Search results for query: *

Not only that. They deem showing a worse angle as "evidence" it was in play. Also they admit that the umps fcuked up the handball OOB decicision, however are backing the same set of dipsh!ts with the OOB mark. However unsurprising and to be expected from one of the most corrupt sports...

After tonight, no one actually knows.

Here's the blind man with his interpretation of Swan Lake.

Umpires pay 60 technical free kicks in a game - Uproar from punters that the game is over officiated and was ruined Umpires don't pay a 50m penalty that may have been technically there - What atrocious umpiring, game was ruined Can't win.

Waiting for a situation where a player will abuse this rule to the limit. Tight game with the team 3 points in front and 90 seconds remaining on the clock, and the forward marks the ball 35 metres out. He then jogs back another 50 metres to start his run up before the umpire gives him the hurry...

So why doesn't Giesch come out and explain why 100 marking contests in every game aren't free kicks despite the above rules showing they should be? The muppet can't have it both ways. According to the above, every player who has taken a speccie should have had a free kick paid against them for...

Frees should be paid no matter what the time of the game nor the position on the field. However that isn't the way it is. I recollect a year or so ago there was an article which showed that umpires paid less free kick in the last than the first three. You will also notice that they tend to pay...

If only they told the rest of the footballing world before the season began, it might have helped. Not coming out with the nuances into the season proper.

There's more chance of aliens landing on the Whitehouse front lawn than Vlad, Bartlett and co. admitting any error. According to the new rule, O'Brien should have got the free kick, but instead got reported. Maybe they should have sanctioned the goal umpire last week who done his ACL for...

Rule is a sham. Umpires have no idea what to do with it. Barlow kept his feet in the third quarter, and Hibberd slid into him and instead of a free paid to him, Barlow had it paid against him for too high. Then copped a 50 for advising the umpire how he rightfully fcuked up.

He must be totally frustrated at not being able to steal the limelight from the players the last year. Narcissist.

The same amount of time that Adams is out after surgery to the shoulder that Judd helped cause damage. That's the answer that Carlton fans gave last week for the Wellingham - Simpson incident.

Such overwhelming evidence you have produced there!

Above average but not exactly a genius.

Accurate post, unfortunately some dills in this thread don't seem to realise this. I'm surprised more hasn't been said of the Hawkins kick for goal that he fluffed and kicked out of bounds on the full which was paid a point. Boundary umpire was sitting on the point post, had the best view and...

Wow, I was awaiting your excuse for non citation, and this is the best you can originate? Very, very feeble attempt genius. People's hatred for particular clubs (i.e like OP) doesn't allow for common sense to prevail. Nature of the beast.

Ah yes, the Hawthorn conspiracies. Should be a novel, then a mini series about it. On the topic, Thomas will get a week.

Serious question OP. How many pipes did your mum smoke while she was pregnant with you?

Jarrad Waite last week when going for mark, gave a sideways karate kick to an oncoming opponent, kicking him in the balls, yet Waite received a free kick even though the opponent didn't impede in any way. That was laughable.

You mean the tactic that when the umpire calls play on, and the guy then shepherds the player on the mark that was given the all clear by the AFL a few years back? Yeah, real illegal that one. :rolleyes: So what you are saying is when Essendon is on the wrong end of the free kick count it is...

This is because morons such as the OP can't see games objectively and only point out examples to support their case as they have no idea otherwise. Remember it is Bigfooty where keyboard heros think they are great judges of the game. Both teams were at the end of poor umpiring decisions today.

There wasn't any anything written about wearing caps and Jim Stynes wore one on the field one day. The AFL then after the event ruled on it. You could probably do anything once (the first time) before the AFL ban it.

Conspiracy! Better get Mulder and Scully onto the case.

Incorrect. From an article on the AFL website. Only mention of the 5 metres is the ball has to be within 5 metres of the man on the mark for the shepherd to be enacted. You can stand behind the man on the mark as close as possible before play on is called as you are not shepherding or blocking...

No he isn't, but you were the one putting all Collingwood replies in this thread in the same basket. I quote from one of your previous replies "Because the answers I recieved were totally wrong."

You said it yourself, they are free kicks whether they are milked or not, and are paid as such. I will ask the same question, if there was something illegal with what Collingwood was doing, then why aren't the umpires paying free kicks against them?

Which ones? The ones advising that it is legal and that the AFL verified it in the past? They seem correct to me.

If it's illegal, then why aren't they paying free kicks to the opposition oh great wise gnome?

But people have looked at it objectively, and advised you accordingly that it wasn't illegal. You just didn't like the answer.

If you saw the slow motion footage on Channel 7 after Lings "goal" following the in the back incident, you can see Goddard and another Saints player dejected thinking the goal was legit. This is one that could have gone both ways. If the free wasn't paid, I doubt the Saints would have...