Remove this Banner Ad

Review R13: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly vs. Geelong Cats

  • Thread starter Thread starter jamesclean
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

It says high contact though? Surely, even on that basis - i.e. an error in citing the actual offence in itself, is enough to have it thrown out

It's not an error. O'Sullivan's head ends up making contact with Dawson's hip. Walker is judged as having caused that incident. The push itself isn't high, the subsequent contact is, that's what is being judged.

Likewise, the impact is listed as medium, even though the force of the push is minimal. But the contact with Dawson's hip is medium force.

Of course, I'm only making this claim based on precedent, since the actual written guidelines are murky at best. The clearest passage regarding this from the 2026 tribunal guidelines is the following:

Consideration will also be given not only to the impact between the offending Player and the Victim Player, but also any other impact to the Victim Player as a result of such impact. By way of an example, where a Victim Player as a result of the impact from the offending Player is pushed into the path of a fast-moving third Player, the impact to the Victim Player may be classified as High or Severe, even though the level of impact between the offending Player and the Victim Player was only Low or Medium.
 
Last edited:
Isn’t there a rule where you’re not allowed to submit other incidents as evidence. Ie a kangaroo court
I think you can submit them but they reserve the right to just say "Nup, don't care about them, we're talking about you."

Basically they don't have to defend or justify why other incidents avoided penalty while sitting there telling you that yours is worthy.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Shout out to Rory on the footy show for sticking up for Tex and for giving kudos to Dawson for continuing to get up for games with the tragedy he has suffered. He also said he wanted to throw the remote at the TV when he saw the T come out with at least 7 min to go in the final quarter. Can only hope that Nicks starts to rethink the use of this tactic.
It was more like 8 and a half minutes.
Nicks is nuts.
 
Scott saying coaches shouldn't have to deal with a crowd of "Adelaide nuffies".

Geelong - always known as the classiest city in Australia.
You should go to a match at Kardinia! Makes Collingwood supporters look positively genteel.
Twanging banjo territory down there.
70S Banjo GIF
 
I watched it again. I don't think Geelong's run of goals after the sign came out had any thing to do with slowing it down. They lifted at the stoppage and contested ball and that gave them looks at goal.

Maybe that was a result of a structural change we make when the sign comes out?

The issue with these signs is even if the Crows don't "slow down" it gives the opposition a heads up that we aren't likely to hurt them in attack so the opposition can adjust their own defensive actions and be more bold in attack.

Like facing a boxer who wont throw a punch late in a fight.
 
The issue with these signs is even if the Crows don't "slow down" it gives the opposition a heads up that we aren't likely to hurt them in attack so the opposition can adjust their own defensive actions and be more bold in attack.

Like facing a boxer who wont throw a punch late in a fight.

In saying that, they know that anyway. Our issues with ball movement from defense to midfield is well documented.

I don't think this is a team that has the emotional maturity to ride the waves in this game well, but this does play into that Achilles heel of the side. We don't have the skill or pace in our defensive unit to execute anything more complex than tram track football and we lack the star power that's needed to make the big plays regularly when the whips are cracking.
 
Last edited:

Adelaide v Geelong​

10 Jordan Dawson (ADEL)
8 Daniel Curtin (ADEL)
6 Patrick Dangerfield (GEEL)
4 Sam De Koning (GEEL)
1 Alex Neal-Bullen (ADEL)
1 Max Holmes (GEEL)

Coaches agreed on everybody except the 1-voters, that's unusual. Also no votes for the 34-disposal metres gained specialist, but I bet he gets the 3 Brownlow votes.

Also lol the couple behind me spent the entire game bagging out Curtin and De Koning as useless!
 
The ARC needs to **** off unless the goal umpire calls for it.

If he makes a mistake then he makes a mistake. Deal with it.

It’s farcical for a goal to be celebrated, and minutes later the ball comes all the way back. No other sport does this. It’s an embarrassment and anyone who supports this is a ****ing moron.

Havent heard of Soccer or Rugby League?
 
Havent heard of Soccer or Rugby League?

A distinctive aspect of Aussie Rules is the central importance of the “all clear” and the goal umpire’s signal. It’s the moment everyone relies on and hangs their hat on.

To preserve the spirit and integrity of the game, any video review must happen before the goal umpire signals.

Once that signal is given, the decision should stand.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I watched it again. I don't think Geelong's run of goals after the sign came out had any thing to do with slowing it down. They lifted at the stoppage and contested ball and that gave them looks at goal.

Maybe that was a result of a structural change we make when the sign comes out?
everyone knows what the sign means. so Geelong see it and they know Adelaide are going to try to retain possession and sit back, so they become more attacking. There is no secret there
 
everyone knows what the sign means. so Geelong see it and they know Adelaide are going to try to retain possession and sit back, so they become more attacking. There is no secret there
Why do they wait for our sign to become more attacking? Doesn't the sign theoretically mean we go defensive, which would make it harder to go more attacking?
 
Why do they wait for our sign to become more attacking? Doesn't the sign theoretically mean we go defensive, which would make it harder to go more attacking?
No I think the sign tells them we aren't going to be attacking them as much, which also tells them we are going to do more short kicks or sideways ones.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

A distinctive aspect of Aussie Rules is the central importance of the “all clear” and the goal umpire’s signal. It’s the moment everyone relies on and hangs their hat on.

To preserve the spirit and integrity of the game, any video review must happen before the goal umpire signals.

Once that signal is given, the decision should stand.

I disagree.
So in the case of Ben Keays goal that was given as a behind and cost us a spot in the finals, we should just accept the howler of a decision because the umpire didn't refer it straight away and was confidently wrong?
 
They'll never do it (fabric of the game etc) but it would be so much easier to call a goal without controversy if the ball deflects on the inside of the goalpost, a behind on the outside of the post and play on if it bounces back into play.

Soccer/hockey/rugby union/Gaelic football/lacrosse etc have got it right, and we did actually trial the play-on a few pre-seasons ago.

The comparison to those sports is flawed, because we are the only sport that has a goal, and a “lesser goal” effectively with our scoring system.

There are two main problems with changing to your suggestion, other than the fabric of the game argument.

1. We have an oval ball and 15m high posts, the ball hitting the post and bouncing back in to play creates a scenario that I don’t think adds to the game.

2. It creates a weird situation where you get 6 for a goal, 1 for a behind, but 0 for hitting the post, which doesn’t make sense to me.

If we just went back to having a goal umpire, backing them in to make the right call most of the time, and stopped obsessing over needing perfect decision making, this would be largely a non-issue.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom