Autopsy Fremantle kick 34 points and still don't beat Adelaide

Remove this Banner Ad

I hope game awareness was something brought up in the review.

We had 3 opportunities on the 50m arc (1 Fyfe, 2 Hogan).
It was pretty clear by then goals were hard to come by. Both those guys can roost it and Fyfe as captain and Hogan our big recruit FF needed to show some confidence and have a ping. The pass-offs were so low percentage and all resulted in turnovers, right in the centre at half back - pretty much the worst place you can turn it over. If they miss the shot we can at least try lock it in, the game was a territory battle after all. It just made no sense considering the state of the game to go for those bullet passes.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I hope game awareness was something brought up in the review.

We had 3 opportunities on the 50m arc (1 Fyfe, 2 Hogan).
It was pretty clear by then goals were hard to come by. Both those guys can roost it and Fyfe as captain and Hogan our big recruit FF needed to show some confidence and have a ping. The pass-offs were so low percentage and all resulted in turnovers, right in the centre at half back - pretty much the worst place you can turn it over. If they miss the shot we can at least try lock it in, the game was a territory battle after all. It just made no sense considering the state of the game to go for those bullet passes.
I think/hope they would have taken heaps away from that game in the review. Plenty of very specific game changing moments. If nothing else, everyone will know to give the ball to the player for an out on the full. Not leave it on the ground!
 
Can you summarise bro?
- 100% agreed the non call on the HTB was wrong and said they admitted it was an error.

- He hadn't seen a clip of the throwing the grass but said that if the umpire thought a grass/a clump of grass could affect the vision of the kicker then it was right to pay the 50. He emphasised that it would have had to be a fair amount of grass/dirt to call a 50 though, so potentially saying if it wasn't much grass then it shouldn't have been paid.

- On the Tucker free kick he said was a 50m penalty to the letter of the law and didn't go into it further. The frustrating part was the interviewer didn't follow up with why it was a contentious decision. That Tucker had placed the ball on the floor before the boundary umpire had called it as 'out of bounds on the full'. Once it was called a free Tucker tried to rectify and pick up the ball. How can Tucker be penalised for placing the ball on the floor before the umpire had even made the call that it was a free kick against?
 
- 100% agreed the non call on the HTB was wrong and said they admitted it was an error.

- He hadn't seen a clip of the throwing the grass but said that if the umpire thought a grass/a clump of grass could affect the vision of the kicker then it was right to pay the 50. He emphasised that it would have had to be a fair amount of grass/dirt to call a 50 though, so potentially saying if it wasn't much grass then it shouldn't have been paid.

- On the Tucker free kick he said was a 50m penalty to the letter of the law and didn't go into it further. The frustrating part was the interviewer didn't follow up with why it was a contentious decision. That Tucker had placed the ball on the floor before the boundary umpire had called it as 'out of bounds on the full'. Once it was called a free Tucker tried to rectify and pick up the ball. How can Tucker be penalised for placing the ball on the floor before the umpire had even made the call that it was a free kick against?

The reality is Tucker either marked it, or it was out of bounds on the full. There was no inbetween.
 
The reality is Tucker either marked it, or it was out of bounds on the full. There was no inbetween.
If the umpire adjudicated that it was touched by Tucker in-play, but he didn't have control of the footy until after he stepped over the line, it'd be a throw-in.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top