Search results for query: *

Reckon they got the decision right but used the wrong process. Watched the replay on the angle behind Lynch. Clear point. It went to the other side of the post. Yet the ones saying the ball was above were after it crossed the line. So unless the arc had access to the original footage I reckon...

Harsh on Warner but clear 50. Whistle clearly goes before the siren than he gets the ball and boots it to level 2. Rules state ball has to be returned on the full.

Really I thought it was it can't be touched at all. If touched no score.

Throw. Great goal but chucked it up ump missed it and once you call for a review you can't then review the field umps decision just if it was over the line.

Don't know tbh. Yes there is an element of risk on a footy field (just like the roads/airlines) but anything wreckless is not reasonably expected. AFL will probably go intentional to satisfy their image and the baying hounds.

No Cotchin doesn't miss. They were both going for the ball and he turned at the split second to protect himself. Any junior knows you don't raise your elbow. I don't think JC is a thug. I think it was unintentional and a complete accident. But an accident caused by something unbelievably...

Agree with 1 and 2 not 3. No some contact was not unreasonable but what he did was highly dangerous and likely to do damage. You can't just chuck your elbow out like that in the modern game. Bit like if I drive 150km/h @.15. 1) I might be seeking to go to my destination 2) I might be driving...

1st 1 was there what was the second? Still 4 umps don't work. They just get in the way. I'd nearly go back to 2. Notice how the most correct calls are given by the ump 60m away who has a clear view to assess the situation and is not running round like a blue arsed fly barking instructions. In a...

Outrageous conspiracy theory. Yet 2 are obvious to me. 2015 PF WCE v North 2016 GF All I'm saying.

Clear distinction is no marking contest. So if a player is going for a ball and fends of an opponent to the face sending them off under the blood rule they would be gone. So why can you do it with a foot? Unlucky (after all he kneed someone in the back of the scone 2 mins later but as it was...

The brain is not designed to take a heavy knock never has been. The skull is a bone. Offers protection. If that is compromised you are ****ed. It should never be acceptable to whack a bloke. In any other sphere it is assault. The bump rule is good. Bump all you like, not the head. Tackling...

Also it was obvious from Riewoldt dropping his hands so the ball fell to ground he milked it for all it was worth. Fair enough he suckered in a 50 but is amounts to staging. But the umpire should've been awake to it rather than been over officious and keen to make a statement.

This is what I reckon. Why is ducking and diving frowned when it is all intents for the same purpose?

Nah he just made a fist and jobbed him one by accident. Been a very underrated and generally clean player at the tiges and will be important come September. But deserves a whack for that momentary lapse.

Nah frustrated by the hold and deliberately clocked him. Think it was a case of yeah he wanted to belt him but not that hard. Didn't know his own strength. Still an act of thuggery thou 4-5 weeks about right.

That was stupid then. Dixon goes back and nails the goal and it is game over regardless of a few seconds here or there.

Dixon call was technically play on, but when he was winded on the ground from the contest the umpire should of blown time on, then started the 30 seconds when he recovered. Also the rule is you only have to start the run in after 30 seconds and Dixon was a split second from doing so. The other...

Serious?

Exactly. I love footy as much as anyone. But what integrity? But what will change? The swans can't complain. The rest are caught in hype. The AFL is meant to be a sporting comp not scripted reality television. Today was a ******* joke. I thought the corner would turn with Gil into a sporting...

This is weird. A thread for this finally. Great for the dogs thoroughly deserved. And face it. 2 points the diff mid way thorugh the last in a GF and they just went whack. Pure winners fair and square. Too good on the day and all year, so no taking away from that. However I used to think...

Not game changers necessarily but 2 others I can remember. 2005 GF. Leo Barry's mark and the hype negates the fact umps missed a clear hold on Sampi who should have had a free after the siren and hence a shot on goal. Similarly 2014 PF Hawks vs PA. Just before the siren a pack formed and Hawks...

Agree with both. Mostly they do the best they can. One sticks in my crawl thou. 2002 GF. Rocca clear goal. (paid behind) Don't care what the umps, pontificates say in hindsight it was through. Anyway 10 mins into the last q Pies hit the front. Pies win the clearance kick forward Tarrant denied a...

Don't know about cheating. Look North were unlucky with the last 2 frees. Umpiring from a neutral point of view wasn't that bad. Scott handled himself well, what would make it easier is if the Giesh just comes out and says look it was a mistake we're sorry umpiring is tough and 100% perfection...

What secondary contact? Adams made the original tackle. Unless the umpires meant his arm went over the shoulder in the tackle, which it did as Selwood ducked. Either way it happened and its done now. Just unlucky there North that it happened right at the death.

Just watched the highlights again. Shuey one not there I reckon he fell forward play on. Selwood ducked as soon as he felt contact yet if you listen the umpire says that the free was paid for the second tackle. He must have meant Swallow coming across Selwood's chest and missing his neck by...

Perfect test case for the new rule. Initiate contact and the player is liable if contact is high. From the letter of the law I'd say gone but who knows.