Let's clear one thing up.

[Groin guru]

Bullshit. He lifted his arm to initiate the high contact. Clear as day. Stop trying to be magnanimous.

Exactly. That poll should be burned to the ground. Not a free. Shuey is one of the biggest ducks in the game and it is ridiculous he got that free.

What's even more ridiculous is the AFL agreeing that the free should have been paid (as if they were going to say otherwise). Hopefully next time you meet dixon drills shuey through the turf. Bullshit.

 

[Pt Augusta Power]

The AFL would never admit to a wrong free kick call that decides the outcome of a final. For me personally, it's this corruption that ruins my interest in the sport.

I agree, but the afl don't give a **** about this. They have tens of thousands of other willing to buy up their product.

 

[Janus]

"I spoke to Hayden (Kennedy) over email this morning. The reality is we knew that the AFL would give the tick of approval to a decision that was made on the night." - Chris Davies

Sounds like off the record they admitted it was wrong, but on the record it was 'the correct decision'. Just like the Dixon shit.

 

[PAFC66]

"I spoke to Hayden (Kennedy) over email this morning. The reality is we knew that the AFL would give the tick of approval to a decision that was made on the night." - Chris Davies

Sounds like off the record they admitted it was wrong, but on the record it was 'the correct decision'. Just like the Dixon shit.

Huh? So they're lying publicly to protect the image. Wow.

 

[edgie]

Poll needs a "Who gives a ****" option.

Also known as just not taking part. This isn't the Australian Electoral Commission, you aren't gonna be fined 55 bucks for not turning up.

Sent from mTalk

 

[edgie]

"I spoke to Hayden (Kennedy) over email this morning. The reality is we knew that the AFL would give the tick of approval to a decision that was made on the night." - Chris Davies

Sounds like off the record they admitted it was wrong, but on the record it was 'the correct decision'. Just like the Dixon shit.

Speak on the phone where it doesn't leave a possibly incriminating paper trail and give the responder time to think next time please.

Sent from mTalk

 

[Janus]

Huh? So they're lying publicly to protect the image. Wow.

Oh no, it's worse than that.

In his Final Siren article, posted on the AFL website, Ashley Browne writes the following (and I refuse to quote it properly because I sure as shit ain't giving their site hits for this ludicrous decision):

"There was so much to digest. Was it a free kick at the end? Well, no. According to the changed interpretations this year, it wasn't a free kick to Luke Shuey, who brought the high contact upon himself. But that's a judgement made with the wisdom of hindsight and watching in slow motion. In real time, the tackle could justifiably have been ruled as too high - and was on Sunday morning by the AFL's umpiring department.

Given the AFL flagged at the start of the year that such incidents would be not be paid as free kicks, should we expect by now that the umpires should be alert to that and act accordingly? Probably."

Now, this comes from AFL Media - the same clowns who went on and on about the Dixon kick against Geelong being the correct call. Which basically means that the AFL knows it wasn't a correct decision, but they aren't going to undermine the umpiring department publicly.

They reckon Shuey had a 'nervous giggle' after getting the free kick. It wasn't nerves. It was him thinking 'I can't believe that actually worked'. The guy is a serial ducker, and in an elimination final with the game on the line, this shit practice gave him an opportunity to ice the game.

 

[tribey]

Oh no, it's worse than that.

In his Final Siren article, posted on the AFL website, Ashley Browne writes the following (and I refuse to quote it properly because I sure as shit ain't giving their site hits for this ludicrous decision):

"There was so much to digest. Was it a free kick at the end? Well, no. According to the changed interpretations this year, it wasn't a free kick to Luke Shuey, who brought the high contact upon himself. But that's a judgement made with the wisdom of hindsight and watching in slow motion. In real time, the tackle could justifiably have been ruled as too high - and was on Sunday morning by the AFL's umpiring department.

Given the AFL flagged at the start of the year that such incidents would be not be paid as free kicks, should we expect by now that the umpires should be alert to that and act accordingly? Probably."

Now, this comes from AFL Media - the same clowns who went on and on about the Dixon kick against Geelong being the correct call. Which basically means that the AFL knows it wasn't a correct decision, but they aren't going to undermine the umpiring department publicly.

They reckon Shuey had a 'nervous giggle' after getting the free kick. It wasn't nerves. It was him thinking 'I can't believe that actually worked'. The guy is a serial ducker, and in an elimination final with the game on the line, this shit practice gave him an opportunity to ice the game.

Or it could've been his weird facial tic thing:



(Audio NSFW)

 

[raptalia]

If the situation was reversed we would all be screaming if the free was not awarded. The free was there live with it and ask why the situation came down to that. We had the chance to steady the ship and ****ed it up.

