Bartel hits back at diving claims

[kickazz]

Aren't we all missing the grand design here? The umpire in question PAID the free kick. 100% of the criticism should be levelled at the umpire for not doing his job properly. He paid a free kick that wasn't there.

Why do we let the umpires off the hook? Milking free kicks is part of the game and has been happening for 100 years or more. The umpires are paid handsomely to make a judgement. Why are we all so easily absolving them of this responsibility? In this whole saga I can't remember that colossal prick umpire's name mentioned ONCE. Yet he could have averted this entire drama by making the right decision and calling "play on."

By the way, if getting a staging free kick was the difference between winning and losing a grand final, I guarantee every one of you Bartel critics would take it in a second.

You're all a bunch of ******* hypocrites.

Overall, umpires in this game do not get let off the hook. They have a very tough job and I think the crux of threads like these is that we don't like it wen te players make that job even tougher for them. AFL response was interesting saying that interfeence in/approaching marking contests is something that could be enforced better. That is always the problem with the put the whistle away approach, when a player is infringed it becomes almost encumbent upon them to make it known.

That is why players go down like flies in soccer - I have been to so many games where the ref will not blow the whistle on a foul unless or until they see a player fall, even if there is a obvious infringement.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Don't forget the frees paid to Puopolo in front of goal for ducking and shrugging the arms to draw high contact. I guess these don't fit into the Geelong hysteria sweeping BF at the moment. Over to the trolls.

We hate Puopolo doing it too.

The idea that if hawthorn players do it that it excuses or invalidates the resentment of Geelong players doing it is just dumb, childish, tribal crap.

Geelong come across as a team, not a few indicuduals, or occasional acts, but a team that plays with one eye on the umpire and rehearsed tactics to earn their attention.

Sadly it gets rewarded.

Sadly, when Bartel gets a very mild media criticism compared to Lindsay Thomas he lies about it.

And it's catching on.

It used to be a select few players. Now we accept that every club has one or two. It's crap. I hate it, whether it's players from my club or a seemingly club rehearsed effort from Geelong.

 

[MinerBoy]

I like him but can't see how that's not an over exaggeration in order to draw a free. Most players do it to some extent anyway.

This is about the extent of it. Terrific player and a decent bloke by all accounts.

He's just extracting the urine though with his comments. Just suck it up and move on like Jordan Lewis and others have done.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Overall, umpires in this game do not get let off the hook. They have a very tough job and I think the crux of threads like these is that we don't like it wen te players make that job even tougher for them. AFL response was interesting saying that interfeence in/approaching marking contests is something that could be enforced better. That is always the problem with the put the whistle away approach, when a player is infringed it becomes almost encumbent upon them to make it known.

That is why players go down like flies in soccer - I have been to so many games where the ref will not blow the whistle on a foul unless or until they see a player fall, even if there is a obvious infringement.

It's a combination of shitty umpiring and impossible interpretation directives from above. Some of the actions of the rules committee in recent years have made umpires lives a lot harder than they have to be.

Still, it is a part of an umpire's job to adjudge whether a player is staging or whether contact is legitimate. THAT IS YOUR JOB! If you get it wrong, it's on you, not the player.

Staging is not against the spirit of the game. It's very much part of the game.

McInerney is also a clown. He has form being whistle happy and paying bullshit soft free kicks.

 

[Daveismad]

There is little bit of "grumpy old men" about Geelong when anything is questioned by the media

Like how dare you question a Geelong player ......we are above criticism thank-you very much

Yup and they have been great side ...they won't win the flag this year or next....but they will hang on to top 4 status and be up and about as they say because they are very very good but are not great anymore.

I saw Brisbane lions players after 2004 become grumpy old men and the splits n spills boiled over at times

Hmm .....they are coached by an ex lions champ who saw that happen

What would have been funny and would have dead panned all of this ....would have been for bartell to say

Yup I dived.......wasn't good was it .......I'm bit late for the commonwealth games ....did is score a 9.2

Issue over...everyone has laugh and moves on ......humour can resolve things

But no he goes down that river in Europe tack called the denial route ......who me

Nah you got the wrong guy.....I didn't do that .......you're all wrong

And for mine his management and Geelong's coaching ranks could have ended this with a laugh and said yeah I dived......throw a gag in and it's done

Missed opportunity by so someones who is grumpy maybe ....don't know

Just think it would have been an opportunity to be light n funny and would have made it all go away rather quickly

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Staging is not against the spirit of the game. It's very much part of the game.

Unbelievable. It appears you don't understand football at all.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Unbelievable. It appears you don't understand football at all.

No, you don't. You see the Bartel ones because they're obvious, but you don't notice the other thousand happening during the game.

It's a footballer's instinct to draw a free kick. A good footballer, anyway.

 

[worthy]

LOL.

Lol.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

No, you don't. You see the Bartel ones because they're obvious, but you don't notice the other thousand happening during the game.

It's a footballer's instinct to draw a free kick. A good footballer, anyway.

You're just digging deeper. Every time somebody tries to milk a free kick, it goes against the spirit of the game. The greats never do it.

 

[Slippery Pete]

You're just digging deeper. Every time somebody tries to milk a free kick, it goes against the spirit of the game. The greats never do it.

You think they don't, but they do. That'd because most of them are so good at it you don't even know it's happening.

And by the way, Joel Selwood and Sam Mitchell aren't greats?

 

[Reginald Perrin]

You think they don't, but they do.

And by the way, Joel Selwood and Sam Mitchell aren't greats?

Not even close.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Not even close.

Amuse me, give me an example of a "great?"

 

[FuManchu]

He's sooking it up too much for my liking. It was plainly a dive... cop your lumps, don't defend the indefensible and get on with it.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

You think they don't, but they do. That'd because most of them are so good at it you don't even know it's happening.

