Autopsy Autopsy vs Gold Coast - Round 15, 2021

[Mav]

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

Why? You said I defended the Ump. That’s outright bullshit. I defended the one decision but said he made some other crap calls.

You want players to penalized for spoiling a mark over the boundary. That is just plain stupid. I hear gobble gobble gobble cause that’s all you have to say. You’re a turkey, admit it.

 

[Zondor]

Why? You said I defended the Ump. That’s outright bullshit. I defended the one decision but said he made some other crap calls.

You want players to penalized for spoiling a mark over the boundary. That is just plain stupid. I hear gobble gobble gobble cause that’s all you have to say. You’re a turkey, admit it.

The reason that you “Hear” Gobble, Gobble, Gobble in your warped umpire loving mind is because that’s what you want to do to Overlands’ “Old Fella”. :stern look

Simply put you’re an umpire loving suck who couldn’t point out in the Rule Book that it was OK to spoil the ball on purpose out of bounds. As the rules read such actions should be penalised but are not. Instead you quoted some ambiguous Rot that included “Spirit”. Vague nonsense that you and your type use to defend the decisions you make out on the Football Ground. How convenient. :stern look

As to what I want, I made that quite clear. Look at my previous post. But sadly you’re so blinded by your umpire love you can’t decipher the plain English I have written it in. Now go have another Crywank over Overlands. That should make you feel better. :stern look

 

[Mav]

The reason that you “Hear” Gobble, Gobble, Gobble in your warped umpire loving mind is because that’s what you want to do to Overlands’ “Old Fella”. :stern look

Simply put you’re an umpire loving suck who couldn’t point out in the Rule Book that it was OK to spoil the ball on purpose out of bounds. As the rules read such actions should be penalised but are not. Instead you quoted some ambiguous Rot that included “Spirit”. Vague nonsense that you and your type use to defend the decisions you make out on the Football Ground. How convenient. :stern look

As to what I want, I made that quite clear. Look at my previous post. But sadly you’re so blinded by your umpire love you can’t decipher the plain English I have written it in. Now go have another Crywank over Overlands. That should make you feel better. :stern look

Gobble gobble gobble.

 

[Mav]

The reason that you “Hear” Gobble, Gobble, Gobble in your warped umpire loving mind is because that’s what you want to do to Overlands’ “Old Fella”. :stern look

Simply put you’re an umpire loving suck who couldn’t point out in the Rule Book that it was OK to spoil the ball on purpose out of bounds. As the rules read such actions should be penalised but are not. Instead you quoted some ambiguous Rot that included “Spirit”. Vague nonsense that you and your type use to defend the decisions you make out on the Football Ground. How convenient. :stern look

As to what I want, I made that quite clear. Look at my previous post. But sadly you’re so blinded by your umpire love you can’t decipher the plain English I have written it in. Now go have another Crywank over Overlands. That should make you feel better. :stern look

You want the game umpired to the letter of the law. BUT, if someone takes a hanger and knees an opponent in the head you want the mark to stand. Even though the rules state any contact above the shoulders is a free, you want the umps to ignore this. Why is this? Why do you want the umps to ignore the high contact? Cause high marks are cool? Cause it’s in the spirit of the game?

You are so full of s**t. You contradict yourself and don’t even realize it. Your illogical hatred of umpires causes you to turn into a turkey.

The punch out was a deliberate attempt to hit the ball over the boundary line. It was penalized as such and you can’t argue with. Oh but wait, if I pull on my turkey mask I can yell….BUT ITS NOT A FREE IF YOU’RE SPOILING A MARK.

You don’t even realize how stupid you sound. I’ll give you a clue…:Gobble gobble gobble.

 

[Zondor]

You want the game umpired to the letter of the law. BUT, if someone takes a hanger and knees an opponent in the head you want the mark to stand. Even though the rules state any contact above the shoulders is a free, you want the umps to ignore this. Why is this? Why do you want the umps to ignore the high contact? Cause high marks are cool? Cause it’s in the spirit of the game?

You are so full of sh*t. You contradict yourself and don’t even realize it. Your illogical hatred of umpires causes you to turn into a turkey.

The punch out was a deliberate attempt to hit the ball over the boundary line. It was penalized as such and you can’t argue with. Oh but wait, if I pull on my turkey mask I can yell….BUT ITS NOT A FREE IF YOU’RE SPOILING A MARK.

You don’t even realize how stupid you sound. I’ll give you a clue…:Gobble gobble gobble.

You presumptuous fool! Once again going off on a tangent. Talking about high marks and the incidental contact that occurs when one flies for a high mark and assuming what I think in regards to how the rules are written and interpreted. In turn thinking I am contradicting myself when in fact I am making a very clear point here. The Horseshit cop out used by you and your type to justify decisions made out on the football field with ambiguous terms like "Spirit". What Rot!. :stern look

Yet there is still no concession from you that it is written anywhere in the rules which allows you to spoil the ball out of play on "purpose" in a marking contest. The action in doing so is showing "Insufficient Intent" to keep the ball in play but is deemed O.K. because of "spirit", but God Forbid in a very similar scenario where the "primary intent" of the defender is to deprive his opponent the ball but because it bounced before them it's "All of a Sudden" Deliberate. The only difference between the 2 scenarios is that the ball bounces in one incident before it reaches the players but doesn't in the other. And here you are thinking that this ambiguity is O.K. yet wonder why the majority of us s**t Can Umpires. You just can't see it and that's because of your blind love for Overlands and his type :stern look

Finally let me pull you up on something else yah banana. The only "sound" that's come out of my mouth as I have typed these posts is laughter. The reason why you hear "Gobble, Gobble, Gobble" is because you're thinking of Overlands' Knob. If you want to mock me correctly used the term "read" not "hear" yah Twit! Seeing that you love using my material let me lend one of your lines. You mav are a "Certified Moron". It's mirror time brother. Have a long hard look at yourself you Pig Headed Fool! :stern look

 

[Devington]

 

[Devington]

And can I just mention how ******* dumb it is that these stats are posted in the Fantasy Football section.

 

[Desert_War]

Should have been a belting but we wasted it so often in front of goal, however i'm still very impressed in the direction our footy is going.

Lots of work to do of course, but I believe we are definitely on the right track under Noble and co.

ps; umpiring is at its lowest standard. Is infuriating.

 

[Desert_War]

On umpiring is the umpire even allowed to grab the ball out of a players hand and pass directly to opposition for a quick advantage? (Zurhaar incident)

It is blatant cheating surely?

 

[Mav]

You presumptuous fool! Once again going off on a tangent. Talking about high marks and the incidental contact that occurs when one flies for a high mark and assuming what I think in regards to how the rules are written and interpreted. In turn thinking I am contradicting myself when in fact I am making a very clear point here. The Horseshit cop out used by you and your type to justify decisions made out on the football field with ambiguous terms like "Spirit". What Rot!. :stern look

Yet there is still no concession from you that it is written anywhere in the rules which allows you to spoil the ball out of play on "purpose" in a marking contest. The action in doing so is showing "Insufficient Intent" to keep the ball in play but is deemed O.K. because of "spirit", but God Forbid in a very similar scenario where the "primary intent" of the defender is to deprive his opponent the ball but because it bounced before them it's "All of a Sudden" Deliberate. The only difference between the 2 scenarios is that the ball bounces in one incident before it reaches the players but doesn't in the other. And here you are thinking that this ambiguity is O.K. yet wonder why the majority of us sh*t Can Umpires. You just can't see it and that's because of your blind love for Overlands and his type :stern look

Finally let me pull you up on something else yah banana. The only "sound" that's come out of my mouth as I have typed these posts is laughter. The reason why you hear "Gobble, Gobble, Gobble" is because you're thinking of Overlands' Knob. If you want to mock me correctly used the term "read" not "hear" yah Twit! Seeing that you love using my material let me lend one of your lines. You mav are a "Certified Moron". It's mirror time brother. Have a long hard look at yourself you Pig Headed Fool! :stern look

Gobble gobble gobble.

Ever stop to think you're the one infatuated with the ump. I have no idea of his name but you seem to.

Your inability to comprehend basic analogies shows what a turkey you are. I'm going to make it simple for you. No, it is not written in the rules that deliberately spoiling a mark over the boundary line is ok. But it doesn't need to be. Its part of our game, always has been and always will be. This is exactly the same for kneeing someone in the back of the head when taking a mark. Its not written in the rules that it is ok but it has been ok from day dot and will always be. For you to not understand this is just plain stupidity from you.

Ground ball contests are different from marking contests and are justifiably umpired differently when it comes to deliberate out of bounds. You're argument is that because the ball bounced only once before the contest then it should be judged the same way as a marking contest. What if the ball bounces twice before the contest, 3 times? What if the ball rolls along the ground to a contest and someone just thumps the ball out? Should that be ok? There is no ambiguity in this. There are marking contests and there are ground ball contests and if you cant understand that then, again, you're a turkey.

I told you a couple of times that I think the umps made some bad calls, but you want to bleat on about some supposed love affair I have with the umps (and you claim me to be presumptuous, ya turkey) yet I have stated many a time I think the AFL is screwing the game the way they are instructing the umps to umpire but in this situation is the umps got it right.

If you still cant understand this then give up and go watch tennis.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

No, it is not written in the rules that deliberately spoiling a mark over the boundary line is ok. But it doesn't need to be. Its part of our game, always has been and always will be. This is exactly the same for kneeing someone in the back of the head when taking a mark. Its not written in the rules that it is ok but it has been ok from day dot and will always be. For you to not understand this is just plain stupidity from you.

Well it should be written in the rules if that's the way the AFL wants it umpired, since they don't mind updating the rules just about every year since 1920. In the 1930s there was such outrage when they brought in the free for dropping the ball they cancelled it within months.
Sure, spoiling a mark over the boundary has been part of our game forever. But so has spoiling any sort of contest over the boundary until the rise of "insufficient intent" in the last 5 years or so. The argument works for both.
Also you should read up on the rules, kneeing someone in the back of the head in a marking contest is permitted by rule 18.5.3:
18.5.3 Permitted Contact
Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective
is to contest or spoil a Mark.

 

[shintemaster]

Well it should be written in the rules if that's the way the AFL wants it umpired, since they don't mind updating the rules just about every year since 1920.

Exactly. Why have grey areas for a simple rule? It should be either last touch or just have throw ins. There is no need for this uncertainty. As you point out could easily specify contests that are allowed to hit over the line, I prefer a rule that covers all circumstances though.

Also you should read up on the rules, kneeing someone in the back of the head in a marking contest is permitted by rule 18.5.3:
18.5.3 Permitted Contact
Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective
is to contest or spoil a Mark.

Which is an interesting rule, I don't class many of the knee contacts as "incidental". Running from 50m away and driving your knee into a players head (whether or not the ball is the clear primary objective) does not meet the definition of "incidental" for mine.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

Which is an interesting rule, I don't class many of the knee contacts as "incidental". Running from 50m away and driving your knee into a players head (whether or not the ball is the clear primary objective) does not meet the definition of "incidental" for mine.

Perhaps, but it's at least capable of being interpreted that way. If Liam Ryan uses Josh Walker as a step ladder to take a mark, the high contact could be said to be incidental because it only occurred due to where Josh was standing and the flight of the ball. Ryan could not have taken the mark without making high contact but the high contact was secondary to his objective of catching the ball.
Whereas if Walker thumps the ball five rows back showing absolutely no intent to keep the ball in the field of play there is nothing in the rules that says it's okay because it was a marking contest.

 

[Mav]

Well it should be written in the rules if that's the way the AFL wants it umpired, since they don't mind updating the rules just about every year since 1920. In the 1930s there was such outrage when they brought in the free for dropping the ball they cancelled it within months.
Sure, spoiling a mark over the boundary has been part of our game forever. But so has spoiling any sort of contest over the boundary until the rise of "insufficient intent" in the last 5 years or so. The argument works for both.
Also you should read up on the rules, kneeing someone in the back of the head in a marking contest is permitted by rule 18.5.3:
18.5.3 Permitted Contact
Incidental contact in a Marking contest will be permitted if the Player’s sole objective
is to contest or spoil a Mark.

You show your lack of understanding of you think kneeing someone in the back of the head is incidental.

How often is there insufficient intent in a marking spoiling? Be lucky if there was one a year.

The who-ha over this is just ridiculous. No wonder you all get so upset at umpires.

