles kicked most of their goals from direct free kicks!
In regard to the Firrito incident, sure it was stupid, but did in deserve a reverse? Hardly.
Arcadion
12 Aug 2007, 16:35
http://www.robdamanii.com/macros/Waaambulance1.jpg (http://www.haveacry.com)
Mathew JAMES and Michael VOZZO = Very bad umpires
Matthew Head was OK today.
Leadfoot101
12 Aug 2007, 16:39
Not surprising after every loss to WCE we get the 'favoured by umpires' card. A lot of the North players were punching WCE players in the back and pushing them over, did you see that? Of course not. :rolleyes:
swanniez1983
12 Aug 2007, 16:40
Hey Arcadion, did you send that picture to the club after they had a bit of a cry about the umpires following the derby?
bunsen burner
12 Aug 2007, 16:42
I didn't think the umpiring was one sided. Few bad ones each way. Those free kicks to the Eagles inside 50 were all there.
bunsen burner
12 Aug 2007, 16:43
Hey Arcadion, did you send that picture to the club after they had a bit of a cry about the umpires following the derby?Nope, some Swans fans just sent it straight on because they've had it since Sept 30 last year.
jacko57
12 Aug 2007, 16:43
Free kick count was 29 to 29.
Not exactly 'one sided'
Stats only tell some of the story. It's where & when they're paid. It's also what they ignore. Today, whenever an Eagle was tackled, there were 2 possible outcomes : free kick for high tackle (even if he ducked his head), or play on, however long it takes for him to eventually get rid of it somehow.
I could go on & on about some of the shockers they paid or let go, but I'll cite one instance : look at how many times Corey Jones has front position in a marking contest, with his opponent's arms wrapped around him ; free kicks paid, nil.
Arcadion
12 Aug 2007, 16:43
Not surprising after every loss to WCE we get the 'favoured by umpires' card. A lot of the North players were punching WCE players in the back and pushing them over, did you see that? Of course not. :rolleyes:
I don't think we've ever won a game fair and square this year, it's always been because of the umpires. Isn't that right haters?
silkykanga
12 Aug 2007, 16:44
Good win Eagles - classy unit and always get up for important games
However i do have to be a bit of a sook and yes the umpiring was terrible - 29-29 free-kick count shouldnt even be looked at because we had about 10 free kicks in the space of 10mins all down the back half that werent even there alwasy love to even it out the fact is the eagles got 6-7 goals from direct F50 freekicks which were utter disgraceful decisions!!
OK they were given but down the other end was a different story, holding on, pushing, holding the ball decisions, holding the man nothing went our way at all the whole game you guys were extremely advantaged with todays effort
However we could've had big goals from Petrie, Thomas, Grant, Harvey all in the space of 10 mins which we stuffed so cant really sook to much =]
jacko57
12 Aug 2007, 16:44
It was always going to happen after the eagles whinged all week about the umpires not protecting them from big bad Freo.
Yep, they certainly got what they wanted today from that goose Gieschen.
swanniez1983
12 Aug 2007, 16:44
Nope, some Swans fans just sent it straight on because they've had it since Sept 30 last year.
Didn't know your name was Arcadion :confused:
jacko57
12 Aug 2007, 16:45
No chance that the Eagles won because they played better football on the day, or because guys like Grant and Petrie missed gettable clutch goals in the 4th? :thumbsu:
Both fair comments. I can't say the umpiring cost us the game. But with competent umpiring, the result MAY have been different.
Hotel 6
12 Aug 2007, 16:47
I didn't think the umpiring was one sided. Few bad ones each way. Those free kicks to the Eagles inside 50 were all there.
Especially that one to Kerr.....LOL
The final count was 22-19 but we got 6 in the last quarter when the game was virtually over. I think in the second and third quarters it was was 13 to 3 or so. Having said that though the Eagles were better today and I look forward to the next game.
Ted Ed Fred
12 Aug 2007, 16:47
Hmmm, all this whinging and so far not one example of a free that wasn't there that resulted in a goal for us.
If we're talking about the period of play where we got back in front then the only one that wasn't there was to Lynch and he missed. Seaby's was there, so was Hansen's. The reversal to Kerr was soft but is always going to be paid, pathetic from Firrito.
