Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Read the posts that say that this is a ridiculous propositionGo back and read my other posts on what Prestia could have done
You didn’t engage with his point at all. If Richmond was 7 points down, no one would have blinked an eye.Because a free was paid and the ball kicked away, that’s a 50 regardless of score. Same thing as why let a player take a kick for goal after the siren if his team is down by 60 points. Game is not over until after the last kick.
This free sums up afl football right now.
They would have paid it because it was the correct decision and it bore no consequence to the game. Unfortunately when it came to making a decision to possibly decide the game they go into their shells because they don’t have the courage to do so.You didn’t engage with his point at all. If Richmond was 7 points down, no one would have blinked an eye.
Because the umps are horrifically inconsistent.Does anyone, including the umpires, even know what prohibited contact is? If they’re paying the Rioli elbow (term used loosely) why aren’t they then reporting him for a deliberate elbow off the ball?
3. It was a clear reversal for dissent.
That was one of the more bizarre things said during that period. I was of the understanding that if you move off your line it is play on, and if you do that whilst taking a shot at goal after the siren then the kick is void. How many times have we heard umpires tell players taking a shot after a quarter has ended, "Here is your line, don't move off it." and that is why an umpire will often stand behind a player taking a shot in that circumstance?How was the umpire “can start off your line but must kick over the mark” Nek second Prestia kicks it a metre wide of the mark. The umpires are hopeless.
The umps were in yellow and black.Did the ump wear yellow tonight?
If so..fitting
This post should be 'stickied' !!They would have paid it because it was the correct decision and it bore no consequence to the game. Unfortunately when it came to making a decision to possibly decide the game they go into their shells because they don’t have the courage to do so.
Absolute bollocks.They would have paid it because it was the correct decision and it bore no consequence to the game. Unfortunately when it came to making a decision to possibly decide the game they go into their shells because they don’t have the courage to do so.
Not that clear when Lloyd was paid a free against for calling for holding the ball.It’s clear that the dissent rule only gets applied against the team the free is paid against. If you are the recipient of the free you’re clearly free to go wild at the umpire. Would have been gold to see it reversed !!!!
The rule now is that you just have to kick the ball over the man on the mark. In that situation, you are allowed to start your run up from a metre off your line, as long as the point of contact is made in line with the mark.That was one of the more bizarre things said during that period. I was of the understanding that if you move off your line it is play on, and if you do that whilst taking a shot at goal after the siren then the kick is void. How many times have we heard umpires tell players taking a shot after a quarter has ended, "Here is your line, don't move off it." and that is why an umpire will often stand behind a player taking a shot in that circumstance?
One of the apparent "best" umpires is Stevic.Whateley pointed out during the week that, for a range of reasons, our best umpires simply aren't out there at the moment.
We saw that in the critical moment tonight.
But they would if it put him in a scoring position, they only didn’t do it this time because of the state of the game. Just like if a player is 100 metres out when the siren goes he gives it back to the umpire, if he’s 50 out he takes his kick.Absolute bollocks.
If the ball was in Sydney F50 and the same scenario played out, all that would have happened is the Sydney players would have continued celebrating.
They arent stopping everything to give the ball to Prestia and award him a 50m to then move him up to the wing.
yeah I thought he was very recognizable, so it's an even greater mark of cowardice against his name.One of the apparent "best" umpires is Stevic.
He was the person who made the common sense call and said it should not have been 50.
And just like he ONLY kicked the ball into the crowd BECAUSE the siren went.But they would if it put him in a scoring position, they only didn’t do it this time because of the state of the game. Just like if a player is 100 metres out when the siren goes he gives it back to the umpire, if he’s 50 out he takes his kick.
You mean the incident where Swit was caught in a clear holding the ball, acknowledged the decision, and then decided to roll the ball away in disgust after the siren.Which ump was it that called 50MP after the siren in the Freo vs Bombers game? If that was Stevic too, how delicious!!
The main difference of course is that that call was after the halftime siren. The game wasn't on the line. Easier to make the right call in that situation. Easy hey Stevic? Just do what's easy in the moment.
You mean the incident where Swit was caught in a clear holding the ball, acknowledged the decision, and then decided to roll the ball away in disgust after the siren.
The main difference was one was unsportsmanlike (Swit) and one wasn't (Warner).
The "easy" thing to do would have been to be influenced by the shrieking of big name Tigers like Jack who were getting up in the umpires face.