- Mar 2, 2015
- 19,173
- 34,522
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Why won't they show us the "down the ground" footage from behind the goals?
I'll tell you why... Because Hewett's kick which was marked by Cotterell deflected off Aish's outstretched arm by about one metre.
It was an absolute howler of a non-decision from the umpires. Incredible that none of the 4 umpires were in position to see this.
I just assumed that the Freo players were complaining that Nat Fyfe touched it off the boot. Like most people, I thought, "Oh well... Umpires can't always tell if a player gets their fingernail on the ball. Freo are probably grasping at straws trying to claim it wasn't a mark."
But then I saw this footage and I was shocked...
It's so typical of the AFL that they'll do anything to gloss over the mistakes from umpires, especially the ones which decide a game.
Nathan Schmook's match report on afl.com had the headline "Undisciplined Dockers hand Blues controversial win"
No, they didn't. The 4 blind umpires handed the Blues a controversial win by not calling "touched, play on". The match was decided by Cottterell's match-winning goal with 45 secs left. The dissent shown by Jordan Clark which led to Carlton's 10th goal simply cost Freo the chance of salvaging a miracle win in the final seconds (which in all likelihood, probably wasn't gonna happen anyway.)
Schmook wrote, "Matthew Cottrell was then awarded a mark and converted his set shot as Dockers players pleaded with the umpire that the ball had been touched."
Why doesn't he write that the ball WAS touched and that Cotterell should not have been awarded the mark?
That's the real story... Pathetic journalism.
I watched the "The Round So Far" highlights with Riley Beveridge and Kane Cornes. They're repeating the same ploy, focusing more on the free kick against Clark for dissent. They're even using the "down the ground" footage from behind the goals to show the exact moment he said something to the umpire.
I'll ask again, why won't they show us this "down the ground" footage from a few seconds earlier and let us all see the wicked deflection the ball took off James Aish's arm?
They showed a close-up from a different angle where you can see the ball brushes Aish's hair (after it hit his arm) and Cornes pours cold water on the Dockers' protests, saying "That's a mark. We're paying that a mark in every instance. We always have."
Blatantly misleading the football public.
Incredible how they choose cover the umpires' arses and the AFL arses by not coming clean and admitting the obvious error
Shite journalism... That's what you get when they're all AFL bootlickers.
F**k the AFL.
edit: Blues fans, please try to take club colours out of this and look at the over-arching story. You got the 4 premiership points. Well done. But this is more about the umpires being unable to make an OBVIOUS decision between the four of them and costing a team a hard-earned win and then the AFL media not reporting the facts and trying to spin the story.
I'll tell you why... Because Hewett's kick which was marked by Cotterell deflected off Aish's outstretched arm by about one metre.
It was an absolute howler of a non-decision from the umpires. Incredible that none of the 4 umpires were in position to see this.
I just assumed that the Freo players were complaining that Nat Fyfe touched it off the boot. Like most people, I thought, "Oh well... Umpires can't always tell if a player gets their fingernail on the ball. Freo are probably grasping at straws trying to claim it wasn't a mark."
But then I saw this footage and I was shocked...
It's so typical of the AFL that they'll do anything to gloss over the mistakes from umpires, especially the ones which decide a game.
Nathan Schmook's match report on afl.com had the headline "Undisciplined Dockers hand Blues controversial win"
No, they didn't. The 4 blind umpires handed the Blues a controversial win by not calling "touched, play on". The match was decided by Cottterell's match-winning goal with 45 secs left. The dissent shown by Jordan Clark which led to Carlton's 10th goal simply cost Freo the chance of salvaging a miracle win in the final seconds (which in all likelihood, probably wasn't gonna happen anyway.)
Schmook wrote, "Matthew Cottrell was then awarded a mark and converted his set shot as Dockers players pleaded with the umpire that the ball had been touched."
Why doesn't he write that the ball WAS touched and that Cotterell should not have been awarded the mark?
That's the real story... Pathetic journalism.
I watched the "The Round So Far" highlights with Riley Beveridge and Kane Cornes. They're repeating the same ploy, focusing more on the free kick against Clark for dissent. They're even using the "down the ground" footage from behind the goals to show the exact moment he said something to the umpire.
I'll ask again, why won't they show us this "down the ground" footage from a few seconds earlier and let us all see the wicked deflection the ball took off James Aish's arm?
They showed a close-up from a different angle where you can see the ball brushes Aish's hair (after it hit his arm) and Cornes pours cold water on the Dockers' protests, saying "That's a mark. We're paying that a mark in every instance. We always have."
Blatantly misleading the football public.
Incredible how they choose cover the umpires' arses and the AFL arses by not coming clean and admitting the obvious error
Shite journalism... That's what you get when they're all AFL bootlickers.
F**k the AFL.
edit: Blues fans, please try to take club colours out of this and look at the over-arching story. You got the 4 premiership points. Well done. But this is more about the umpires being unable to make an OBVIOUS decision between the four of them and costing a team a hard-earned win and then the AFL media not reporting the facts and trying to spin the story.
Last edited:
