Cam Rayner

[HairyO]

We can only be cats supporter selective. Don't dredge up the rest on a Cam Rayner thread.

Speaking of dives, I found this one pretty funny actually.

Biggest dive in the history of the VFL / AFL and the thing is, to this day Bartel still claims he didnt take a dive and would never do that.

Despite the fact that there was zero contact.

 

[mpal6]

It's a bit of a long stretch.

I'd be more inclined to agree if O'Connor doubled over in fake pain, rather than do the "what about that one" shrug that you see tonnes of times a game - hence crickets. Plus, Rayner probably needs to work on his niggle-craft. Don't square up like a boxer when you're doing it.

Meh. I think the issue in the end is whether the rules have got the balance right as they stand. We don't really have the NBA / NFL equivalent of a "flagrant foul". I don't think anyone would be upset if the first offence led to a turnover of possession; the second one is in the eye of the beholder.

He's not a niggler by nature, you won't find Cam getting involved in these type of antics all career. Opposition are starting to realize he's a big factor for us and someone being on him all game shows the respect he's starting to command. O'Connor got him this time in spite of the 2 frees/goals, but I can't wait to see how Cam prepares for it and deals with it next time.

 

[Grumpyshades]

The Victorian sookfest about this is hilarious

you can smell the hypocrisy from Perth

 

[Elixuh]

I'd love a Cam Rayner type in my team. Exciting player.

I hate seeing flopping and diving, and Rayner played the umpires like a fiddle. However, what was the point of the contact from O'Connor? Why flirt with the rules like that?

Regardless of how hard footballers used to me, and spectator blood-lust, one thing that shits me is the little gut punches, elbows, head massages on the ground etc. I'd rather see two footballers go at it with strength and skill, not cheap shots.

Absolutely crack down on staging, but continue to get rid of the unnecessary elbows and what not. Let someone come up and elbows you in the back or ribs, and tell me that won't make you lose your shit after the 20th time. We probably forget footballers are human sometimes.

Having said that, there's every chance that O'Connor had been on the receiving end before he retaliated.

A reversal would have been appropriate and the kick taken down in Geelong's forward line, but the Brisbane player on the mark.

Fix it sensibly AFL.

He had been warned multiple times by the umpire prior to the push in the back as well.

O’Connor was just too daft to change his tagging style in-game and kept using the same tactics. Exploited by Rayner.

 

[Elixuh]

The Victorian sookfest about this is hilarious

you can smell the hypocrisy from Perth

It’s mainly Fox footy. They’ve tweaked their approach this season to be much more VFL centric and that includes rage baiting VFL fans about umpiring. They did it in the Adelaide Collingwood match a few weeks back. Based on the Geelong posters, it seems to work too.

 

[Saint]

Biggest dive in the history of the VFL / AFL and the thing is, to this day Bartel still claims he didnt take a dive and would never do that.

Despite the fact that there was zero contact.

There was contact in that vision. There have been bigger dives. Rayner's wasn't a dive. He got pushed. He went down easy, but that's different to somebody going down when they didn't have to at all.

 

[Miller1971]

Biggest dive in the history of the VFL / AFL and the thing is, to this day Bartel still claims he didnt take a dive and would never do that.

Despite the fact that there was zero contact.

surely he doesn't say that?

Was there a gust of wind or an evil spirit of some sort that threw him forward without the defender touching him?

Never seen that vision before, but wow - thats an all timer

 

[Elixuh]

We can only be cats supporter selective. Don't dredge up the rest on a Cam Rayner thread.

Speaking of dives, I found this one pretty funny actually.

Wow that’s the worst dive I’ve ever seen.

 

[mighty_lions]

Fritsch vs Rayner in the octagon now. Pay per view.

is this a joke?

 

[Bluelegs]

Deserves to be sanctioned for the dive but enjoyed that he fully embraced being the heel. Game was going one way on Saturday night and the second half was electric with how up and about the crowd was.

 

[Elixuh]

Didn’t you try telling me you are handling the loss well the other day?

You don’t stop and still crying into your milk. I can imagine you alone in your computer room (which I’m sure you never leave) rocking back and forth in your chair hating how the cats smashed you with tears streaming down your face.
Post after post after post.

