Suckling and Franklin play on when they kick long set shots

[Mr Lizard]

So, another incorrect decision in favour of Hawthorn then

Well I'm not sure what game you were watching, but the trip was definitely there.

As to the play on call, it was pretty well established with Buddy how these get called.

I am right, and you are wrong.

 

[imperial_oz]

Well I'm not sure what game you were watching, but the trip was definitely there.

As to the play on call, it was pretty well established with Buddy how these get called.

I am right, and you are wrong.

I didn't even mention the trip, so stop deflecting. I have, in response to your raucous calls to prove it, shown you the relevant law that shows you cannot move off your line or its play on. Just because Buddy gets away with it and just because that idiot Gieschen tried to justify it, doesn't mean you can ignore the rules of the game. Although I'll concede the AFL ignores its own rules on a regular basis.

The umps got it wrong and so did you...again.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

It seems to a be a common thing with these two blokes. Where the actual video shows them to be wrong they take two screen shots, make up a bunch of malarkey and then claim you don't actually see what you are seeing.

Forget the bulldust and the 'leave 99% of the evidence out of it and just trust me', look at the video. Suckling takes between 2 -3 paces to the left to open the angle up.

I'm starting to think we have a couple of paid astroturfers trying to deflect from what really happened out there. Continually making stuff up

Edit: Heres the link



See for yourself whether he moves several paces to the left to open up the angle or off the right like mr astroturfer would have you believe

Ok mate.

You're a stickler for this rule being adjudicated to the literal sense:

16.2
PLAYING FROM BEHIND THE MARK
A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall dispose of the football from directly behind the mark. If a Player disposes or attempts to dispose of
the football other than in a direct line over the mark, the field Umpire shall call “Play On” and the football shall immediately be in play. This Law does not apply
if a Player is disposing of the football from beyond the Goal Line, Behind Line or Boundary Line, in which case Laws 16.4 or 16.5 shall apply

So the photo I put up shows sucklin do exactly that.
Can you please show where the rule says he's not allowed to step sideways please. All I see is the bal has to be disposed of in a line over the mark. He did that.

Actually



Whatever
Push your barrow.
I'm off the grand final next week.
Like I was last year.
And The year before
And the year before.
Cry more
Whinge more
Scream about the rules



None of that changes the fact you lost.
Now welcome to ignore word you peanut.

 

[imperial_oz]

Ok mate.
Whatever you reckon.
Push your barrow.
I'm off the grand final next week.
Like I was last year.
And The year before
And the year before.
Cry more
Whinge more
Scream about the rules

None of that changes the fact you lost.
Now welcome to ignore word you peanut.

Caught out making up stuff, again. Runs away.

Hey maybe you can Stevic to report me.

Face it, you were found out. Run, Forrest, run.

edit: You're a really bad astroturfer. Hope you're not getting paid for this gig. That would be false pretences.

 

[Mr Lizard]

The umps got it wrong and so did you...again.

I didn't get it wrong, I merely stated the facts of what happened.

Looks like a WA team is going through, you should be happy.

 

[imperial_oz]

I didn't get it wrong, I merely stated the facts of what happened.

Looks like a WA team is going through, you should be happy.

I'd have been happy with a Hawks win if the game had been umpired fairly. It wasn't and I'm not....like a great many neutral supporters.

Actually, you did get it wrong. You've been intentionally stating the incorrect rules to justify a blatantly wrong decision. Hard to get more wrong than that

 

[smeltitdeltit]

I'd have been happy with a Hawks win if the game had been umpired fairly. It wasn't and I'm not....like a great many neutral supporters.

Actually, you did get it wrong. You've been intentionally stating the incorrect rules to justify a blatantly wrong decision. Hard to get more wrong than that

Hard to cry more than you.
did you find that quote of me standin up for the Lake decision yet? Or are you going to admit you made it up ? Should be easy for you peanut

 

[Mr Lizard]

...if the game had been umpired fairly...