SWANNIES RULE
12 Aug 2007, 16:48
Hmmm, all this whinging and so far not one example of a free that wasn't there that resulted in a goal for us.
If we're talking about the period of play where we got back in front then the only one that wasn't there was to Lynch and he missed. Seaby's was there, so was Hansen's. The reversal to Kerr was soft but is always going to be paid, pathetic from Firrito.
Exactly. It was soft, and should never of been paid.
Ted Ed Fred
12 Aug 2007, 16:50
I think the turning point was in the first half of the 3rd quarter. Kangaroos came out with all the momentum and spirit, but after 5 minutes started to get frustrated because they couldn't put us away and started to get overzealous. That's when they gave away all the frees, most of which were there.
both sides had horrendous decisions. kangas were playing a rough game hence the higher free kick count to wce. whats up spitzy boy. cant handle the fact you were beaten by the reigning premier? you guys shot yourselves.
Ted Ed Fred
12 Aug 2007, 16:54
Exactly. It was soft, and should never of been paid.
Kerr gets caught holding the ball. Five seconds later as he is getting up big-man Firrito comes in and barges him over, for no other reason than to be a smart @rse. Soft, but is paid every time in today's game :)
Hotel 6
12 Aug 2007, 16:56
Kerr gets caught holding the ball. Five seconds later as he is getting up big-man Firrito comes in and barges him over, for no other reason than to be a smart @rse. Soft, but is paid every time in today's game :)
...and then Kerr puts his hand on Firrito's head, where's the reversal for high contact after that!
SWANNIES RULE
12 Aug 2007, 16:58
Kerr gets caught holding the ball. Five seconds later as he is getting up big-man Firrito comes in and barges him over, for no other reason than to be a smart @rse. Soft, but is paid every time in today's game :)
Acting. It should not of been paid, that's the bottom line.
Stenglein's a Champ!
12 Aug 2007, 17:01
Not really.
Um, yes really.
SWANNIES RULE
12 Aug 2007, 17:07
Um, yes really.
Free kick counts are always pretty good indicators.
Stenglein's a Champ!
12 Aug 2007, 17:11
Free kick counts are always pretty good indicators.
Yeah, pretty good indicators of how many free kicks were paid.
They are no gauge for the quality of umpiring.
SWANNIES RULE
12 Aug 2007, 17:14
Yeah, pretty good indicators of how many free kicks were paid.
They are no gauge for the quality of umpiring.
Find me a post where I said they were a gauge for the quality of umpiring?
They can indicate whether umpiring was one-sided or not in terms of free kicks paid.
Stenglein's a Champ!
12 Aug 2007, 17:38
Find me a post where I said they were a gauge for the quality of umpiring?
They can indicate whether umpiring was one-sided or not in terms of free kicks paid.
Who cares if one team has more free kicks then the other? It means absolutely nothing.
Thewlis Dish
12 Aug 2007, 17:41
Rawlings deliberate out of bounds.
Priddis dropping to his knees and dropping the ball in front of North's goal and getting in the back.
Harvey's 'throw'.
First goal of the game - Lynch gets tackled and puts the ball on the ground. Holding the ball? No.
Hansen falling over in front of Pratt.
Hale's head high contact on Cousins.
Archer getting held before Lynch's goal from a standing start.
Corey Jones being bear-hugged at every contest.
The Archer 50-metre penalty on Embley. Someone please tell me it was for abuse?
Cox hands clearly in McIntosh's back on the wing in the last.
Countless high tackles on North players over the ball uncalled.
All off the top of my head. Won't mention Kerr's dive because it was bloody stupid from Spud to give the umpire even a chance to reverse it.
The letter clearly worked and North are an easy target.
GeordieRoo
12 Aug 2007, 17:43
6 goals directly from frees to West Coat.
1 to North.
17 point margin.
Ted Ed Fred
12 Aug 2007, 17:45
Acting. It should not of been paid, that's the bottom line.
Big Bawling Barry board. Kerr was in the process of getting up and was off balance, Firrito barged him over.
Soft, but is paid every time in today's game. That's the bottom line, you seem to have real trouble coming to terms with a simple statement of fact :)
Weagles were always going to get a free ride from the umps after they complained about all the other teams beating up on them.
