Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fremantle' started by Righteo, Apr 15, 2017.
Any relation to Frank ?.
I'll ask Betty.
(Log in to remove this ad.)
God help the umps if Clive was the kicker, he wouldn't even know himself what he's thinking !!!!!!.
How the flip can an ump think what a player is thinking ?.
Golden rule of umpiring ( any sport ), adjudicate what you SEE, not what you THINK !!!!!.
Naaah bullcrap. The ump had it coming and it was overdue. That Stevic is a world class knob jockey
This. 100%. It's sliding into the area of total and utter bullshit that an umpire of any sport is supposed to guess what the player is thinking when adjudicating and making decisions.
So blame the rules committee.
I'm okay with the rule, and even that particular decision. Problem is the application of the rule varies depending on who the teams are.
Interesting that Stevic paid the 110m penalty to Hill. Bradley must have been quite confused. He has had years of getting favourable whistles from Stevic, a noted Hawthorn supporter. Edit: Mitchell not Stevic? Ok.
Normally I'd agree but it was Mitchell that gave Hill the twin 50's and Stevic was surprisingly good on Saturday. It was consistently the other two that showed a bias against us.
I'm sure it was Stevic. I'll need to go watch it again.
I have been hanging out to see Balic play more than anyone. I watched him do endless Forrest Gump impersonations at Freo oval and have always been positive about him and the youth in general.
I just pointed out a small error which was visible in the final minute. Sorry to upset anyone and sound negative. The last thing I want is enemies.
We can be magnanimous now, but the Kersten decision was an abomination. And for the AFL to defend the indefensible is gutless. Kicked 70m+ from the outside edge of the square, it passed the boundary within metres of the behind post and nowhere near on the straight line as Kennedy claimed. He's clearly angled it back at the goals, I reckon Kersten was hoping it'd prop up in front for someone to run on to.
And there's nobody there? Since when did you need a target for a shot at goals?
Meanwhile he defended Zaharakis kicking it straight out to the wing? That makes no sense.
The Zaharakis one is as indefensible as the Kersten one.
If you read between the lines that's what I'm doing. No umpire should be forced into a position where they have to guess what a player is thinking to decide whether or not to pay a free. In any sport.
I don't think he should've paid the free, as he could've "guessed" that Kersten was having a shot at goal, just as easily as he guessed that he was just trying to gain metres and going for touch. Either way, he shouldn't be put in that position and therefore it's a bullshit rule. Last 90 seconds of a game, blokes are exhausted, play is insane, a guy kicks it 70m towards his goals... and it bounces out. He could have just been too buggered to kick it 8m to the left of where it went over the boundary.
Like estibador said, if it happened to bounce through the sticks - was he deliberately trying to kick it out of bounds or was he aiming for the goal?
Too many 'what-ifs' make it a bullshit rule, and the umpires boss defending it is talking gobshyte saying he got it right, when the best he was doing was guessing.
I've seen a million half hearted kicks into the forward go out and the first time they pay a free is on a 70m kick in such a tight finish? It's bollocks.
They'll need to start paying every kick from the centre that goes straight out on the forward flank - there's 10 of those every game.
A big difference - one was 70 metres towards goals, went out 5 metres next to the post and was a free that has never been paid before. The other was a kick perpendicular to the goals that has gone almost directly out and has been paid as deliberate a million times - Barlow had a similar one called last year before the rules even tightened.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my intergalactic stellar dust magnatron-graviton Idea to word Manifestor Mark III using SPRUIKAYARN.
I think the umpires can interpret the rules how they want, as long as the clubs/players are aware of the interpretation and it is umpired with consistently.
With the Kersten call, I'll start melting if a similar case happened in another game and deliberate isn't called. Until then, seeing as we don't have any similar situations to compare it to, we'll have to assume that it was the correct call.
It's as simple as Kersten was in no realistic position at all to kick for goal. He was kicking for space, whether he fluked the goal or if it didn't go out at all isn't relevant. You can criticize the rule itself but it was enforced correctly. Of all the dodgy umpiring calls this is an odd one to focus on.
Don't worry about Danny, he is fiercely protective of Harley
You can't be serious in actually defending that decision with that reasoning?
Well that explains it then.
If it can be done once from distance, it can be done again.
Now over to the master.
He was drafted in 2007, spent 2008 with the dragons, debut in 2009.
He signed a one year extension last season to carry him to the end of 2017, I would expect him to be an unrestricted free agent at the end of the season if you were interested in taking him. But he does average about 4 games a season.
Make it easier for umpire and the limit ability to cheat and make it last touch.
That was the original rule until the Victorians change the rule to gain an advantage over the older states.
Not a bad stop gap between Sandilands and Darcy.
Perhaps, I'm hoping Darcy is good to go for 25 games from the start of 2019.