Opinion Non-Crows AFL 10

[Slippery Pete]

You can be your balls we would have won that game like north did to give up Reid

So it really is true when they say you can be anything you wanna be

 

[dogs105]

And did it all in 14.99 metres. Pretty impressive.

19 steps. But if they called it, I would have been spewing!

 

[dani_giuls]

Simpson will never move to adelaide. Once you live in perth it’s hard to leave.
Unless we gave him a Godfather offer

I am one of many grads that went there many years ago over and all of us bar 1 moved out (I lasted 5yrs).

It is possible! Though given the way the two teams are going, not sure you'd want to leave the Eagles for Adelaide!

 

[Crow till I die]

19 steps. But if they called it, I would have been spewing!

And thats the rub isn't it. We all didn't want it to be called like we didn't Izaks. Arbitrarily choosing when and when not to apply laws of the game is always the problem we all have with the umpires.

My argument to the collingwood fans bleating about rules is it was ok for the umpires to put their whistle away last year when Dawson got a head high tackle right in front of goal with 10 seconds to go - they got the benefit of the arbitrary (wrong) umpire interpretation of the rules then and it was nothing to see from them.

So fast forward 12 months time and Rankine runs a bit far but we have a chance to win the game at the death but instead of them putting their whistles away like they did to our detriment last year, they blow up on a technically correct rule call that again works to Collingwoods extreme advantage to effectively end the game. So we are doubly the victims of how the umpires choose to interpret the rules of the game and its 2 x 4 point losses when maybe 2 4 point wins was equally a fair outcome

 

[SugarShane]

Using a very rough measurement on Google maps I mapped it as 25m as the crow flies, and that's not taking into account that he zig-zagged half of it. Would have to be close to 30+.

Different rules for different players at different grounds.

But if they called it, I would have been spewing!

Therein lies the problem. People, commentators, the AFL, umpires, want to see these kinds of moments so they don't call it at the expense of the actual rules. Imagine a goal of the year scrapes the post and we all go "Nah don't call it! It ruins the moment." Then one gets called and everyone gets on the high horse, "Well it's technically there!"

What does the AFL want? Does it want players to be able to run that far in the interest of spectacle? The rule is in place to prevent that exact thing. It's easy to do it if you don't have the bounce, that's the point of the rule.

Seems like umpires think 15m is too short. Then change the bloody rule.

Honestly it just further exposes what a farce AFL umpires are. They have a rule, but never enforce it. Then one umpire decides he wants his "me" moment and enforces it with 20 seconds to go in a tight game. I imagine the ump is sitting at him getting himself off to all the media coverage of his correct call and watching the play on loop.

 

[Vader]

Using a very rough measurement on Google maps I mapped it as 25m as the crow flies, and that's not taking into account that he zig-zagged half of it. Would be have to be close to 30+.

Different rules for different players at different grounds.


Therein lies the problem. People, commentators, the AFL, umpires, want to see these kinds of moments so they don't call it at the expense of the actual rules. Imagine a goal of the year scrapes the post and we all go "Nah don't call it! It ruins the moment." Then one gets called and everyone gets on the high horse, "Well it's technically there!"

What does the AFL want? Does it want players to be able to run that far in the interest of spectacle? The rule is in place to prevent that exact thing. It's easy to do it if you don't have the bounce, that's the point of the rule.

Seems like umpires think 15m is too short. Then change the bloody rule.

Honestly it just further exposes what a farce AFL umpires are. They have a rule, but never enforce it. Then one umpire decides he wants his "me" moment and enforces it with 20 seconds to go in a tight game. I imagine the ump is sitting at him getting himself off to all the media coverage of his correct call and watching the play on loop.

What they need to do is call it consistently - either strictly, or loosely, really doesn't matter. They just need to be consistent.

The problem with the Rankine decision wasn't that the umpire got it wrong (the umpire was 100% correct). It's that they chose to call it this time, having overlooked multiple similar incidents earlier in the game, and having multiple similar incidents played out (without being called) across the round/season.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Anyone who says that was a free kick against Rankine is running a very specific agenda or has not watched a single game of football in the past 40 years.

