precieved favouritism of umpiring Bulldogs games

[Draft Pick]

When the captain walked out on a team who was crap for a long time they just looked like a basket case and irrelevant in terms of late September teams.

Kudos to Beveridge he is a very good coach, however that still doesn't take anything away from the umpiring in Bulldogs favour in 2016

As much as I liked it at the time as I hate North, West Coast got a good run in the '15 prelim. There were literally 4 goals that came directly from dubious umpiring decisions. However, it was clear that WC were clearly the better team on the night. Same goes with the GF this year.

 

[hoianbulldog]

There's quite obviously contact below the knee during the hit.

These pics would indicate otherwise. Can you please post a picture of the low contact to clear the matter up once and for all.

 

[SCRAY72]

That's true, I don't like the Bulldogs but I don't like most opposition teams.

I'll admit I like the Swans more than the Bulldogs though as they really do play the game the right way, hard and tough and they don't play for free kicks.

Their supporters also know more about the game than some Dogs supporters which is saying something as most people think Swans supporters are clueless.

Silly stuff. So you have spoken to 50,000 Dogs supporters and 50,000 Swans supporters and you have come to the conclusion that Swans supporters know more about the game.

 

[SCRAY72]

Yes I know other players duck for free kicks too but Toby McLean has been one of the worst offenders in recent times, I think the AFL are changing the rule where ducking for free kicks isn't rewarded so hopefully it gets stamped out as i's a bad look for the game. The Bulldogs should be a good enough team to win games without trying to bend the rules to win free


Bulldocker isn't exactly a neutral supporter when it comes to Bulldogs games.

The Bull part of his username and WB for other teams supported should give you a couple of clues.

Still knows his football regardless.
I also agree with you about McLean, he does play for frees and I wish he didn't.
But so do about 100 other players in the league. It is up to the rules committee to clamp down.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Perhaps you should watch the AFL video explanation
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2015-03-17/2016-laws-of-the-game-forceful-contact-below-the-knee

Sliding is specifically mentioned in the explanantion.
Wood contact to Hannebery was above the knee.

It's clear you didn't. The explanation gives sliding as one example where a free kick out be paid and the first two examples showed a player longing low and taking out an opponent's legs.

 

[hoianbulldog]

It's clear you didn't. The explanation gives sliding as one example where a free kick out be paid and the first two examples showed a player longing low and taking out an opponent's legs.

How are you going with the pics of below the knee contact on Hannebery?

 

[Kummerspeck]

How are you going with the pics of below the knee contact on Hannebery?

Just for my own edification, how do you leave carefully selected photos clearly show there was no below the leg contact during the hit from a player who'd left his feet?

 

[Bulldog Joe]

It's clear you didn't. The explanation gives sliding as one example where a free kick out be paid and the first two examples showed a player longing low and taking out an opponent's legs.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
You previously said that the rule had nothing to do with sliding, yet the explanation includes sliding which we both agree is on the video and you still argue.

 

[Sentinel]

Just for my own edification, how do you leave carefully selected photos clearly show there was no below the leg contact during the hit from a player who'd left his feet?

The Wood-Hannebery one is a really interesting one. Watching the game live, it did look initially like a clear-cut free kick given Wood went to ground and appeared to take out Hannebery's lower kegs, but on replay I think it actually shows his body forcefully making contact with his knee and lower thigh, with any resulting contact to his lower leg occurring after (and thus not 'forceful' enough to cause injury). If you look at the screenshot below, Wood's torso collides first with Hannebery above the knee.

I think the other factor being ignored is the type of injury which actually resulted. Contact below the knee will generally cause two types of injuries - being a lower leg injury or an ankle injury. If the contact was made below the knee (ie not to the knee or above), then I think its extremely difficult to injure your knee.

In my opinion, Hannebery was unlucky in that Wood came in hard into his knee, from the side whilst his foot was planted, which cause it to buckle inwards and damage his medial. Given that, by the word of the law requiring prohibited contact below the knee, it was the correct call to play on.

 

[ManOfClay]

If hannerbery didn't go in so tentatively and attacked the ball as hard as Wood did he wouldn't have been hurt.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
You previously said that the rule had nothing to do with sliding, yet the explanation includes sliding which we both agree is on the video and you still argue.

No, I said the rule doesn't mention sliding. Which it doesn't.

 

[Kummerspeck]

If you look at the screenshot below, Wood's torso collides first with Hannebery above the knee.

It also shows his leg making contact with Hanneberry's lower leg from that angle.