I think you are overstating your case somewhat, last night was pretty fair.

I think North Melbourne fans have better claim to unfair umpiring out of this weekend's games.

 

[imperial_oz]

Hard to cry more than you.
did you find that quote of me standin up for the Lake decision yet? Or are you going to admit you made it up ? Should be easy for you peanut

I thought you were going to ignore me. I guess the level of accuracy in your comments just isn't going to improve is it.

Are you ever going to admit you've been making up stuff to try and justify a bad decision and that you're been found out again

 

[imperial_oz]

I think you are overstating your case somewhat, last night was pretty fair.

I think North Melbourne fans have better claim to unfair umpiring out of this weekend's games.

I always expected norths to get shafted. They are playing the free kick eagles and last night was anything but fair. Not that I'd expect you to admit it

 

[smeltitdeltit]

I thought you were going to ignore me. I guess the level of accuracy in your comments just isn't going to improve is it.

Are you ever going to admit you've been making up stuff to try and justify a bad decision and that you're been found out again

What have I made up?
The fact that the head of umpires said you're allowed a natural arc?
Or the fact that suckling kicked "in a straight line over the mark"?
there was proof of that. Watch the video. Look at the photo.
The fact I'm going to the GF?
Or I went last year?
Or the year before?(you remember that one, you go?)

Find that reference to me standing up fo the lake decision or are you going to admit you're a liar ??

 

[Mr Lizard]

Last night was anything but fair.

In your opinion.

I didn't think it was unfair.

You should deal with it and move on.

 

[imperial_oz]

What have I made up?

I'm certainly not going through the whole list but the screen grabs where you ignored 99% of the video then claimed that Suckling went to the right slightly when the video shows him taking several paces to the left is a pretty good indication of where you have been making up stuff. Included in that the garbage about being able to run off your line because its up to umpires to show discretion, even though law 16.2 says exactly the opposite. The fact that you continue to peddle your bulldust in spite of being shown that it is entirely incorrect. The fact that an umpire has told you the decision is wrong should be a big hint but you keep on with the bulldust don't you.

Oh and where you said you put me on ignore is another really simple one.

 

[imperial_oz]

In your opinion.

I didn't think it was unfair.

You should deal with it and move on.

If you were so confident it was all fair, why do you feel the need to make up to try and justify some of the bad decisions? Not the actions of somebody who thought it was all done correctly

 

[smeltitdeltit]

I'm certainly not going through the whole list but the screen grabs where you ignored 99% of the video then claimed that Suckling went to the right slightly when the video shows him taking several paces to the left is a pretty good indication of where you have been making up stuff. Included in that the garbage about being able to run off your line because its up to umpires to show discretion, even though law 16.2 says exactly the opposite. The fact that you continue to peddle your bulldust in spite of being shown that it is entirely incorrect. The fact that an umpire has told you the decision is wrong should be a big hint but you keep on with the bulldust don't you.

Oh and where you said you put me on ignore is another really simple one.

Sorry but what umpire told me the decision is wrong?
And when did I say that one hadn't?
Ok il add that to the list of s**t you make up. It's growing fast
The screen grab shows the ball go straight over the mark. Yes or no peanut?

 

[Mr Lizard]

If you were so confident it was all fair, why do you feel the need to make up to try and justify some of the bad decisions? Not the actions of somebody who thought it was all done correctly

I haven't made anything up, I have stated my opinions. You are having trouble with the fact that we don't agree.

It's more entertaining than the football.

 

[imperial_oz]

Sorry but what umpire told me the decision is wrong?
And when did I say that one hadn't?
Ok il add that to the list of s**t you make up. It's growing fast
The screen grab shows the ball go straight over the mark. Yes or no peanut?

You dont do very well at this reasoned argument thing do you?

Hardhat11 earlier in this thread told you he umpires at local level. He told you what you were saying was wrong. I've quoted the rule to you and you still peddle this rubbish.

