Review Geelong defeats Port by 2 points

[Herne Hill Hammer]

I heard someone say the other day we'd lost 6 of the last 7 games coming off the bye.
Not sure if true, bit if so.......that's worrying!

I don't even need to look it up to tell you that it would be true. Myself and a few others have raised the problem before on these Cats boards and the general football ones and have been laughed at by the majority.

'They're professional footballer, blah, blah, blah.'

The only thing that would make it worse would be if we played Sydney after the bye. I think this scenario has happened 3 or 4 times recently and we've lost every one of them.

 

[Vdubs]

Not as tough as you imagine.

We play Perth and AO well as they are two of the narrower grounds in the league and we have two at home.

I reckon at worst we'll walk away 5-2 but I'm tipping it'll be 6-1.

You must really rate us and our coach, very good to read

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

You must really rate us and our coach, very good to read

That's not entirely true. I rate our ability away from the MCG and the wider community.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Just looking at it now :

Under Scott

2016 - Lost to Sydney at Kardinia by 38 points
2015 - Lost to North Melbourne by 41 points at Docklands. (2 week break this year due to the Adelaide match being cancelled)
2014 - Lost to Freo by 32 points at Subiaco
2013 - Lost to Brisbane by 5 points at the GABBA
2012 - Lost to Sydney by 6 points at the SCG
2011 - Lost to Sydney by 13 points at Kardinia
2011 - Beat North by 66 points at Kardinia

Under Thompson

2010 - Beat North by 35 points at Kardinia
2009 - Beat Port by 34 points at Kardinia
2008 - Beat Freo by 74 points at Kardinia
2007 - Beat Sydney by 18 points at Kardinia
2006 - Lost to Adelaide by 92 points at Football Park

 

[Stan The Caddy]

Ok so I watched the last quarter again just now and there was one obvious free to Robbie Gray about half way through the last quarter and then there were a couple of 50/50's for BOTH teams that could have gone either way but the umps decided to put their whistle away.

I've seen much worse umpiring than that before. People are just being sooks.

 

[Willo_]

Ok so I watched the last quarter again just now and there was one obvious free to Robbie Gray about half way through the last quarter and then there were a couple of 50/50's for BOTH teams that could have gone either way but the umps decided to put their whistle away.

I've seen much worse umpiring than that before. People are just being sooks.

If it is the 1 obvious free they are all moaning about they also scored a goal within the next minute after Selwood kicked it out on the full.. so it literally didn't cost them at all

 

[Stan The Caddy]

If it is the 1 obvious free they are all moaning about they also scored a goal within the next minute after Selwood kicked it out on the full.. so it literally didn't cost them at all

That's not what I've heard Willo!

 

[SleazySimon]

I still don't get how that mark Dixon took over the line which led to a goal had never even been talked about. I think it was only replayed once during the game and the commentators didn't say a word. I've never been one for finding 'controversy'. For god sake if you want to find an inncident that cost port the game then look over the Entire game, not just the last few minutes

 

[Nickoo]

I'm as shocked as anything that he was an absolute certainty to kick the goal, especially after he badly missed one from an easier postion earlier in the night

And he still could have had a kick which supports the argument he wasn't feeling confident. Either way he got 33 seconds. Interesting also in the audio of a a number of set shots the umpire clearly can be heard saying 15 seconds gone. The defence of Dixon on their board on this topic was that he was concentrating so much he didn't hear the umpire and he wasn't aware. Clearly the Port posters are either nuts or stupid coz that argument is non sensical. Bloody odd bunch. As a number of posters have said if that happened to us we'd be rope able with our player not the umpire who simply played it straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nickoo]

I still don't get how that mark Dixon took over the line which led to a goal had never even been talked about. I think it was only replayed once during the game and the commentators didn't say a word. I've never been one for finding 'controversy'. For god sake if you want to find an inncident that cost port the game then look over the Entire game, not just the last few minutes

Exactly sleazy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dazbroncos]

I know Lang copped a spray in the last 1/4 for taking that shot at goal and missing - but I actually didnt mind it.

1 - he's kicked them like that before.
2 - he took the first option which kick the goal. The criticism has been not taking that so i dont mind him taking the responsibility to do so.

GO Catters

 

[Stan The Caddy]

I know Lang copped a spray in the last 1/4 for taking that shot at goal and missing - but I actually didnt mind it.

1 - he's kicked them like that before.
2 - he took the first option which kick the goal. The criticism has been not taking that so i dont mind him taking the responsibility to do so.

GO Catters

Nah, he should have given it off but I see what you're saying though...

 

[Hoops]

When it happened last night I actually missed it. So I rewound it and the clock was the first thing I looked at.
He definitely had 30 seconds.
I must admit I'm not a fan of the clock starting when the player is on the ground. But I understand why they do it.
But it's not like he'd taken a hit hit to the head and was dazed.

He was very lazy getting back to take his kick. He had heaps of time.