Champion Data has the weagles leading the comp for free kicks.
I watch some of their home games on the TV and shake my head in disbelief.
Was the difference today.
The Teflon Dean
12 Aug 2007, 18:09
6 goals directly from frees to West Coat.
1 to North.
17 point margin.
Numbers don't lie.
jacko57
12 Aug 2007, 18:22
Rawlings deliberate out of bounds.
Priddis dropping to his knees and dropping the ball in front of North's goal and getting in the back.
Harvey's 'throw'.
First goal of the game - Lynch gets tackled and puts the ball on the ground. Holding the ball? No.
Hansen falling over in front of Pratt.
Hale's head high contact on Cousins.
Archer getting held before Lynch's goal from a standing start.
Corey Jones being bear-hugged at every contest.
The Archer 50-metre penalty on Embley. Someone please tell me it was for abuse?
Cox hands clearly in McIntosh's back on the wing in the last.
Countless high tackles on North players over the ball uncalled.
All off the top of my head. Won't mention Kerr's dive because it was bloody stupid from Spud to give the umpire even a chance to reverse it.
The letter clearly worked and North are an easy target.
You could also mention the centre bounce where Seaby had his eyes on Hamish, Hamish had his eyes on the ball, Seaby blocked Hamish............free to Seaby. And that led directly to an Eagles goal.
jacko57
12 Aug 2007, 18:24
Soft, but is paid every time in today's game.
That's the problem, it ISN'T paid every time.
After one Eagles goal today, someone bumped Corey Jones in the centre of the ground & bowled him over ; the ump saw it & told him to be careful, but chose not to pay a free.
Same story when a club plays West Coast. Not hard 2 see why they lead the free kick stats out off all 15 clubs. That Deliberate against North was hilarious.
6 goals directly from frees to West Coat.
1 to North.
17 point margin.
So if a free kick is earnt in front of goal, your not allowed to pay it because it could result in one ? If its there pay them.
jacko57
12 Aug 2007, 20:11
So if a free kick is earnt in front of goal, your not allowed to pay it because it could result in one ? If its there pay them.
Fair point ; but don't expect us to be grateful if every free that is 'there' (& some that aren't) get paid your way, while similar incidents in North's forward 50 get a 'play on' call.
Free kick counts are always pretty good indicators.
22-19 in favour of the Eagles. Going by you theory the umpires were fairly even to both sides.
Blaming it on the umpires wont give your team 4 points. Nor will it make all the other supporters think you're intelligent.
What's the point of this thread?
jacko57
12 Aug 2007, 21:04
Blaming it on the umpires wont give your team 4 points.
Seemed to help your mob ok from last week to this week.
swanniez1983
12 Aug 2007, 21:05
Blaming it on the umpires wont give your team 4 points. Nor will it make all the other supporters think you're intelligent.
What's the point of this thread?
So why did the Eagles complain about the umpires last week? :rolleyes:
So why did the Eagles complain about the umpires last week? :rolleyes:
They gave their reasons. Didn't reverse the result though did it?
GeordieRoo
12 Aug 2007, 21:31
So if a free kick is earnt in front of goal, your not allowed to pay it because it could result in one ? If its there pay them.
Couldn't agree more.
But if 10 things happen at each end, and they pay 6/10 at one end and 1/10 at the other, then you get annoyed. That's what happened today.
swanniez1983
12 Aug 2007, 21:36
They gave their reasons. Didn't reverse the result though did it?
Not for the derby, but the Eagles did get a number of 50/50 decisions in their favour today ;)
Not for the derby, but the Eagles did get a number of 50/50 decisions in their favour today ;)
What's your point though? Umpires love West Coast, and everyone else hates them?
The umpires call it as they see it. There was no home advantage, no booing for bad decisions.
