- Moderator
- #301
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.
You will never get fans aligned, but by having commentators who actually understand the umpires decision making process will help set the narrative.You've put a good case and I suspect the AFL will tick off the decision. I'm more comfortable with it after reading your post. But regardless of the technicalities, I think the footy public wants and expects a free kick to be paid in those circumstances. It's potentially a good opportunity to get fans aligned - explain why prior opportunity didn't apply and why incorrect disposal didn't apply.
Blicavs himself said he was trying to rush a behind, but that's not apparent from the footage.
Yes, this is the 'team prior opportunity' concept. Has been discussed previously....perfect for instances like last night.Another factor is that the pressure built each time Geelong touched the ball, forcing it backwards, until finally a player was nailed by a perfect tackle. There's almost a cumulative expectation that the sustained forward pressure will be rewarded.
If you dont think he did then you just cleared him of incorrect disposal as it needs to be intentional.Because he propelled it upwards. Once again an issue of interpretation, and I accept he didn't deliberately throw it.
Wrong. Geelong giving away free kicks kept them in it. Geelong caused the free kicks against but the umpire not calling the free kick at the end is solely on the umpire.Ahhh sure ...my point was that the umpiring kept the lions in it ...no need for the tears
Ahhh sure okWrong. Geelong giving away free kicks kept them in it. Geelong caused the free kicks against but the umpire not calling the free kick at the end is solely on the umpire.
That again isn't what the umpire is assessing. The throw is treated separately when their is no tackle involved.Prior opportunity or not, didn't he throw it ??
I think people need to learn the difference between incompetence and corruption
It was either going to be 'corruption' if the AFL affirmed the call, 'incompetence and corruption' if they said it was wrong.Be interesting to see if the boffins actually articulate detail behind it.
assume they will deem he had prior, but who knows they could also go down the path that Blicavs didn't have prior, but also didn't make a genuine attempt to HB.
So much grey in holding the ball.
Look at the vision, he is tackled almost instantaneously
Maybe to a Geelong supporter. Tackled immediately, didn't try and take the tackler on and tried to dispose of it immediately
Maybe to a Geelong supporter. Tackled immediately, didn't try and take the tackler on and tried to dispose of it immediately
Incorrect disposal overrides prior opportunity. It always been adjudicated that way.
If that incident had happened with 20 seconds to go in the game, the same reaction would have occurred.
Why would it be deliberate corruption outside of non-Victorian conspiracy theories?That’s the thing ..... how can you tell with blatant sh*t like that
Sent from my iPad using BigFooty.com
Incorrect disposal overrides prior opportunity. It always been adjudicated that way.
If that incident had happened with 20 seconds to go in the game, the same reaction would have occurred.
I believe they can coexist somewhat.
You are right though, Incorrect disposal does take precedence and is judged first. It requires the player to purposely ELECT to dispose of the ball incorrectly, which gets very grey in a tackle and very hard to umpire. However even so, if disposed of incorrectly and the umpire deems it to be done purpopsely EVEN in a tackle, there is no need to apply holding the ball rules its called incorrect disposal on the spot and a free kick awarded.
However if intention is unclear or its deemed the player did not elect to dispose of the ball incorrectly then you move on to holding the ball rules.
For the Brisbane player and Blicavs it looks pretty clear they did not want to dispose of the ball incorrectly or at all in the case of the Brisbane player, at the very least they should get the benefit of that doubt.
So holding the ball rules are applied to both of them, the Brisbane player was deemed to have had no prior opportunity so its play on.
Blicavs was also deemed to have no prior by the umpire on the day. Later the AFL called this wrong and he was attempting to evade the tackler when he turned his back which is one of the triggers of prior opportunity in the rule book.
Booooooo boooooooo boooooooThe non Vic sides really have to start showing a united front against the Victorian corruption.
35m out, Geelong forward line, set shot for Clark, but because it was early in the match people have forgotten about it.
Why would it be deliberate corruption outside of non-Victorian conspiracy theories?