Autopsy Autopsy vs Gold Coast - Round 15, 2021

[KangaRooster]

It didn't help that Taz absolutely thumped it over the line without his man having any real shot at it, if it was a half hearted hit and it dribbled over the line i wouldn't be surprised if it was officiated differently

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Ha ha, good point but I bet there's even a few there who can have a whinge without blushing.

You were originally right though. We all complain on gameday and its immediate aftermath, but I generally struggle to remember many individual umpiring howlers. Considering all the grey zones in the rules and things left to interpretation, especially with deliberate, I think most umpires do a pretty good job.

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

The rushed behind rule as well.

Only the AFL would institute a rule that punishes you for scoring for the opposition.

The video attempts to explain the rule then provides examples.

After stating the way this should be interpreted, describing how a player is considered to be under immediate pressure if being tackled or is about to be tackled, the examples show several players all of whom are indeed about to be tackled but indicated that they were correctly penalised. Then there is Weller who turns into a tackle but then steps over the scoreline and is deemed to be correctly not penalised.

So the lesson is to wait right on the line until the tackle is just made then step over. Totally safe from being pinged.

That's football genius.

 

[giantroo]

 

[Devington]

Silver looks pretty pumped in the background too.

As they should be, it was a ripping effort.

 

[giantroo]

North Melbourne v Gold Coast
8 Jy Simpkin (NMFC)
6 Cameron Zurhaar (NMFC)
6 Todd Goldstein (NMFC)
5 Ben Cunnington (NMFC)
4 Touk Miller (GCFC)
1 Ben McKay (NMFC)

 

[SonofSamsquanch]

North Melbourne v Gold Coast
8 Jy Simpkin (NMFC)
6 Cameron Zurhaar (NMFC)
6 Todd Goldstein (NMFC)
5 Ben Cunnington (NMFC)
4 Touk Miller (GCFC)
1 Ben McKay (NMFC)

Outstanding BoG by Touk (which I understand is what we call a beanie here in Oz).

 

[Devington]

North Melbourne v Gold Coast
8 Jy Simpkin (NMFC)
6 Cameron Zurhaar (NMFC)
6 Todd Goldstein (NMFC)
5 Ben Cunnington (NMFC)
4 Touk Miller (GCFC)
1 Ben McKay (NMFC)

3 23 year olds, a 29 year old, and a 32 year old. Very nice.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Got to love the kid. Burns North.

 

[Zondor]

Are you pissed? The analogies are exactly the same.

See if you can answer these questions with out childish remarks about umpires.

Do you want guys penalized for spoiling a mark out of bounds?

Do you want guys penalized for deliberately hitting the ball out (when not in a marking contest)?

If you answer “no” and “yes” then your ramblings are nothing but childish.

If you answer anything else then you just don’t get it, and never will.

In your warped umpire loving mind the analogies are the same. In the real world they have nothing to do with this argument. :stern look

As for your questions I want it written in the Rule Book that permits the act that you can spoil a ball in a marking contest on purpose out of bounds not showing sufficient intent. I want that written. Not implied. I do not want umpire loving clowns like yourself to O.K. a clear violation of the rules as they are written with the ambiguous term of spirit. It is either that or write it in the Rule Book to O.K. all defensive actions that end up with the ball out of bounds where the primary focus of that action is to deny ones opponent the ball. Either or. Not the Horseshit way the rule is currently written and interpreted where all decisions made by you arseclowns is deemed correct just because of a vibe or spirit. :stern look

You know I'm laughing as I type this because I knew the moment I engaged you on this topic you would get all defensive like siding with the umpiring. Yet you couldn't point out in the rule book where it says it is O.K. to punch the ball out of bounds on purpose in a marking contest only sighting spirit. Turn it up mavs. Had you responded with "well the rules are ambiguous and they should be changed" I would've been there with you but no. You had to defend Overlands. You are an umpire suck and just like most umpires you're a pig headed moron thinking that he is always right. A perfect example of this was the way you treated Lindsey Thomas on this forum. He had flaws in his game but he also played some fantastic football for our club but in your own pigheaded brain everything he did was no good. I suggest you have a long hard look in the mirror mav. Think about that pigheadedness of yours. How you can't admit fault. And then go have a crywank over Overlands. :stern look