The talking heads on TV all defending that decision are in the former category.

Give me a break with your f*cking tape measure. Everybody knows that free kick was laughable.

 

[Scorpus]

I reckon Nicks is stoked there's all this discussion about the running too far call to distract from him losing another close game

 

[jenny61_99]

Anyone who says that was a free kick against Rankine is running a very specific agenda or has not watched a single game of football in the past 40 years.

The talking heads on TV all defending that decision are in the former category.

Give me a break with your f*cking tape measure. Everybody knows that free kick was laughable.

While there was no guarantee of a win for us, with several other similar runs made and not penalised, why do they choose THAT moment in time to call it? Why not any of the others? I've said a couple of times, I'd like an analysis done of every run over the weekend and comparisons done with how far was run, how many weren't called, how many were and why the difference. And then get them to bloody agree on what will be called and what won't be.

 

[SugarShane]

And then get them to bloody agree on what will be called and what won't be.

All you hear from the AFL is "right call, ran too far," because the alternative is to come out and admit that their umpires are wrong in every other instance of players running too far (Harley Reid and the Sharp dude from Brisbane as 2 other examples from this weekend alone).

They get themselves in this position by allowing terrible umpiring of the rule. All it takes is for the AFL to say to umpires "If a player runs as far as you'd pay a mark, blow the whistle. Every time." and likewise "Only pay a mark if the kick has travelled as far as you'd pay ran too far."

The absolute incompetence to judge 15m over decades has gotten them to this position.

 

[daniel_4tw]

Dawson not getting a free kick for high last year. Sydney goal not being reviewed. Draper not called holding the ball. Rankine running too far.

These are all 50/50, to 100-1 odds of happening.

Something isn’t right for EVERY decision to go against us when the game is on the line, even if you can argue ‘they rarely pay that at that stage of the game’ or ‘technically it’s the correct call’.

I’m not suggesting there is a conspiracy but there sure as hell is bias. Once or twice, it’s unlucky, but it’s now gotten to the point where we expect it. Real talks need to be happening with AFL to ask why we seem to be on the wrong end every call when it matters

 

[1970crow]

19 steps. But if they called it, I would have been spewing!

Also a handful that would have been about half to 2/3s of a metre each. Definitely ran less distance than Rank.

 

[kirky]

One thing everyone probably forgets that if any of these players actually do take a bounce, they would in all likelihood get caught.

 

[DJ75]

Using a very rough measurement on Google maps I mapped it as 25m as the crow flies, and that's not taking into account that he zig-zagged half of it. Would have to be close to 30+.

Different rules for different players at different grounds.


Therein lies the problem. People, commentators, the AFL, umpires, want to see these kinds of moments so they don't call it at the expense of the actual rules. Imagine a goal of the year scrapes the post and we all go "Nah don't call it! It ruins the moment." Then one gets called and everyone gets on the high horse, "Well it's technically there!"

What does the AFL want? Does it want players to be able to run that far in the interest of spectacle? The rule is in place to prevent that exact thing. It's easy to do it if you don't have the bounce, that's the point of the rule.

Seems like umpires think 15m is too short. Then change the bloody rule.

Honestly it just further exposes what a farce AFL umpires are. They have a rule, but never enforce it. Then one umpire decides he wants his "me" moment and enforces it with 20 seconds to go in a tight game. I imagine the ump is sitting at him getting himself off to all the media coverage of his correct call and watching the play on loop.

The Victorian commentators (because aren't they all...) actually had a laugh about that Dawson free in the first quarter of the game on the weekend. Scum the lot of them.

 

[DJ75]

Dawson not getting a free kick for high last year. Sydney goal not being reviewed. Draper not called holding the ball. Rankine running too far.

These are all 50/50, to 100-1 odds of happening.

