Official umps cost port Adelaide thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

PowerForGood said:
You keep confusing ducking for courage.

Selwood shows plenty of courage in normal play which is why its so embarrassing that he also ducks for free kicks.

And as for the 30 sec clock (which isnt a rule by the way) you might have found it interesting that this week Roughead took a mark in almost exact same circumstances to Dixon last week, and guess what? Clock didnt start until Roughhead got up off the ground 5 seconds later. What a surprise.

Good luck. Hope you manage to play as well away from Kardinia Park soon.
Click to expand...

That's because he doesn't duck for free kicks.

Now the next time the police grab you round the shoulders remember not to react because you'll be done for resisting arrest. Try not move your shoulders either. Hang on where are you posting from?

Seriously though every player in the comp is trying to evade a tackle and if you try and apply one around the neck then of course you wiggle around. Simple solution, don't tackle his head or shoulders; the ball is. Could it be that simple? Surely not. Tackling around the head is not a tackle in anyone's rules. Now if you tackle him which is what you normally see its around the waste or below the shoulder. If your tackling his head I'd say you, and you can try this the next time if the police try to grab you round your shoulders, you'll try and resist to shrug out of the grab. You might even drop your knees and shrug your shoulders. Otherwise you'll have your head whacked. Good luck to you sir with not reacting to a headlock. Any inference of cheating is simply untrue and every commentator is lining up to praise him for how he plays the game along with All australian selection as captain. Now look at Port, they try to take him out every year behind the play because he is such a good player and they can't beat him any other way. And every time it happens we see Geel and port in a melee. The Kray brothers at the crows have the same play book they're just not as good at it.


Go cats!
 
PowerForGood said:
You keep confusing ducking for courage.

Selwood shows plenty of courage in normal play which is why its so embarrassing that he also ducks for free kicks.

And as for the 30 sec clock (which isnt a rule by the way) you might have found it interesting that this week Roughead took a mark in almost exact same circumstances to Dixon last week, and guess what? Clock didnt start until Roughhead got up off the ground 5 seconds later. What a surprise.

Good luck. Hope you manage to play as well away from Kardinia Park soon.
Click to expand...

That's because he doesn't duck for free kicks.

Now the next time the police grab you round the shoulders remember not to react because you'll be done for resisting arrest. Try not move your shoulders either. Hang on where are you posting from?

Seriously though every player in the comp is trying to evade a tackle and if you try and apply one around the neck then of course you wiggle around. Simple solution, don't tackle his head or shoulders; the ball is. Could it be that simple? Surely not. Tackling around the head is not a tackle in anyone's rules. Now if you tackle him which is what you normally see its around the waste or below the shoulder. If your tackling his head I'd say you, and you can try this the next time if the police try to grab you round your shoulders, you'll try and resist to shrug out of the grab. You might even drop your knees and shrug your shoulders. Otherwise you'll have your head whacked. Good luck to you sir with not reacting to a headlock. Any inference of cheating is simply untrue and every commentator is lining up to praise him for how he plays the game along with All australian selection as captain. Now look at Port, they try to take him out every year behind the play because he is such a good player and they can't beat him any other way. And every time it happens we see Geel and port in a melee. The Kray brothers at the crows have the same play book they're just not as good at it.


Go cats!
 
Nickoo said:
That's because he doesn't duck for free kicks.

Now the next time the police grab you round the shoulders remember not to react because you'll be done for resisting arrest. Try not move your shoulders either. Hang on where are you posting from?

Seriously though every player in the comp is trying to evade a tackle and if you try and apply one around the neck then of course you wiggle around. Simple solution, don't tackle his head or shoulders; the ball is. Could it be that simple? Surely not. Tackling around the head is not a tackle in anyone's rules. Now if you tackle him which is what you normally see its around the waste or below the shoulder. If your tackling his head I'd say you, and you can try this the next time if the police try to grab you round your shoulders, you'll try and resist to shrug out of the grab. You might even drop your knees and shrug your shoulders. Otherwise you'll have your head whacked. Good luck to you sir with not reacting to a headlock. Any inference of cheating is simply untrue and every commentator is lining up to praise him for how he plays the game along with All australian selection as captain. Now look at Port, they try to take him out every year behind the play because he is such a good player and they can't beat him any other way. And every time it happens we see Geel and port in a melee. The Kray brothers at the crows have the same play book they're just not as good at it.