 

[Zondor]

Why was the deliberate rule/interpretation even changed? Was it really a major issue in the game that demanded revision? Sure, it caused the occasional bit of annoyance but I would say it is more annoying now. See Powell getting pinged for a fantastic repeat effort to push the ball forward last week. Classic AFL, got to change things.
As for the game on weekend, we saw Tarrant knock it out and get pinged as ball bounced so it wasn't a marking contest.
Then we saw a GC player panic and thump it out when he could actually have taken an almost uncontested mark. The very same umpire, Nicholls, ruled that was ok.
That GC player was under far less pressure than Tarrant and didn't have an opponent to deal with, yet it was okay. All because it was a marking opportunity. Which is not in the rule book. What nonsense!
It's not in the rules and whether it bounces or not should be irrelevant if the player's primary intent is to deny an opponent possession with a defensive act.

Spot on Brother. :stern look

 

[Zondor]

Umm. What.
I don't think spoils should be penalised at all. The primary intent of a spoil is to deny an opponent possession. It going out of bounds is a flow on from that.

And the primary intent of both Turner against Green and Taz against his opponent was to deny their opponents of the ball. But spirit mate. Mabo and the vibe. :stern look

 

[Themanbun]

Why was the deliberate rule/interpretation even changed? Was it really a major issue in the game that demanded revision? Sure, it caused the occasional bit of annoyance but I would say it is more annoying now. See Powell getting pinged for a fantastic repeat effort to push the ball forward last week. Classic AFL, got to change things.
As for the game on weekend, we saw Tarrant knock it out and get pinged as ball bounced so it wasn't a marking contest.
Then we saw a GC player panic and thump it out when he could actually have taken an almost uncontested mark. The very same umpire, Nicholls, ruled that was ok.
That GC player was under far less pressure than Tarrant and didn't have an opponent to deal with, yet it was okay. All because it was a marking opportunity. Which is not in the rule book. What nonsense!
It's not in the rules and whether it bounces or not should be irrelevant if the player's primary intent is to deny an opponent possession with a defensive act.

I think it's ridiculous that we penalise spoils full stop. Outside of a run down tackle, the defensive effort that draws the most crowd noise is definitely watching an opposition foray being thwarted by one of your backmen punching it into row 15.

 

[Mav]

In your warped umpire loving mind the analogies are the same. In the real world they have nothing to do with this argument. :stern look

As for your questions I want it written in the Rule Book that permits the act that you can spoil a ball in a marking contest on purpose out of bounds not showing sufficient intent. I want that written. Not implied. I do not want umpire loving clowns like yourself to O.K. a clear violation of the rules as they are written with the ambiguous term of spirit. It is either that or write it in the Rule Book to O.K. all defensive actions that end up with the ball out of bounds where the primary focus of that action is to deny ones opponent the ball. Either or. Not the Horseshit way the rule is currently written and interpreted where all decisions made by you arseclowns is deemed correct just because of a vibe or spirit. :stern look

You know I'm laughing as I type this because I knew the moment I engaged you on this topic you would get all defensive like siding with the umpiring. Yet you couldn't point out in the rule book where it says it is O.K. to punch the ball out of bounds on purpose in a marking contest only sighting spirit. Turn it up mavs. Had you responded with "well the rules are ambiguous and they should be changed" I would've been there with you but no. You had to defend Overlands. You are an umpire suck and just like most umpires you're a pig headed moron thinking that he is always right. A perfect example of this was the way you treated Lindsey Thomas on this forum. He had flaws in his game but he also played some fantastic football for our club but in your own pigheaded brain everything he did was no good. I suggest you have a long hard look in the mirror mav. Think about that pigheadedness of yours. How you can't admit fault. And then go have a crywank over Overlands. :stern look

All I hear is gobble gobble gobble.

 

[The Anvil]

I think it's ridiculous that we penalise spoils full stop. Outside of a run down tackle, the defensive effort that draws the most crowd noise is definitely watching an opposition foray being thwarted by one of your backmen punching it into row 15.