We were simply first to the ball. That's why we won.
kane249
12 Aug 2007, 22:45
Rawlings deliberate out of bounds. - Agree stupid
Priddis dropping to his knees and dropping the ball in front of North's goal and getting in the back. - ver lucky with the disposal, but he was ridden in the back thereafter
Harvey's 'throw'. - can't remember this one
First goal of the game - Lynch gets tackled and puts the ball on the ground. Holding the ball? No. - You need to go back and watch the replay again, i originally thought he had done that as well but he drops the ball straight onto his boot, not on the ground and then kicks it
Hansen falling over in front of Pratt. - Pratt lost his balance and cannoned into Hansen
Hale's head high contact on Cousins. - Not sure of this one either
Archer getting held before Lynch's goal from a standing start. - See above, but there were plenty of holds not paid to both sides today
Corey Jones being bear-hugged at every contest. - See above
The Archer 50-metre penalty on Embley. Someone please tell me it was for abuse? - It was for his treatment after the mark
Cox hands clearly in McIntosh's back on the wing in the last. - Can't recall this one so can't comment
Countless high tackles on North players over the ball uncalled. - Eagles players also copped similar, it went both ways
jacko57
12 Aug 2007, 22:54
Rawlings deliberate out of bounds. - Agree stupid
Priddis dropping to his knees and dropping the ball in front of North's goal and getting in the back. - ver lucky with the disposal, but he was ridden in the back thereafter
Harvey's 'throw'. - can't remember this one
First goal of the game - Lynch gets tackled and puts the ball on the ground. Holding the ball? No. - You need to go back and watch the replay again, i originally thought he had done that as well but he drops the ball straight onto his boot, not on the ground and then kicks it
Hansen falling over in front of Pratt. - Pratt lost his balance and cannoned into Hansen
Hale's head high contact on Cousins. - Not sure of this one either
Archer getting held before Lynch's goal from a standing start. - See above, but there were plenty of holds not paid to both sides today
Corey Jones being bear-hugged at every contest. - See above
The Archer 50-metre penalty on Embley. Someone please tell me it was for abuse? - It was for his treatment after the mark
Cox hands clearly in McIntosh's back on the wing in the last. - Can't recall this one so can't comment
Countless high tackles on North players over the ball uncalled. - Eagles players also copped similar, it went both ways
The Hale/Cousins free was in front of me : Cousins realised he was going to be tackled, ducked his head into the tackle & got rewarded.
kane249
12 Aug 2007, 22:57
The Hale/Cousins free was in front of me : Cousins realised he was going to be tackled, ducked his head into the tackle & got rewarded.
Those ones are always 50/50, sometimes you get the kick after ducking the head, sometimes you don't. For this one that was paid today there would have been others for the Eagles that weren't paid as well
sumavich
12 Aug 2007, 22:58
The Hale/Cousins free was in front of me : Cousins realised he was going to be tackled, ducked his head into the tackle & got rewarded.
Ducked his head in for ................
I'll leave it at that !!!I'm hoping for a Derby Final.
We'll wip your lil soft college boy arses.
Reveler
12 Aug 2007, 23:10
just book an spot with the umpire boss and complain like a little girl. Worked for Woosha.
That and the Roos were second to the ball 9/10 times today. No amount of umpiring can make up for that amount of pathetic play.
Thewlis Dish
12 Aug 2007, 23:41
The Archer 50-metre penalty on Embley. Someone please tell me it was for abuse? - It was for his treatment after the mark
What mark? He gave Embley high contact in the contest and the mark wasn't completed because of it. Thus, a freekick should have been paid and no 50 metres.
There was no 'after', and there was no completed mark.
What mark? He gave Embley high contact in the contest and the mark wasn't completed because of it. Thus, a freekick should have been paid and no 50 metres.
There was no 'after', and there was no completed mark.
Nope, you're wrong on that. No wonder you are unhappy with the umpires when you can't accept a clear cut one like that.
Leadfoot101
13 Aug 2007, 00:41
Ducked his head in for ................
I'll leave it at that !!!I'm hoping for a Derby Final.
We'll wip your lil soft college boy arses.
No chance of that, WCE knows they'll face you if they don't keep winning games. You'll most likely face another team that will whip your arses instead.
Thewlis Dish
13 Aug 2007, 01:17
Nope, you're wrong on that. No wonder you are unhappy with the umpires when you can't accept a clear cut one like that.
You honestly thought that was a 50-metre penalty?
