View Full Version : The "vultures" strike again...
PowerForGood
14 Jun 2008, 21:21
Look at the free kick at the beginning of 2qtr, against Chance Bateman for "not making an attempt to get rid of the ball".
The umpire could clearly see that the ball was being held to him by the tackler, could clearly see that Bateman did not have possession of the ball, yet gave the free kick against him.
Why on earth would you try and grab a ball on the ground nowadays, with c**p like this?
croweater 41
14 Jun 2008, 21:24
Franklin reported!!! Head high contact on Doughty.
What about Tippet again is robbed of a free kick, there was no play on or advantage
PowerForGood
14 Jun 2008, 21:29
I wasn't debating that it was costing Hawthorn anything, I was talking about the c**p type of football that the rules committee are pushing us towards.
Couldn't care whether Hawthorn or Adelaide win.
Simon_Nesbit
14 Jun 2008, 21:30
It's Hawthorn - we're almost used to it.
Laughable commentary too...
HolyWars
14 Jun 2008, 23:15
Franklin reported!!! Head high contact on Doughty.
What about Tippet again is robbed of a free kick, there was no play on or advantage
Well, advantage cant be called as it was Tippet who played the ball on, not another crows player. Harsh but technically correct.:thumbsu:
THE UMPIRING WAS CRAP FOR THE LAST 2 QUARTERS NOTICED THAT WHEN THE BALL WENT IN OUR 50 AND LEWIS WAS HELD AND TURFED IT WASN'T A FREE.
Just keeping the home crowd happy.
Brown n Gold
14 Jun 2008, 23:45
Yes Rioli should have been paid a free against Stiffy for that "BRILLIANT TACKLE" when Rioli didn't have the ball
lions_den
15 Jun 2008, 02:50
Franklin reported!!! Head high contact on Doughty.
What about Tippet again is robbed of a free kick, there was no play on or advantage
Let's think about this rationally. He would of missed anyway.
Look at the free kick at the beginning of 2qtr, against Chance Bateman for "not making an attempt to get rid of the ball".
The umpire could clearly see that the ball was being held to him by the tackler, could clearly see that Bateman did not have possession of the ball, yet gave the free kick against him.
Why on earth would you try and grab a ball on the ground nowadays, with c**p like this?
Not saying I agree but the rule is intended to make players knock the ball clear of the contest rather than take possession where a ball up would be the alternative. The rule clearly states that if you Dive on it or drag it in you HAVE TO get it out. not just attempt but you have to, so if you don't its a free kick.
Spursfan
15 Jun 2008, 17:26
The rule clearly states that if you Dive on it or drag it in you HAVE TO get it out. not just attempt but you have to, so if you don't its a free kick. Exactly - why bother being first to the ball
Look at the free kick at the beginning of 2qtr, against Chance Bateman for "not making an attempt to get rid of the ball".
The umpire could clearly see that the ball was being held to him by the tackler, could clearly see that Bateman did not have possession of the ball, yet gave the free kick against him.
Why on earth would you try and grab a ball on the ground nowadays, with c**p like this?
To be honest it was a 50/50 line ball imo... he pulled the ball in but instead of trying to get rid of it he just put his arms out kinda like saying "look i don't have it"... he could have easierly made an attempt to try & get it out but he didn't... he should have done better even though it was held to him... & i was even watching the game with a mad Hawks supporter who was going off at the umps all night & even he said "common Chance ya got to do better then that"... so yeah in my eyes it was a free kick