 

[Steve Dore]

At the game I thought it was a free kick but watching the slow mo it should have been play on. Umpire doesn't have the advantage of slow mo.

 

[Steve Dore]

Interested that noone on your board have taken emacs deliberate out of bounds non decision

Was it just that good?

Shuey clearly didnt deserve a free but it took super slo mo to see it - an umpire in real time would struggle.

Yeah, at the game in real time I thought that the free to Shuey was legit but the slow mo shows it wasn't. Interesting despite the AFL reaffirming this;

Link
"Earlier this year, the AFL tightened its interpretation on high contact, declaring if a tackle is reasonable and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a "shrug, drop, arm lift or duck, play on should be called".

They are saying that it was the correct decision as Shuey didn't shrugged the tackle high.



I don't agree with the title of that youtube clip either. Luke Shuey didn't cheat. He did something outside the rules and should not have been rewarded for it. That is not cheating by the player but incompetence by the umpires.

The decisions that irked me more were the out on the full against Polec when the ball came off his thigh/knee which resulted in a shot on goal to West Coast and the very obvious deliberate out of bounds by Mackenzie that wasn't paid and would have resulted in a shot on goal for Dixon.

As others have posted though we should never have been in a position where an incorrect free or two against us cost us the game.

 

[Freak Dodgeball Accident]

Yeah, at the game in real time I thought that the free to Shuey was legit but the slow mo shows it wasn't. Interesting despite the AFL reaffirming this;

Link
"Earlier this year, the AFL tightened its interpretation on high contact, declaring if a tackle is reasonable and the ball carrier is responsible for the high contact via a "shrug, drop, arm lift or duck, play on should be called".

They are saying that it was the correct decision as Shuey didn't shrugged the tackle high.



I don't agree with the title of that youtube clip either. Luke Shuey didn't cheat. He did something outside the rules and should not have been rewarded for it. That is not cheating by the player but incompetence by the umpires.

The decisions that irked me more were the out on the full against Polec when the ball came off his thigh/knee which resulted in a shot on goal to West Coast and the very obvious deliberate out of bounds by Mackenzie that wasn't paid and would have resulted in a shot on goal for Dixon.

As others have posted though we should never have been in a position where an incorrect free or two against us cost us the game.

That's actually my video, was in the heat of the moment when I made the title. What you say is true, it's not his fault how the umpire officiated the decision.

Spot on about the Polec (geez, he was unlucky) out on the full decision. Nearly came off the thigh! That resulted in a behind. Then the Ryder ruck infringement, another behind.

Was thinking yesterday that there nearly needs to be a free kick challenge/DRS. The player can challenge a decision they believe was wrong. If the challenger is wrong, 50m penalty or a shot in goal from 25m out so there is no way they would abuse it. If inconclusive, goes with umpires decision. If the challenger was right, ball up or free kick to the challenger.

Ryder would have absolutely challenged the ruck infringement decision. Polec would have definitely challenged the out on the full and probably the tackle as well. Ebert would have challenged the holding the ball decision which he didn't even touch.

This puts the onus back onto the umpires to make sure that they are making the correct decision.

 

[la verschroben]

That's actually my video, was in the heat of the moment when I made the title. What you say is true, it's not his fault how the umpire officiated the decision.

Spot on about the Polec (geez, he was unlucky) out on the full decision. Nearly came off the thigh! That resulted in a behind. Then the Ryder ruck infringement, another behind.

Was thinking yesterday that there nearly needs to be a free kick challenge/DRS. The player can challenge a decision they believe was wrong. If the challenger is wrong, 50m penalty or a shot in goal from 25m out so there is no way they would abuse it. If inconclusive, goes with umpires decision. If the challenger was right, ball up or free kick to the challenger.

Ryder would have absolutely challenged the ruck infringement decision. Polec would have definitely challenged the out on the full and probably the tackle as well. Ebert would have challenged the holding the ball decision which he didn't even touch.

This puts the onus back onto the umpires to make sure that they are making the correct decision.

Id actually love this. Limit the amount of challenges per game so players only challenge when they are certain.

One thing to remember is that on our side we saw howler non decisions or bad decisions that didnt go our way too - as they say in boxing never let a decision go to the umps - kicking behinds and out on the fulls cost you that game more than anything

Bit like the game a few years ago where we kicked something like 6 goals 21

 

[bomberclifford]

No ****ing way. This is the shit that ruined cricket.

 

[chiwigi]

I'm more mad about the non-call when some random eagle ran the ball over the line in the dying minute of the game and it wasn't called deliberate.

It's all moot now though. Nothing can revive our season.

Dixon pushed him into the post. He would have rushed it if Dixon hadn't made him connect first.