The thing is 30 seconds is more than enough time to get up, set your shot and commence your run up. I would be changing it to less if I was the AFL

 

[Nickoo]

The thing is 30 seconds is more than enough time to get up, set your shot and commence your run up. I would be changing it to less if I was the AFL

Especially as he had 33 seconds from when he was on said ground or 38 seconds from when the umpire awarded the mark and a 12 day break. So no excuse for milking it.

Wasn't Dixon the 'dick' who kept with Port tradition of trying to hurt Joel with the off the ball bump. MRP should have had a look at that even if they don't follow through. He didn't even try to apply any duty if care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Biggy_Boy]

Especially as he had 33 seconds from when he was on said ground or 38 seconds from when the umpire awarded the mark and a 12 day break. So no excuse for milking it.

Wasn't Dixon the 'dick' who kept with Port tradition of trying to hurt Joel with the off the ball bump. MRP should have had a look at that even if they don't follow through. He didn't even try to apply any duty if care.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He walked back slowly to milk the clock, likely assuming the umpire would not be so brazen as to call play on when he'd only had a few seconds to line up the shot. I don't see the issue. He had more than 30 seconds.

 

[zb14]

What pisses me off most about the Dixon incident is this claim in the media that its unprecedented and has never happened before.... When... It actually happened to Hawkins a few seasons back against Carlton I think it was... When he was actually in the middle of his run-up no less... and if my memory serves me correctly was it the tight game we won at the death courtesy of a Selwood goal?

Anyways, I reckon we desperately need a media bias registry for AFL media personalities. Why pretend any longer.

 

[Whiskers]

I still don't get how that mark Dixon took over the line which led to a goal had never even been talked about. I think it was only replayed once during the game and the commentators didn't say a word. I've never been one for finding 'controversy'. For god sake if you want to find an inncident that cost port the game then look over the Entire game, not just the last few minutes

That one wasn't over the line. You would think the umpires missed a dozen clear calls if you listen to Port fans.
What a huge overreaction from them.

 

[Hoops]

That one wasn't over the line. You would think the umpires missed a dozen clear calls if you listen to Port fans.
What a huge overreaction from them.

I agree it wasn't over the line, but it does fall into the category of weird football rules. We all know you have to control the ball for it to be deemed a mark and it's not a mark if the ball is fully over the line. But you can start marking the ball before or on the line but only have control once it's over the line like Dixon did. Still a mark if it stays in your hands though

 

[cats_09]

Contact between Port Adelaide’s Charlie Dixon and the Geelong Cats’ Joel Selwood from the second quarter of Thursday’s match was assessed. Selwood had received the ball from team mate Zac Smith, when Dixon came towards him to pressure the Geelong player from his position of standing the mark. Dixon made body contact to Selwood and a free kick was paid downfield at the time. It was the view of the panel there was insufficient high contact to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.

----
Why do I get a feeling that if things were reversed we would be seeing a Cat on the sideline for 2 or 3 weeks?

 

[Cataholic]

Contact between Port Adelaide’s Charlie Dixon and the Geelong Cats’ Joel Selwood from the second quarter of Thursday’s match was assessed. Selwood had received the ball from team mate Zac Smith, when Dixon came towards him to pressure the Geelong player from his position of standing the mark. Dixon made body contact to Selwood and a free kick was paid downfield at the time. It was the view of the panel there was insufficient high contact to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.

----
Why do I get a feeling that if things were reversed we would be seeing a Cat on the sideline for 2 or 3 weeks?

Be nothing surer.......

Mind you, what classifies as 'sufficient force' on a block of granite?

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Contact between Port Adelaide’s Charlie Dixon and the Geelong Cats’ Joel Selwood from the second quarter of Thursday’s match was assessed. Selwood had received the ball from team mate Zac Smith, when Dixon came towards him to pressure the Geelong player from his position of standing the mark. Dixon made body contact to Selwood and a free kick was paid downfield at the time. It was the view of the panel there was insufficient high contact to constitute a reportable offence. No further action was taken.

----
Why do I get a feeling that if things were reversed we would be seeing a Cat on the sideline for 2 or 3 weeks?

I thought Dixon was lucky but they play Hawthorn so I'm not fussed.

You're right thought, If that was a Geelong player he'd have received at least a week.

 

[Tony Barber]

I thought it was a brilliant bump.
Even better was the fact Selwood would have known he was going to get cleaned up and could have released the footy earlier but didn't.

 

[supahoops]

I thought it was a brilliant bump.
Even better was the fact Selwood would have known he was going to get cleaned up and could have released the footy earlier but didn't.

Never has. Seems to relish it..

 

[BUSTER29]

I thought it was a brilliant bump.
Even better was the fact Selwood would have known he was going to get cleaned up and could have released the footy earlier but didn't.

Me too.Didnt appear to hit the head.
Free kick for late,absolutely.
Would hate to see any player suspended for that,Cats,Port ,whoever.

 

[cats_09]

Me too.Didnt appear to hit the head.
Free kick for late,absolutely.
Would hate to see any player suspended for that,Cats,Port ,whoever.

The reverse angle where looking front on looks worse than the vision from behind.

One thing that probably helped Dixon is that he had his feet in the ground. But as I said, just seems that insufficient high contact or insufficient force never applies when it's a Cat potentially in front of the mrp