You're just making stuff up...With the Selwood throw it's clearly a high freekick against Cox anyway which the umpire pays. And a high tackle protecting the player with the ball takes precedence over incorrect disposal.
So it should be a Geelong free kick with no advantage paid because he threw it. But it's also the type of freekick that's paid like 1 in 50 times when a player has a fist near the ball but flings it out.
It's laughable that anyone would consider that a howler. It wasn't in the worst 20 decisions on the day.
Yeah I had a laugh when reading those two seperate SEN articles.I listened to Ray Chamberlain, who was trotted out to comment on the umpiring in the Swans Collingwood final. I don't know why they bother. He is an AFL employee, and is required to support the AFL position no matter what it is. If the decisions had gone the other way, he would still have defended them, and with just as much conviction.
The problem is that our sport is corrupt at the top. Umpires are given an impossible set of rules to work with, with almost daily adjustments from their overlords. It is no wonder that there is constant criticism of decisions - the rules could have been designed to create it. It staggers me that they had a clear and easily interpreted push in the back rule, and ditched it. So many of the innovations made by the current regime make no sense.
Why is the full back allowed all that extra latitude on the kick in? He already has the goal square as an advantage?
Why do players have to retreat "back to the nine" when marks or frees occur closer to goal?
Why do trivial offences attract game changing 50 metre penalties, while thuggery and routine time wasting tactics attract nothing?
There are so many more I could mention.