 

[Freak Dodgeball Accident]

No ******* way. This is the shit that ruined cricket.

It's not ideal, but can't really keep going on accepting umpiring blunders which not only cost a game, but a final. Imagine if the final free kick wasn't a contentious high tackle free kick, but a handball which was deemed a throw or a dropping of the ball where the player actually got a boot to it. Would you want a game decided by a dodgy decision? Something has to be done.

 

[Moo87]

Let me say first that I think we well and truly lost this game ourselves. Our major failings were: 1) letting them dominate the midfield early 2) missing multiple gettable chances to ice the game in both the 4th quarter and extra time and 3) bad turnovers in the last two minutes by senior players and failing to set up properly at the end.

But... it was not a free. Live from my seat (which of course is much further away) it looked high, but in the end we have a situation where an umpire in a poor position has paid a free which another whom had a clearer view didn't. A free which based off explanations at the start of the year was wrong and which we were lead to believe they'll be looking out for.

And this occurred at a stage when they had "put the whistle away" and had already ignored several 50-50 calls which could've gone our way in the moments prior.

Add in to that. 1) Incorrect ruck infringement against Ryder resulting in a shot 2) Incorrect out on the full against Polec resulting in a shot 3) failure to call play on for the 30 second rule resulting in a shot 4) Incorrect HTB call against Eber resulting in a shot 5) Non review of Dougals touch from Kennedy shot 6) lack of consistency from the frees payed in the first quarter through to later in the game

Now we received some dodgy frees ourselves, but I think we certainly lost out in terms of important decisions in front of goal.

For a few years I've been an advocate for making the umpires full time to increase their training, and looking at ways of improving clarification in the rules.

But somehow this myth that the umpiring incompetence evens itself out across the course of the game is rife amongst the AFL, and questioning this is like you're questioning the fabric of the game. People claim it is the hardest game to officiate but we haven't even began to scratch the surface in ways to improve. Again we're left with an all time classic final where the officiating didn't keep up with the standard the players set.

 

[PAFC66]

It's Jonas's fault.

 

[manureid]

Why are we not training our players to do this? The AFL have signed off on it basically. It is a free for all.

 

[Steve Dore]

Why are we not training our players to do this? The AFL have signed off on it basically. It is a free for all.

Robbie Gray gets legitimately tackled high, ie he doesn't draw contact, drop or shrug the tackle high, and the umpires call play-on now. There is no point in training to draw high contact for Ports.

 

[manureid]

Robbie Gray gets legitimately tackled high, ie he doesn't draw contact, drop or shrug the tackle high, and the umpires call play-on now. There is no point in training to draw high contact for Ports.

Did we 'Sloane' it to the AFL though?

 

[Steve Dore]

Did we 'Sloane' it to the AFL though?

Of course not, we exist to be nice, not to rock the boat.

 

[TeeKray]

Why are we not training our players to do this? The AFL have signed off on it basically. It is a free for all.

I had to laugh at this. Because it's rules for some, rules for others.

Witness Lindsay Thomas. Perfected the art of the duck/shrug/whatever you want to call it just as well as Selwood and Shuey did. But because he plays for North Melbourne, guess what the result is? Universal umpire discrimination against Lindsay Thomas that results in his head being practically free game in their dogged determination 'not to fall for Lindsay Thomas and his staging'.

It wouldn't matter what we did, we'd still get the rough end of the pineapple. There's a reason why the same clubs are always at the top of the free kick table. There's an endemic favouritism of certain players and certain clubs that just can't be overcome. And yes West Coast and Geelong, I'm looking at you (also hoping you both get smashed this weekend, incidentally).

 

[manureid]

I had to laugh at this. Because it's rules for some, rules for others.

Witness Lindsay Thomas. Perfected the art of the duck/shrug/whatever you want to call it just as well as Selwood and Shuey did. But because he plays for North Melbourne, guess what the result is? Universal umpire discrimination against Lindsay Thomas that results in his head being practically free game in their dogged determination 'not to fall for Lindsay Thomas and his staging'.

It wouldn't matter what we did, we'd still get the rough end of the pineapple. There's a reason why the same clubs are always at the top of the free kick table. There's an endemic favouritism of certain players and certain clubs that just can't be overcome. And yes West Coast and Geelong, I'm looking at you (also hoping you both get smashed this weekend, incidentally).

Yeh, true enough.

 

[powermacs]

At the game I thought it was a free kick but watching the slow mo it should have been play on. Umpire doesn't have the advantage of slow mo.

But they do have the advantage of standing 2 meters away. Absolute incompetence from a small individual who needed to grandstand and be part of the moment instead of doing his job. This Ryder one makes me more angry than the high free kick. HE's LOOKING RIGHT AT PADDY FFS