You stated that Suckling went slightly right and showed screen grabs that said showed that. The video clearly shows him talking 2-3 paces to the right and under the rules thats play on. After the siren, its no score. You've been told that by other but you pretend otherwise.

The screen grab shows nothing about the ball going over the mark. Its a still shot with the mark not shown. The video very clearly shows Suckling running well to the side of the mark. Pretending otherwise isn't going to make the video go away.

Calling me a peanut because I keep proving you wrong is actually very amusing. Its all you have and it isn't much is it?

 

[imperial_oz]

I haven't made anything up, I have stated my opinions. You are having trouble with the fact that we don't agree.

It's more entertaining than the football.

Are you getting paid for this? Tell your boss I can do a better job, cheaper.

You made up a bunch of stuff including Fyfe swept the leg when the video shows he didnt. You stated he's done it at least 3 times this year and that was untrue. You made up stuff about natural arcs and that wasn't true. You stated that you were right and I was wrong and now you claim its just a different opinion....seriously?

You went too far and now have painted yourself into a corner. No way out for you is there?

 

[Mr Lizard]

The video clearly shows him talking 2-3 paces to the right and under the rules thats play on.

Suckling is a left footer and veers off the line to the left when he kicks, not the right.

You don't do very well at recounting facts.


The umpires allow for a player's natural arc when kicking set shots. You've been told that but you pretend otherwise.

 

[imperial_oz]

Suckling is a left footer and veers off the line to the left when he kicks, not the right.

You don't do very well at recounting facts.


The umpires allow for a player's natural arc when kicking set shots. You've been told that but you pretend otherwise.

I'll admit I typed right when I meant left, so that clears that one up.

You've been told that the rule that applies, law 16.2 does NOT allow for any natural arc. The law clearly states that if you depart from a straight line its 'play on' but you have been making up stuff about allowing for a natural arc. Its bulldust. Law 16.2 does not allow that. You know this but if you admit what the law says, you have to admit that goal should not stand....and don't have the nads for that do you.

I don't need to pretend anything as I'm not the one making up stuff. The law is there for you to read. Another poster, an umpire has said the same thing and you keep pretending otherwise

 

[Mr Lizard]

You are an imbecile.

I'm going to watch last night's replay again now. I hope you enjoy grand final week.

 

[rocket9]

So, another incorrect decision in favour of Hawthorn then

Looked to me that there was more than one player standing the mark so it should have been 50 anyway.

It seems to a be a common thing with these two blokes. Where the actual video shows them to be wrong they take two screen shots, make up a bunch of malarkey and then claim you don't actually see what you are seeing.

Forget the bulldust and the 'leave 99% of the evidence out of it and just trust me', look at the video. Suckling takes between 2 -3 paces to the left to open the angle up.

I'm starting to think we have a couple of paid astroturfers trying to deflect from what really happened out there. Continually making stuff up

Edit: Heres the link



See for yourself whether he moves several paces to the left to open up the angle or off the right like mr astroturfer would have you believe

The umpire could have solved this argument by just paying a 50m penalty as there was more than one player standing the mark.

I'll admit I typed right when I meant left, so that clears that one up.

You've been told that the rule that applies, law 16.2 does NOT allow for any natural arc. The law clearly states that if you depart from a straight line its 'play on' but you have been making up stuff about allowing for a natural arc. Its bulldust. Law 16.2 does not allow that. You know this but if you admit what the law says, you have to admit that goal should not stand....and don't have the nads for that do you.

I don't need to pretend anything as I'm not the one making up stuff. The law is there for you to read. Another poster, an umpire has said the same thing and you keep pretending otherwise

16.1 says only one player is allowed to stand the mark.

Ok mate.

You're a stickler for this rule being adjudicated to the literal sense:

16.2
PLAYING FROM BEHIND THE MARK
A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall dispose of the football from directly behind the mark. If a Player disposes or attempts to dispose of
the football other than in a direct line over the mark, the field Umpire shall call “Play On” and the football shall immediately be in play. This Law does not apply
if a Player is disposing of the football from beyond the Goal Line, Behind Line or Boundary Line, in which case Laws 16.4 or 16.5 shall apply

So the photo I put up shows sucklin do exactly that.
Can you please show where the rule says he's not allowed to step sideways please. All I see is the bal has to be disposed of in a line over the mark. He did that.

Actually



Whatever
Push your barrow.
I'm off the grand final next week.
Like I was last year.
And The year before
And the year before.
Cry more
Whinge more
Scream about the rules



None of that changes the fact you lost.
Now welcome to ignore word you peanut.

That photo you put up also shows more than 1 Fremantle player trying to stand the mark, which is against rule 16.1. So it should have been 50 metres anyways.

 

[imperial_oz]

Looked to me that there was more than one player standing the mark so it should have been 50 anyway.



The umpire could have solved this argument by just paying a 50m penalty as there was more than one player standing the mark.


16.1 says only one player is allowed to stand the mark.



That photo you put up also shows more than 1 Fremantle player trying to stand the mark, which is against rule 16.1. So it should have been 50 metres anyways.

You are entirely incorrect.

1. I didn't put any photos up. One the Hawthorn astroturfers did that
2. Looking at the photo, there appears to be one player on the mark and several players either side close behind him. They would not be standing the mark.
3. It probably gets little confused when Suckling plays on
4. It is clear on the video that the other players were standing behind the player on the mark, so your 50 meter comment isn't correct.
5. Law 16.1 does not provide for a 50 meter penalty where more than one player stands the mark anyway. I would be interested to see where you suddenly pull this 50 meter penalty from.Law 16 only provides for a 50 meter penalty where the player on the mark encroaches the mark while the player is kicking for goal and that did not happen

 

[smeltitdeltit]

You dont do very well at this reasoned argument thing do you?

Hardhat11 earlier in this thread told you he umpires at local level. He told you what you were saying was wrong. I've quoted the rule to you and you still peddle this rubbish.

You stated that Suckling went slightly right and showed screen grabs that said showed that. The video clearly shows him talking 2-3 paces to the right and under the rules thats play on. After the siren, its no score. You've been told that by other but you pretend otherwise.

The screen grab shows nothing about the ball going over the mark. Its a still shot with the mark not shown. The video very clearly shows Suckling running well to the side of the mark. Pretending otherwise isn't going to make the video go away.

Calling me a peanut because I keep proving you wrong is actually very amusing. Its all you have and it isn't much is it?

Umpires at a local level??
Ha ha ha
I used to umpire at a local level peanut. Doesn't make me an expert, or does it?

Now have you found that quote of me agreeing with the lake call? Or are you ignoring this because you're too weak to admit you lied?

Where does the rule state that taking steps to the side is play on?

 

[imperial_oz]

Umpires at a local level??
Ha ha ha
I used to umpire at a local level peanut. Doesn't make me an expert, or does it?

Now have you found that quote of me agreeing with the lake call? Or are you ignoring this because you're too weak to admit you lied?

Where does the rule state that taking steps to the side is play on?

Seriously? You had the relevant law quoted to you. Now you are just being pathetic.

16.2
PLAYING FROM BEHIND THE MARK
A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall dispose of the football
from directly behind the mark. If a Player disposes or attempts to dispose of
the football other than in a direct line over the mark, the field Umpire shall call
“Play On” and the football shall immediately be in play. This Law does not apply
if a Player is disposing of the football from beyond the Goal Line, Behind Line or
Boundary Line, in which case Laws 16.4 or 16.5 shall apply

It states it right there, as well you know. Suckling ran to one of the mark by 2 - 3 paces and it should have been called play on...again as well you know but can't face admitting.

Mate, you have been found out time and time again. Its time to stop the pretence