In my opinion, Hannebery was unlucky in that Wood came in hard into his knee, from the side whilst his foot was planted, which cause it to buckle inwards and damage his medial. Given that, by the word of the law requiring prohibited contact below the knee, it was the correct call to play on.

I appreciate your well thought out reply, but I disagree. Wood left his feet and made forceful enough contact with Hanneberry's knee to cause an injury. The idea that because Wood made contact with Hanneberry's upper leg a microsecond before Hanneberry's lower legs were taken out meant that the force wasn't there isn't one that can be taken seriously.

In any case, discussing the semantics of if the knee is included in the definition of below the knee isn't really useful. The action that Wood took of going off his feet and cannoning into the knee of a player who stayed on his feet to contest the ball is the exact action this was designed to stop.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

No, I said the rule doesn't mention sliding. Which it doesn't.

Yes you are being deliberately obtuse.

 

[Monkey King]

These pics would indicate otherwise.

Yeah right. And this pick indicates Barry Hall never touched Staker's chin too

 

[conrad_437]

Amazing that people still think that the umpiring had a massive bearing on the game, whereas it had next to none in a 22 point victory for the dogs.

 

[Kummerspeck]

Amazing that people still think that the umpiring had a massive bearing on the game, whereas it had next to none in a 22 point victory for the dogs.

The Bulldogs were up by one in the last quarter after their opposition had a two-and-a-half quarter stretch with only one free kick and they had scored multiple goals off the back of blatently incorrect calls, some of which were directly addressed by the AFL.

 

[Senor Ed]

The Bulldogs were up by one in the last quarter after their opposition had a two-and-a-half quarter stretch with only one free kick and they had scored multiple goals off the back of blatently incorrect calls, some of which were directly addressed by the AFL.

List them.

I'll give you 1. Clay Smith's goal. The Rampe holding the ball (wtf was that?!?)

 

[conrad_437]

The Bulldogs were up by one in the last quarter after their opposition had a two-and-a-half quarter stretch with only one free kick and they had scored multiple goals off the back of blatently incorrect calls, some of which were directly addressed by the AFL.

Multiple goals? Please. We scored one off the back of the Rampe HTB. Where are the rest?

 

[Golden_6]

List them.

I'll give you 1. Clay Smith's goal. The Rampe holding the ball (wtf was that?!?)

Are you talking about the free against Rampe where he got pinged HTB but wasn't HTB? If so, umpire made the incorrect call. It was a clear high fend off against Rampe.

 

[Senor Ed]

Are you talking about the free against Rampe where he got pinged HTB but wasn't HTB? If so, umpire made the incorrect call. It was a clear high fend off against Rampe.

The one on the wing... should have been play on imo. Pretty sure it was in the 3rd. The big howler of the game (other than Rohan's, Tippett's, Mills', Richards', Papley's games)

 

[Golden_6]

The one on the wing... should have been play on imo. Pretty sure it was in the 3rd. The big howler of the game (other than Rohan's, Tippett's, Mills', Richards', Papley's games)

I agree the HTB was an incorrect decision but if you go to 1:44:18, the high fend off on Dahlhaus is clearly there at the time the decision was made.

 

[Senor Ed]

I agree the HTB was an incorrect decision but if you go to 1:44:18, the high fend off on Dahlhaus is clearly there at the time the decision was made.

Did not see that high fend off before. The free was actually there but wrong free paid.

 

[Werewolf]

Sydney had a two-and-a-half quarter stretch with only one free kick

Also two 50m penalties - one of them gifted Kennedy a goal. Which frees were missed in that time?

Multiple goals? Please. We scored one off the back of the Rampe HTB. Where are the rest?

McLean's goal just before half time came soon after a free kick & 50m penalty. A lucky break TBH

 

[hoianbulldog]

The thing to remember with the Rampe free kick is that he attempted to break a second tackle. Not that long ago it was an automatic free kick against. Very similar to Franklin in the last breaking a few seperate tackles in the middle of the ground which I thought should have been a free for us.
I don't think the Rampe free was all that bad, the resulting free to Smith in the next passage was absolute garbage.

Just my opinion.

 

[yeee_haaaa!!!!!]

The Bulldogs were up by one in the last quarter after their opposition had a two-and-a-half quarter stretch with only one free kick and they had scored multiple goals off the back of blatently incorrect calls, some of which were directly addressed by the AFL.

Please enlighten the rest of us as to the multiple goals the dogs scored from blatantly incorrect free kicks ? Sounds to me like a sweeping generalisation to suit your argument which actually has no basis in fact.

I've watched the grand final a couple of times on fox footy over summer. Pretty sure I know the reason why Sydney lost - it's called 'not good enough'