Mate are you ok? Get some air, it’s all good to dislike us but honestly the time you consume on us, it’s not great man.
Take a breather, and troll us when you can get over it a bit.

You asked if I enjoyed the game, which I did

 

[Roylion]

So was it a Rayner dive, a free kick or just an incorrect call?

Incorrect call.

 

[HairyO]

Incorrect call.

The problem is players get shoved to the ground literally all the time. And when it happens sometimes the umpires pay a free and sometimes they dont. There is zero consistency in whether they pay it, it is completely up to them.

In this case though, O'Connor was told by the umpire that he was watching and to not do anything to give away a free. And 30 seconds later he gave Rayner a shove in the back. I have a feeling most umpires would have paid the free because O'Connor just straight up ignored the warning.

Of course the AFL has come out and say it shouldnt be a free. They are more than happy throwing umpires under the bus to appease Geelong and Collingwood. If a Saints player had been the one doing the shove on Daicos, the AFL would have said the umpire made the right call.

We know this because Daicos loves to flop when shoved and has received many free kicks for it.





The 3rd one was Bartel-level flopping.

 

[iBeng]

Yeah but Daicos>Rayner in numbers so hes allowed to do the flop

 

[Miller1971]

The problem is players get shoved to the ground literally all the time. And when it happens sometimes the umpires pay a free and sometimes they dont. There is zero consistency in whether they pay it, it is completely up to them.

In this case though, O'Connor was told by the umpire that he was watching and to not do anything to give away a free. And 30 seconds later he gave Rayner a shove in the back. I have a feeling most umpires would have paid the free because O'Connor just straight up ignored the warning.

Of course the AFL has come out and say it shouldnt be a free. They are more than happy throwing umpires under the bus to appease Geelong and Collingwood. If a Saints player had been the one doing the shove on Daicos, the AFL would have said the umpire made the right call.

We know this because Daicos loves to flop when shoved and has received many free kicks for it.





The 3rd one was Bartel-level flopping.

I'm no Daicos apologist, but they are the dumbest 3 examples ever.

first one he cops a solid hit right to the solar plexus. Doesn't deserve a free kick, but he hardly flops - it seriously knocks the wind out of you getting hit there.

2nd one, absolutely should not be a free kick, but he doesn't flop? He jumps as high as he can to get to a ball that was over kicked and lands awkwardly.

3rd one, anyone not living under a rock has seen the other angle where his leg is literally being held in the air above waist high by his opponent and when you are balanced on one leg, its pretty hard to stay standing up if someone comes along and pushes you.

 

[HairyO]

I'm no Daicos apologist, but they are the dumbest 3 examples ever.

first one he cops a solid hit right to the solar plexus. Doesn't deserve a free kick, but he hardly flops - it seriously knocks the wind out of you getting hit there.

2nd one, absolutely should not be a free kick, but he doesn't flop? He jumps as high as he can to get to a ball that was over kicked and lands awkwardly.

3rd one, anyone not living under a rock has seen the other angle where his leg is literally being held in the air above waist high by his opponent and when you are balanced on one leg, its pretty hard to stay standing up if someone comes along and pushes you.

As opposed to a hit in the back where you didnt see it coming? Also, Daicos hit first. He caused it. The umpires love to turn a blind eye to him doing things, and leap to his defence when anything happens.

 

[QuietB]

We can only be cats supporter selective. Don't dredge up the rest on a Cam Rayner thread.

Speaking of dives, I found this one pretty funny actually.

Never forget this one - it is genetic down at Geelong

 

[Scotland]

The Victorian sookfest about this is hilarious

you can smell the hypocrisy from Perth

The same Fox Footy flogs who flooded the MCG with tears on Friday were justifying Worpel's soft free vs the Giants on Saturday arvo.

'Yeah we might not like it but you give the umpire the chance to pay it' etc.