Our game is heading down the shithole with things like that paid.
weagles_fan
13 Aug 2007, 01:17
the Roos were second to the ball 9/10 times today. No amount of umpiring can make up for that amount of pathetic play.Exactly. Of course you are going to protected more if you have the ball. How can you get a free against you if you don't have the ball? By holding off the ball? Which happens once or twice a game? Eagles were far superior at winning the hard ball and were rewarded by the free kicks.
royalsfan
13 Aug 2007, 01:51
I can remember at least two occasions when Kangaroos players claimed a mark ( when replays clearly showed the ball hitting the ground) and I think they goaled from both. Another two times they claimed a mark, knowing the ball had hit the ground, held on to the ball and were not penalised for holding the ball. Numerous free kicks were missed both ways.
Thewlis Dish
13 Aug 2007, 02:04
Both of those 'marks' happened in a position where the umpire was blindsided and had no choice but to pay them.
It's when they are in position and pay them wrongly which is the trouble, and when they flat out guess (Rawlings deliberate OOB).
diesel and dust
13 Aug 2007, 02:21
Free kick count means **** all
One of the silliest things i've ever read on this board.....
The next time a side gets 10 or more free kicks than the opposition but still got dudded by the umps ,let me know.....
While the free kick count doesn't always indicate who got the better deal off the umps,to say it means f**k all, is ridiculous
Thewlis Dish
13 Aug 2007, 02:32
6-1 to us in the last quarter certainly evened it up, but we couldn't get one for love or money in the third when it was really on.
It's where and when they are paid, not how many. And umpires will always be conscious of a lopsided freekick count and try and even things up at some point - happens time and time again.
flyinghi64
13 Aug 2007, 10:21
MMmmm a game that was badly umpired, what a surprise:rolleyes:
Yes there were bad decisions, both ways, and the Roo's probably got the worse of them but it didn't determine the result. I will admit that umpires can cost teams a game and it has probably happened 3-4 times this year but not this game. The Roo's gave themselves a chance but the Eagles were good enough to get back on top.
flyinghi64
13 Aug 2007, 10:27
One of the silliest things i've ever read on this board.....
The next time a side gets 10 or more free kicks than the opposition but still got dudded by the umps ,let me know.....
While the free kick count doesn't always indicate who got the better deal off the umps,to say it means f**k all, is ridiculous
One team get's 10 free kicks 8 of which are in their forward 50 and they convert 5 goals. The other team gets 20 free kicks 10 in defence 5 on the wing and 5 in the centre of the ground.
I think I'd rather the 8 in the forward line.
This is a scenario that is not to far from the truth, particularly with this years umpiring.
Both of those 'marks' happened in a position where the umpire was blindsided and had no choice but to pay them.
It's when they are in position and pay them wrongly which is the trouble, and when they flat out guess (Rawlings deliberate OOB).
If you don't see a mark, how can you call it as such.
Both were not marks, yet were called as such and resulted in goals. Sounds like getting a favourable call from the umps to me, but i guess that doesn't fit in with the "we was robbed" theory....
Thewlis Dish
13 Aug 2007, 17:08
If you don't see a mark, how can you call it as such.
You have the give the marking player the benefit of the doubt in that situation, surely.
You have the give the marking player the benefit of the doubt in that situation, surely.
I don't have the rule book in front of me, but if there is doubt about a score, they give the minimum. I would imagine the same would apply here.
Anyone got the official ruling on dodgy marks, does benefit of the doubt go to the player, or are dodgy marks (ball maybe hitting the ground, touched by opposition etc) play on?
theduckfan
13 Aug 2007, 17:18
I don't think we've ever won a game fair and square this year, it's always been because of the umpires. Isn't that right haters?
well well, coming from the team that the week before complained about the umps for loosing the derby, so last week you didnt loose fairly right.
sent a nice letter to the Dickh-eads at the AFL and bang umpires favour the team in yellow....
the UMPIRES (maggots, wankers, ******s.... plenty more) are ruining the game of AFL, you dont see soccer rules getting changed, and its going good but for some dumb reason the umpires have way to much powr and use it too get points for teams they are asked to becuase of a complaint. you wouldnt get complaints if you umpired every game down the fkn line would you, bunch of fcking wanker$ wrecking the great game.
Might as well follow fkn netball afl will be that in 3 years.
greennick
13 Aug 2007, 17:37
They were shafted.
