Analysis Mills 50

Remove this Banner Ad

"I don't ever like to talk about umpires but the bias against sydney on Friday night was horrendous" Tim watson. Many more same opinion

Umpire bias occurs subconsciously because of spectator support and media. You can suggest the free outcome was a job on sloane but the bias was more to do with frees not given for same interpretations.

I watched the replay after being at the game. I saw one high tackle on Hewett that wasn't paid for you that should have been and i think i remember one other that i thought should have been a free that you didn't get

Out of all the frees Adelaide got, i saw maybe one or two that were a little bit "ooh, we got a bit lucky" The rest were there because Sydney were scragging like there was no tomorrow (and there pretty much wasn't for the Swans if they lost)

You got the goal from Buddy where he covered 20 metres without a bounce and the Mills 50 that was BS. Mills even hit the ground in disgust at himself and Tippett had his hands on his head like "oh s**t"

You also got away with half a dozen throws that were just glossed over

Yes we had more frees, but no where in the rule book does it state the free count has to be even to be fair

But s**t happens and we lost, so be it.

But if you've come to our board looking for sympathy about the free kick count going against you, you've come to the wrong board. We seriously don't give a s**t about Sydney. We've been reamed so many times, it's nice to have the count go our way (and deservedly so) for once
 
When this s**t happens to geelong or the dogs it's ok because they were hard at it and first to the ball, but when it comes to us we were receiving gifts from umpires ?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The mills decision was undoubtedly wrong. No dispute from me. He played on but wasn't called. The franklin non decision I thought was fine. He takes long strides and watching it live it and on replay it didn't even occur to me he went too far if he did. The htb decision oob was consistent with prior interpretations. Don't see a problem tbh.

The Franklin non-decision stank. It was called as too far by everyone in the stands self included. If the average punter can see it, why can't the well-paid blokes with the whistles?
 
The Franklin non-decision stank. It was called as too far by everyone in the stands self included. If the average punter can see it, why can't the well-paid blokes with the whistles?

Reviewing the replay of franklin IMO it wasn't even close to being 15 metres on any occasion. He got the ball on the wing and carried it approx 40-45 metres to 10 metres inside the 50 arc having bounced it 3 times the last when the ball went to ground for 5-8 metres at which point he was no longer carrying the ball and only started to carry the ball again when he recovered possession. When you don't have possession of the ball because it's on the ground you can't include that as part of 15 metres. If you want, count the steps as I did and you will see he was fine.
 
The Franklin non-decision stank. It was called as too far by everyone in the stands self included. If the average punter can see it, why can't the well-paid blokes with the whistles?

I was in Hobart on the weekend and only got to see the first half on TV

A mate of mine was sending some texts to me during the rest of the game - One text he sent was 'Franklin has gone to sleep' then three mins later another text 'wait too soon he just kicked goal of the year'

I wrote back 'legit goal of the year or just a good goal' and then he replied 'Replace Hooker with Talia and an identical run down the wing and goal from 50 on the boundry'


later that night drunk as a barge I saw a clip of the goal - even at 2am and smashed on all kinds of drugs and only watching it once, I responded back to the text and just wrote 'ran too far'
 
after recovering the fumble until he settles himself to kick is too far

He recovered the ball about 5- 6 from the arc and carried it for 8-10 beyond the arc taking 9-10 steps total which were smaller than his 7 steps between each bounce at pace because he was slowing firstly steadying himself to regather the ball and also to be steady to shoot. I'm inclined to believe he covered more ground but by less steps in that first bounce because he was flying at that point to create a gap. Think he would have cause to complain if he were pinged. It certainly isn't an obvious error by umpires IMO
 
Reviewing the replay of franklin IMO it wasn't even close to being 15 metres on any occasion. He got the ball on the wing and carried it approx 40-45 metres to 10 metres inside the 50 arc having bounced it 3 times the last when the ball went to ground for 5-8 metres at which point he was no longer carrying the ball and only started to carry the ball again when he recovered possession. When you don't have possession of the ball because it's on the ground you can't include that as part of 15 metres. If you want, count the steps as I did and you will see he was fine.
You can count all the step you want, but you're very wrong.

Here's Franklin taking his kick, and him picking up the ball following his fumble.

He picks it up just before the dark band, runs the dark band, most of the light band and kicks it just before the next dark band.

The bands are 10m wide, and he's running on an angle. He has ran at least 20m before he kicks.
WL2h89i.jpg
 
Shall I name the other half dozen who also levied criticism ? I referred to him because I had a quote from him.
No, please don't. The fact that you think 'counting steps' is more accurate than looking at the actual distance covered as a measure of distance suggests you have nothing worthwhile to add. Maybe just pop back to your board, as this thread is about Mills and Buddy, both of which have been shown to be wrong.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

You can count all the step you want, but you're very wrong.

Here's Franklin taking his kick, and him picking up the ball following his fumble.

He picks it up just before the dark band, runs the dark band, most of the light band and kicks it just before the next dark band.

The bands are 10m wide, and he's running on an angle. He has ran at least 20m before he kicks.
WL2h89i.jpg


Get out of here with your pesky facts, and just tell us about steps, and "the vibe".
 
It was lineball

*though, apparently Atkins got called twice for running too far?? I only saw the one in the first quarter


Atkins' first one was there - all the he had to do was touch the ball on the ground after shrugging the tackle but he keeps running. Massive brainfade.

The second one in the final quarter was BS though. He would have ran 15.2 metres at the very most. If they let Franklins go, Atkins should have been given leeway too.
 
Atkins' first one was there - all the he had to do was touch the ball on the ground after shrugging the tackle but he keeps running. Massive brainfade.

The second one in the final quarter was BS though. He would have ran 15.2 metres at the very most. If they let Franklins go, Atkins should have been given leeway too.


yeah the one I saw was lineball but there (i remember thinking GET RID OF IT/BOUNCE IT as it was called, which is a dead giveaway)

if there was another that wasn't legit and Buddy was let go, it's a bit rich
 
He recovered the ball about 5- 6 from the arc and carried it for 8-10 beyond the arc taking 9-10 steps total which were smaller than his 7 steps between each bounce at pace because he was slowing firstly steadying himself to regather the ball and also to be steady to shoot. I'm inclined to believe he covered more ground but by less steps in that first bounce because he was flying at that point to create a gap. Think he would have cause to complain if he were pinged. It certainly isn't an obvious error by umpires IMO

But...the umpires admit he ran about 20 m. You, however, know better.
If you spin any harder you'll fall off the world.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top