The Lohman free was such a joke Lohman and Stewart laughed about it. Both Rayner frees were soft as butter but the second one was peak stupid footballer move. Literally nothing can come from shoving Rayner after the goal than a follow up free kick. Chris Scott would've been going full Brad Scott watching that.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

If you make contact with a player when the ball is 150 metres away you're asking for hurt. That simply should be the message from HQ. Whether the contact was of the force necessary for a free kick is a crock. If a Collingwood player did what O'Connor did you'd be annoyed.

In the 2010 GF Replay, 20 seconds in, Cloke was kicking for goal from 5 metres out directly in front, Collingwood player infringed against Saints player, reversal. Certain goal wiped. The best bit was to come later with Goldsack being first goalkicker and the ensuing controversy of that moment too.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

The same Fox Footy flogs who flooded the MCG with tears on Friday were justifying Worpel's soft free vs the Giants on Saturday arvo.

'Yeah we might not like it but you give the umpire the chance to pay it' etc.

The Lohman free was such a joke Lohman and Stewart laughed about it. Both Rayner frees were soft as butter but the second one was peak stupid footballer move. Literally nothing can come from shoving Rayner after the goal than a follow up free kick. Chris Scott would've been going full Brad Scott watching that.

To be fair to the Fox Commentators that opinion was based on Friday night's events. They too thought it was soft. But once again, don't make unnecessary contact, especially in front of an umpire. Was silly play.

 

[Miller1971]

Cloke 5 out directly in front, big call suggesting 'certain goal'

 

[Miller1971]

As opposed to a hit in the back where you didnt see it coming? Also, Daicos hit first. He caused it. The umpires love to turn a blind eye to him doing things, and leap to his defence when anything happens.

Did you miss the bit where I said it didn't deserve a free kick? (the Daicos one)

I don't even reckon Rayner dived on the first one.

It was a gentle clip to the back, their feet get tangled and he goes to ground. Didn't warrant a free kick imo, but also don't reckon he dived.

The 2nd one he put a bit of mayo on it, but peak stupidity from Guthrie to come in like that when a low threshold for a free kick was set only 30 seconds prior!

 

[p4p1]

To be fair to the Fox Commentators that opinion was based on Friday night's events. They too thought it was soft. But once again, don't make unnecessary contact, especially in front of an umpire. Was silly play.

But that was not what they were running with at the time when it happened with Rayner. They were ready to hang, draw and quarter him.
The fallout from the AFL media has been embarrassing to say the least.

Zorko used to give frees off the ball all time. It cost as goals at different times. We were angry with his stupidity rather than the umpire who paid it or the player who played it up (if they did, there were multiple times it happened).
With the footage from first crack now looks like it shoes is the Umpire said I will be watching closer from now on. So why give any opportunities?

The AFL comes out and says they believe there was insufficient force for it to be a free kick but that is such a flawed argument. They don't really have any way of measuring force nor is it in the rules anywhere how much force should be exerted on the back to be a free kick.

As I said elsewhere as well, the umpire had one look at it, saw Rayner go down from a clear push in the back. Whether he went down easy or not, the umpire does not have the benefit of slow motion replays.

It didn't impact the result but even if it did, I can point to plenty of decisions that went Geelong's way as well of plenty of non-decisions which resulted in Geelong scoring.

 

[mighty_lions]

Did you miss the bit where I said it didn't deserve a free kick? (the Daicos one)

I don't even reckon Rayner dived on the first one.

It was a gentle clip to the back, their feet get tangled and he goes to ground. Didn't warrant a free kick imo, but also don't reckon he dived.

The 2nd one he put a bit of mayo on it, but peak stupidity from Guthrie to come in like that when a low threshold for a free kick was set only 30 seconds prior!

he set him up, I bet he was thinking if this guy bumps me again after he has been told not to im going to go to ground

I think its great play and I dont think the umpire got "sucked in" at all, he told him not to do it and he did it

Then fake tough guy Guthrie comes in and does the same thing, 2 correct free kicks

and dont get me started on the Lohmann one thats a free kick every day aswell,

 

[_Mike_]

flopping, diving, & ducking will remain a part of the game until the Umpires crack down on it. That's the way to get it out of the game, although only a limited number of umpires will see through the action and not fall for it. Rest just over react/over officiate.