Your join date: Aug 07. Who's the bandwagoner?? :rolleyes:
Fancy seeing the two of you here. :rolleyes:
Thewlis Dish
13 Aug 2007, 17:37
I don't have the rule book in front of me, but if there is doubt about a score, they give the minimum. I would imagine the same would apply here.
Anyone got the official ruling on dodgy marks, does benefit of the doubt go to the player, or are dodgy marks (ball maybe hitting the ground, touched by opposition etc) play on?
By that rationale, everytime a player takes a mark low down and the umpire is behind him he'd have to call play on.
Yep thats right. If there's doubt surely it must be play on.
jacko57
13 Aug 2007, 17:45
just book an spot with the umpire boss and complain like a little girl. Worked for Woosha.
That and the Roos were second to the ball 9/10 times today. No amount of umpiring can make up for that amount of pathetic play.
9 times out of 10 ?????????
Wow, I wonder how we got within 20 goals.
:rolleyes:
scottywiper
13 Aug 2007, 18:01
I watched the game on a big screen at a soccer club and there were three low down marking attempts.
Two (McMahon and Petrie?) were not, as some on here claim, clearly shown to hit the ground.
On both occasions the replay showed the decision was correct and the player got his arms under the ball.
A third, which was not paid, was also shown to be correct as the ball bounced in front of Jones as he dived forward. Fair enuff.
To claim anything else is just fraudulent.
Roger_Merrett
13 Aug 2007, 18:01
well well, coming from the team that the week before complained about the umps for loosing the derby, so last week you didnt loose fairly right.
sent a nice letter to the Dickh-eads at the AFL and bang umpires favour the team in yellow....
the UMPIRES (maggots, wankers, ******s.... plenty more) are ruining the game of AFL, you dont see soccer rules getting changed, and its going good but for some dumb reason the umpires have way to much powr and use it too get points for teams they are asked to becuase of a complaint. you wouldnt get complaints if you umpired every game down the fkn line would you, bunch of fcking wanker$ wrecking the great game.
Might as well follow fkn netball afl will be that in 3 years.
For the record buddy, the rules committee comprises of 4 ex AFL players...perhaps you should vent your frustration at them...
I watched the game on a big screen at a soccer club and there were three low down marking attempts.
Two (McMahon and Petrie?) were not, as some on here claim, clearly shown to hit the ground.
On both occasions the replay showed the decision was correct and the player got his arms under the ball.
A third, which was not paid, was also shown to be correct as the ball bounced in front of Jones as he dived forward. Fair enuff.
To claim anything else is just fraudulent.
I claim it. Unless their hands went under the surface, those balls clearly hit the ground.
Shoulda had a few less pots scotty
scottywiper
13 Aug 2007, 18:10
Just spoke to a WAFL umpire, in those situations the umpires are instructed to pay the mark (give the doubt to the player) unless they have a clear view of the ball hitting the ground.
Thats the official word.
scottywiper
13 Aug 2007, 18:11
I claim it. Unless their hands went under the surface, those balls clearly hit the ground.
Shoulda had a few less pots scotty
You can claim it Mancey but you are wrong.
You may think they hit the ground, they did not clearly hit the ground.
Just spoke to a WAFL umpire, in those situations the umpires are instructed to pay the mark (give the doubt to the player) unless they have a clear view of the ball hitting the ground.
Thats the official word.
Cool cheers mate. clears that up.
They still hit the ground tho;), rub of the green etc
Arcadion
13 Aug 2007, 18:15
well well, coming from the team that the week before complained about the umps for loosing the derby, so last week you didnt loose fairly right.
Where did I say that? You don't take "loosing" very well, do you? :)
scottywiper
13 Aug 2007, 18:23
Cool cheers mate. clears that up.
They still hit the ground tho;), rub of the green etc
Yeah, nah.:D:D
wce4premiership
13 Aug 2007, 19:19
The kangaroos were brought back into the game by umpiring
Thewlis Dish
13 Aug 2007, 19:23
The kangaroos were brought back into the game by umpiring
Brought back into the game by Lynch and put out of it again by umpiring, rhino-boy.
jacko57
13 Aug 2007, 20:31
The kangaroos were brought back into the game by umpiring
Great line ! Who's your dealer ?