 

[shintemaster]

Perhaps, but it's at least capable of being interpreted that way. If Liam Ryan uses Josh Walker as a step ladder to take a mark, the high contact could be said to be incidental because it only occurred due to where Josh was standing and the flight of the ball. Ryan could not have taken the mark without making high contact but the high contact was secondary to his objective of catching the ball.
Whereas if Walker thumps the ball five rows back showing absolutely no intent to keep the ball in the field of play there is nothing in the rules that says it's okay because it was a marking contest.

I'm not disagreeing with you just pointing out that rules with words like "incidental" are always subject to interpretation - same as ones with rules with "deliberate". I'd prefer less or none of these as an ideal (albeit unlikely) goal for the games rules.

 

[CharlieMortdecai]

You show your lack of understanding of you think kneeing someone in the back of the head is incidental.

How often is there insufficient intent in a marking spoiling? Be lucky if there was one a year.

The who-ha over this is just ridiculous. No wonder you all get so upset at umpires.

I think you're showing the lack of understanding about 18.5.3. It's clearly there to allow the necessary latitude for screamers that would otherwise be considered prohibited contact. As I explained to Shintemaster a knee to the back of the head can easily be seen as incidental if the only objective is taking the mark.
You'd be hard-pressed to find too many instances of me complaining about the umps. People who whine about the umps generally haven't taken the time to read the actual rules and rely on *sticks like BT for their understanding.
But I am a fan of having rules, and if you are going to have specific interpretations about things like "spoiling in a marking contest can never be insufficient intent" including that in the rules.

 

[Mav]

I think you're showing the lack of understanding about 18.5.3. It's clearly there to allow the necessary latitude for screamers that would otherwise be considered prohibited contact. As I explained to Shintemaster a knee to the back of the head can easily be seen as incidental if the only objective is taking the mark.
You'd be hard-pressed to find too many instances of me complaining about the umps. People who whine about the umps generally haven't taken the time to read the actual rules and rely on fu**sticks like BT for their understanding.
But I am a fan of having rules, and if you are going to have specific interpretations about things like "spoiling in a marking contest can never be insufficient intent" including that in the rules.

Depends on your definition of "incidental". I would say concussing a player with a knee to the back of the head is not incidental.

I'm a fan of umpiring to the game and not playing cranky school master who suspends every kid with his shirt out. To me, (and pretty much anyone who has played the game) any spoil of a mark is enough to put doubt into the intent, so therefore there is no need for a rule as it already exists. The fact ground ball contests are umpired more strictly is because no one wants to have a rule describing what a ground ball contest is. You'll notice zondor couldn't answer my question about when its ok to punch the ball out of bounds, 1, 2 or 5 bounces before the contest.

 

[ferball]

Which is an interesting rule, I don't class many of the knee contacts as "incidental". Running from 50m away and driving your knee into a players head (whether or not the ball is the clear primary objective) does not meet the definition of "incidental" for mine.

Raising your knee is a fundamental part of jumping high tho, except in a few rare cases. especially if you are running flat out to the fall of the ball.

 

[amaz199]

This win looks a lot better now.

 

[shintemaster]

Raising your knee is a fundamental part of jumping high tho, except in a few rare cases. especially if you are running flat out to the fall of the ball.

Am aware. I'm not arguing to get rid of it, I'm just arguing that incidental is an interpretative term and IMHO there are regularly contacts that were unnecessary and not just incidental.

 

[Hearts to hearts]

This win looks a lot better now.

Beating Hawthorn also looking not too shabby now.

 

[Zondor]

LOL. *en mav. Old Charlie made a right royal fool of you. It appears you’ve been suffering with an incidental knee to the back of the head and sadly you’re now a Certified Moron. :stern look

 

[Zondor]

Ever stop to think you're the one infatuated with the ump. I have no idea of his name but you seem to.

You lying prick! I’ll give you “I have no idea of his name.” Certified Moron! :stern loo

 

[Mav]

You lying prick! I’ll give you “I have no idea of his name.” Certified Moron! :stern loo

Do you want me to PM you a photo of myself so you can have a really good crank?

 

[Zondor]

Do you want me to PM you a photo of myself so you can have a really good crank?

Unlike you I don’t roll that way Mr “I have no idea of his name”. :stern look