Every garbage adjudication these days is to make the game more free flowing. Whether that be incorrect disposal, forcing balls to be kept in play, etc.

It’s infuriating, and why interpretation of rules differ even in the same game but the same umpire.


On iPad using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ferball]

It really doesn't. It was just one of those rule of the week things and LMac got pinged for it first against Dusty. Over the rest of the weekend and for a couple more rounds they paid quite a few.
Fair dinkum, if you only read Bigfooty you would think the umpies have it in for 18 different teams. Which probably means they don't actually have it in for anyone.

I've seen it paid about three times and each time was against us.

Mind you I don't watch games like I used to.

 

[ferball]

Last touch is a kick or hand ball. A punch is a throw in.

Rightio.

So incidental contact like fumbling the ball over the line is also a throw in?

I could see that working actually. At least there is no ambiguity and the play would change to allow for it.

I dunno about frees in the oppositions attacking 50 tho.

I would be okay with frees for defending teams against the attacking team, so Zurhaar's miss that was deliberate the other day would still be a free to the defending side. And a missed goal that bounces across the face and goes oob would be as well. Its a serious punishment in your own defensive 50. (Tho that could work. It would certainly ramp up the pressure.)

 

[shintemaster]

Silver looks pretty pumped in the background too.

As they should be, it was a ripping effort.

Both those blokes give massive intangibles to the team from their sheer enthusiasm.

 

[goalieboy82]

Coach Emeritus Scamper's postgame conferences:

 

[Mav]

Rightio.

So incidental contact like fumbling the ball over the line is also a throw in?

I could see that working actually. At least there is no ambiguity and the play would change to allow for it.

I dunno about frees in the oppositions attacking 50 tho.

I would be okay with frees for defending teams against the attacking team, so Zurhaar's miss that was deliberate the other day would still be a free to the defending side. And a missed goal that bounces across the face and goes oob would be as well. Its a serious punishment in your own defensive 50. (Tho that could work. It would certainly ramp up the pressure.)

Lots of yeps.

 

[Colbys Boots]

The video attempts to explain the rule then provides examples.

After stating the way this should be interpreted, describing how a player is considered to be under immediate pressure if being tackled or is about to be tackled, the examples show several players all of whom are indeed about to be tackled but indicated that they were correctly penalised. Then there is Weller who turns into a tackle but then steps over the scoreline and is deemed to be correctly not penalised.

So the lesson is to wait right on the line until the tackle is just made then step over. Totally safe from being pinged.

That's football genius.

Your suggestion is incorrect. If you wait long enough for the tackle to arrive, then it's on you. None of those examples in the video showed players under immediate pressure when they took possession of the ball. They only came under pressure when they held onto it for an eternity trying to make up their mind what to do with it. I would be ropable if an opposition player did that against us and it wasn't paid deliberate.

 

[Frank Thring]

Lots of yeps.

Most umpires are on power trips like Nicholls, the snivelling vindictive piece of s**t. He and Maggotts should be sacked, they are both incapable of being impartial and odds on they have small penises.

 

[Zondor]

All I hear is gobble gobble gobble.

I have no doubt you "hear" Gobble Gobble Gobble in your head. It makes perfect sense. Now Concede that you're wrong on this topic. :stern look

 

[Zondor]

Most umpires are on power trips like Nicholls, the snivelling vindictive piece of sh*t. He and Maggotts should be sacked, they are both incapable of being impartial and odds on they have small penises.

It is beyond me how Overlands and Maggotts are still umpiring. They have been very ordinary at the caper for years yet there they are, still at the top level. Surely there has to be a couple of umpires at the lower ranks better than these 2 bozos. :stern look

 

[Frank Thring]

It is beyond me how Overlands and Maggotts are still umpiring. They have been very ordinary at the caper for years yet there they are, still at the top level. Surely there has to be a couple of umpires at the lower ranks better than these 2 bozos. :stern look

Beats the s**t out of me how they keep their jobs. They are either incompetent or corrupt, either way they need to be sacked