And by the way, Joel Selwood and Sam Mitchell aren't greats?

So you're saying you know it happens because you can't see it?

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Had a closer look at the footage. It's actually pretty conclusive that he didn't dive. Might post a frame by frame of it tonight.

There's an effect where people interpret things based on being prompted to see something in a piece of footage. It's used well in the movie industry. I think that is what has happened here.

The slow motion replay on the telecast and at the ground was actually pretty useless because they showed from waist up with important parts of the video covered by the score. If you instead look at the original live footage, it's pretty clear he didn't dive.

Suckling came from a mile back so Bartel might not have been that aware he was in the contest. Bartel looked like he was timing his run for the mark (approached a lot slower).

Suckling caught him in the stride that Bartel was taking off for the jump and came across him from the side backing off a bit maybe to avoid Lewis.

Suckling's left leg ended up in front of Bartel's as he jumped and at the same time he pushed into Bartel's back with his forearm (easily seen in the footage and by the position Suckling's arm ended in. Motive might've been to push Bartel, but also might've been to counter the rotation of his body caused by Bartel hitting his left leg.

As a result Bartel's jump ended up awkward and people wondered what he was doing. If you look at him landing though the trip is pretty clear because one leg got left behind and other was out in front. People who dive generally would throw their body forward and lift both legs to achieve the dive.

Arms down was most like a reflex because the contact caught him by surprise. Rest is history.

 

[Slippery Pete]

So you're saying you know it happens because you can't see it?

I can, he can't.

 

[Sttew]

He was responding to trolling by Brereton. He probably shouldn't have bitten, but boy has he copped it this week - who can blame him?

All the "experts" on BF

 

[Reginald Perrin]

Amuse me, give me an example of a "great?"

I'll keep it close to home for you and nominate Mark Ricciuto.

 

[MinerBoy]

Had a closer look at the footage. It's actually pretty conclusive that he didn't dive. Might post a frame by frame of it tonight.

There's an effect where people interpret things based on being prompted to see something in a piece of footage. It's used well in the movie industry. I think that is what has happened here.

The slow motion replay on the telecast and at the ground was actually pretty useless because they showed from waist up with important parts of the video covered by the score. If you instead look at the original live footage, it's pretty clear he didn't dive.

Suckling came from a mile back so Bartel might not have been that aware he was in the contest. Bartel looked like he was timing his run for the mark (approached a lot slower).

Suckling caught him in the stride that Bartel was taking off for the jump and came across him from the side backing off a bit maybe to avoid Lewis.

Suckling's left leg ended up in front of Bartel's as he jumped and at the same time he pushed into Bartel's back with his forearm (easily seen in the footage and by the position Suckling's arm ended in. Motive might've been to push Bartel, but also might've been to counter the rotation of his body caused by Bartel hitting his left leg.

As a result Bartel's jump ended up awkward and people wondered what he was doing. If you look at him landing though the trip is pretty clear because one leg got left behind and other was out in front. People who dive generally would throw their body forward and lift both legs to achieve the dive.

Arms down was most like a reflex because the contact caught him by surprise. Rest is history.

 

[Daveismad]

Had a closer look at the footage. It's actually pretty conclusive that he didn't dive. Might post a frame by frame of it tonight.

There's an effect where people interpret things based on being prompted to see something in a piece of footage. It's used well in the movie industry. I think that is what has happened here.

The slow motion replay on the telecast and at the ground was actually pretty useless because they showed from waist up with important parts of the video covered by the score. If you instead look at the original live footage, it's pretty clear he didn't dive.

Suckling came from a mile back so Bartel might not have been that aware he was in the contest. Bartel looked like he was timing his run for the mark (approached a lot slower).

Suckling caught him in the stride that Bartel was taking off for the jump and came across him from the side backing off a bit maybe to avoid Lewis.

Suckling's left leg ended up in front of Bartel's as he jumped and at the same time he pushed into Bartel's back with his forearm (easily seen in the footage and by the position Suckling's arm ended in. Motive might've been to push Bartel, but also might've been to counter the rotation of his body caused by Bartel hitting his left leg.

As a result Bartel's jump ended up awkward and people wondered what he was doing. If you look at him landing though the trip is pretty clear because one leg got left behind and other was out in front. People who dive generally would throw their body forward and lift both legs to achieve the dive.

Arms down was most like a reflex because the contact caught him by surprise. Rest is history.

If I need biomechanics lawyer to defend me ...you won't be it ...and I mean that in a nice way mate ..

Stop it now mate

He dived ...this isn't science .....this was simple brain fade which all players have at some point

 

[Mningasimisonda]

If I need biomechanics lawyer to defend me ...you won't be it ...and I mean that in a nice way mate ..

Stop it now mate

He dived ...this isn't science .....this was simple brain fade which all players have at some point

Look at the footage and stop trolling along the the majority.

 

[Sttew]

I'll keep it close to home for you and nominate Mark Ricciuto.

If your definition precludes current players then no argument.

 

[Reginald Perrin]

If your definition precludes current players then no argument.

Current players aren't precluded, although they are less likely to be considered a great as most are still forging their career.

 

[The 747]

You're just digging deeper. Every time somebody tries to milk a free kick, it goes against the spirit of the game. The greats never do it.

Adam Goodes
Dean Cox

Thanks and come again!

 

[Sttew]

As the "football world" continued to pass pious judgment, and Jimmy Bartel called the outrage over his alleged dive "a load of rubbish", the AFL umpiring department on Thursday endorsed the controversial free kick paid to Geelong's apparently fallen star. At last, some sanity.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...f-the-past-20140828-109o6z.html#ixzz3BkWBFLJE