Search results for query: *

Nope. AFL got the Clarkson call wrong, not the Finlayson one.

This all reminds me of that time I rear-ended this other guy's car in traffic. He was all mad and yelling and wanting me to pay for the damage and I had to calm him down and tell him, "Come on mate, it was an accident. Play on." Lucky for me he saw the wisdom in those words, once he'd wiped away...

A dozen? Let's see them then.

We've gone 9 pages of "shoved in the back" and "head-high contact", but now that the verdicts are in you want to turn it around and have a little complain about ... staging?

Agreed. I can live with the Shiel call because there's an argument he was looking to put it through for a behind and missed but McKernan was pretty unlucky. Not returning the ball to Draper correctly in the middle after a free was paid should have been 50 also. Blatant and highly visible...

Less than a second? That bump was so late it hasn't even happened yet.

One of the most bullshit responses I have seen. In one breath "it's a great game" and in the next "would be delicious for free kicks to sink them." I'm not on the conspiracy trail, but I can't stand this attitude. The grand final was poorly umpired and this should be a concern for us all.

Well, this has been an interesting read. I thought the Swans got a pretty harsh deal. Hard to say if it affected the result, and I thought lack of running cost the Swans badly in the second half. But I also thought the umpires had put the whistle away for some sliding/low contact incidents, and...

Regardless of previous incidents, he was charging at good speed, and did leave the ground. And regardless of damage caused, he did hit his opponent high. Which of these are you disputing?

That's actually a pretty serious consideration. If a player is following the ball and gets sniped by someone going for the man, it pretty much eliminates any defence. "Oh yeah I left the ground but I didn't hit him in the face." "Yeah you hit him in the face". "Oh I'm appealing." "Yeah...

Except if he got off. Unless you don't care for Kelly being in your team. There are a lot of people who care if he left the ground, and will factor that into his suspension. Let's focus more on "oh he hit a guy in the face", which you obviously think is untrue. It's true. He did hit him...

Come on Doris. I know you're cheerleading for Kelly, but he left the ground and hit a guy high, who wasn't expecting, nor was prepared for the contact. Let's say it was reversed. I'm pretty sure you'd be cheerleading for the MRP if that was the case.

Not only is the high contact obvious from one angle, it's also apparent that Goddard was following the footy when Kelly sniped him.

Here's where I think you're missing the point. The vast majority of these incidents won't involve a player who is "standing next to a contested ball". It'll be a player going for the ball legally who is contacted forcefully below the knees without prior opportunity to avoid that contact. And...

But light incidental low contact IS being called play on. I wonder if you're forgetting what the rule is really about: "Forceful contact below the knee". To be honest, I wonder why the Dangerfield decision isn't playing a bigger part in this discussion. That's a case where the rule was...

Well, if your focus on getting the footy causes high contact, that's a free kick. If your focus on getting the footy results in you barrelling into someone's back, that's a free kick. And having possession of the ball is not a defence. If you have the ball and you fend a player off in the face...

So, having said all you have said, can you explain to me how Reilly's contact was legal in any traditional sense of the rules?

My point about penalizing players was a reply to the statement that staging for a free kick should be investigated. How would you investigate this particular 'staging' incident? I get that an integral part of playing footy is to go hard at the ball. I don't think it should be played any other...

I agree that obvious staging or playing for frees should be reviewed, but how are you going to penalize a player for keeping his feet and standing his ground? At what point do you say "Yes you were in that place first and you didn't initiate contact, but we're going to penalize you for just...

That's a very simplistic interpretation of the tripping rule. Let's say you know you can get the ball, but if you do you're likely to be tackled. But if you slide in and take the tackler's legs out, you're free to play on and deliver the ball. You've legitimately gained possession by avoiding...

I think this is the point where I agree with you the most. Grabbing an ankle or sticking out a leg is an offence that is at best a free kick, and at worst reportable. Choosing to slide into another player's legs is arguably far more dangerous than either of those actions. And this is going to...

Valuable contribution to the discussion from someone who obviously watched the incident.

I understand the frustration with this rule, and I am biased about the particular incident I'm about to mention, but... When looking at the free paid to Alwyn Davey 9 or so minutes into the 3rd quarter in the Adelaide-Essendon game, is there any way Davey could have protected himself against...

Sincere apologies to anyone who feels this argument is derailing the purpose of the thread. I have and will continue to maintain that Essendon didn't play well enough to win the game. Yes. You did. Quoted above.

Perhaps I was a little harsh. I felt that your claim that I knew exactly what your contradictory post meant was a little harsh also. Typing Bombers when you meant Swans isn't a typo. But after all that, the Swans deserved the win. Enjoy it. oh, and the thongs thing? Attempt at humour. Take...

This is something worth addressing. Closing out games is key, and we need to learn this. Umpires or not, when you get a lead you need to know how to protect it and we're not there yet.

Who's being abusive? I'm just calling it as I see it. It's not like editing your post after someone calls you on it is in any way dishonest. And yes, it's extremely ironic that I'm calling someone on their choice of footwear when my username references footwear.

This I'm okay with. There is rarely any justification behind any call that the umpires decided the outcome. The game is largely won and lost by the players, and we didn't play well enough to win the game.

Way to edit your post to make it look like you didn't f**k it up. Actually, I don't know exactly what you meant because you completely contradicted yourself within the one post. As for undermining whatever opinion i have, you can look anywhere you like and see that I've been happy to give...

Not exactly sure why I returned, I've already said my piece....but this was interesting. Did you tie your own shoelaces this morning? This. Regardless of perceived slights in the umpiring department, we need to be good enough to win these games. Long way to go, but we knew that before...