Something isn’t right for EVERY decision to go against us when the game is on the line, even if you can argue ‘they rarely pay that at that stage of the game’ or ‘technically it’s the correct call’.

I’m not suggesting there is a conspiracy but there sure as hell is bias. Once or twice, it’s unlucky, but it’s now gotten to the point where we expect it. Real talks need to be happening with AFL to ask why we seem to be on the wrong end every call when it matters

VFL competition, based in Victoria, with all Victorian commentators, where the umpiring panel is all based in Victoria as well as the league head quarters and all decision making.
Not hard to figure out what the issue is.
Thanks to Port it's about to get worse when we end up actually joining the VFL.

 

[dogs105]

Also a handful that would have been about half to 2/3s of a metre each. Definitely ran less distance than Rank.

Yep.

15 < Reid < Rankine

 

[DJ75]

West Coast have done it again haven't they?

No team in the competition is better at tanking, picking up an elite talent and then getting back to the top again. Reid is going to be an absolute gun. West Coast did it right. North did the dumb thing (the sort we normally do) and will be left watching the competitions next superstar.

 

[jackster83]

West Coast have done it again haven't they?

No team in the competition is better at tanking, picking up an elite talent and then getting back to the top again. Reid is going to be an absolute gun. West Coast did it right. North did the dumb thing (the sort we normally do) and will be left watching the competitions next superstar.

Sydney did it beautifully in 2020 too. One year down the bottom, pick up Logan McDonald and then straight back up to the pointy end of the ladder.

 

[MarcusP2]

West Coast have done it again haven't they?

No team in the competition is better at tanking, picking up an elite talent and then getting back to the top again. Reid is going to be an absolute gun. West Coast did it right. North did the dumb thing (the sort we normally do) and will be left watching the competitions next superstar.

I was just thinking that they have managed to bottom out to pick Judd, NicNat and Reid. lol.

 

[SugarShane]

One thing everyone probably forgets that if any of these players actually do take a bounce, they would in all likelihood get caught.

Which is the entire point of the rule.

 

[DJ75]

I was just thinking that they have managed to bottom out to pick Judd, NicNat and Reid. lol.

They don't mess about in the middle of the table for long.

 

[SugarShane]

Also a handful that would have been about half to 2/3s of a metre each. Definitely ran less distance than Rank.

This is a pretty rough job, but tried to track his movements to where he changed direction. Not as reliable as whatever Fox use probably, but it won't be far off imo (it almost perfectly measures the centre square as 50m).

 

[Ham]

What they need to do is call it consistently - either strictly, or loosely, really doesn't matter. They just need to be consistent.

The problem with the Rankine decision wasn't that the umpire got it wrong (the umpire was 100% correct). It's that they chose to call it this time, having overlooked multiple similar incidents earlier in the game, and having multiple similar incidents played out (without being called) across the round/season.

I agree, Id nearly argue the way they adjudicate the rule now is great, is already fairly consistent and they shouldnt change anything. Which herein lies why calling it against Rankine was so controversial.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[kirky]

This is a pretty rough job, but tried to track his movements to where he changed direction. Not as reliable as whatever Fox use probably, but it won't be far off imo (it almost perfectly measures the centre square as 50m).

View attachment 1995004

Well we know that from the centre to the edge of the square is 15m and he did it diagonally so definitely exceeded 15m comfortably.

The problem with the AFL is the inconsistency - interesting to see what happens if he does the same thing at Adelaide Oval this week. The crowd will be onto it in a flash.

 

[Vader]

I agree, Id nearly argue the way they adjudicate the rule now is great, is already fairly consistent and they shouldnt change anything. Which herein lies why calling it against Rankine was so controversial.

I'd suggest the umpires got reamed over the length of his run in the Brisbane game, where he ran the better part of 50m without bouncing the ball. As a result, they were clearly watching for a repeat performance in the Collingwood game, which is why he got pinged when nobody else did.

As I said before... I'm not fussed whether it's adjudicated tightly or loosely, just choose one and be consistent.