Go cats!
Click to expand...
Yep, the whole competition doesnt know how to tackle Joel Selwood according to free kick stats. But whatever floats your boat.

However i do like the irony on the Geelong complaints about Tom Hawkins suspension. Suddenly what has happened every other time this year becomes REALLY important. The fact that he broke the rules (as in a real rule, not a guideline) doesnt seem to matter to Cats fans anymore apparently. Even rolling out Danger on national television last night to have a whinge. Oh the irony.
 
PowerForGood said:
Yep, the whole competition doesnt know how to tackle Joel Selwood according to free kick stats. But whatever floats your boat.

However i do like the irony on the Geelong complaints about Tom Hawkins suspension. Suddenly what has happened every other time this year becomes REALLY important. The fact that he broke the rules (as in a real rule, not a guideline) doesnt seem to matter to Cats fans anymore apparently. Even rolling out Danger on national television last night to have a whinge. Oh the irony.
Click to expand...
Time to get over it old thing.
 
romeohwho said:
Lol he discussed the need for consistency, quite intelligently I might add.
Your loss was nearly 2 weeks ago now, move on, it's getting embarrassing.
Click to expand...
Fuunily enough, I agree with him. Although pulling out footage from 6 weeks ago which had nothing to do with "jumper punches" was a pretty lame way of making a point.
 
romeohwho said:
Lol he discussed the need for consistency, quite intelligently I might add.
Your loss was nearly 2 weeks ago now, move on, it's getting embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Geelong supporters are the only ones embarrassing themselves. Go and have a look at all the comments from other supporters. They overwhelmingly bagged the umpires then and support the suspension now. Fe people are on your side. You are just making yourselves look like a bunch of morons. You were happy to fight to the death over the Dixon decision and play the AFL's Champion when you were on the right side of the ledger and mocked him for his stupidity. Hawkins got a week for punching someone last year, and didn't learn his lesson despite the additional warning. Well who is the ******* idiot now? Now your coach, players, and supporters are carrying on like infants like somehow getting suspended for punching someone in the face 2 weeks after the MRP said what would happen is a great mystery to you. It's laughable.
 
ZingerB said:
Geelong supporters are the only ones embarrassing themselves. Go and have a look at all the comments from other supporters. They overwhelmingly bagged the umpires then and support the suspension now. Fe people are on your side. You are just making yourselves look like a bunch of morons. You were happy to fight to the death over the Dixon decision and play the AFL's Champion when you were on the right side of the ledger and mocked him for his stupidity. Hawkins got a week for punching someone last year, and didn't learn his lesson despite the additional warning. Well who is the ******* idiot now? Now your coach, players, and supporters are carrying on like infants like somehow getting suspended for punching someone in the face 2 weeks after the MRP said what would happen is a great mystery to you. It's laughable.
Click to expand...
Great, good to see the loss is not making you bitter and twisted at least.;)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

El_Scorcho said:
In the subsequent games?

No. The person operating the clock got it wrong in the Geelong game.

(By "wrong" I mean inconsistent with how the rule is normally applied. There is no codified right or wrong here, the shot clock isn't in the rules)

Next time you're at the footy, watch the clock as soon as the ball is marked inside 50, especially if it's a mark where the player lands heavily. The shot clock doesn't start until the umpire runs in and sets the mark and the player is going back to take his shot. It didn't start once in the Port v Hawthorn game until a player was up and walking back to his mark. That is consistent with how the shot clock has always been applied. If it's an uncontested mark on the lead, that's basically straight away. If it's a pack mark, several seconds will usually pass before the shot clock is started.

The clock in the Geelong game started before the umpire had set the mark and 7 seconds passed on the clock before Dixon was on his feet. That simply isn't consistent with how the shot clock is normally applied.

Clearly the umpire in the Geelong game was taken by surprise as well, because he was still setting the mark with 4 seconds to go on the shot clock, standing between Dixon and the mark. His fault is that he panicked and blew play-on instantly instead of using his discretion as an umpire to realise that he'd just walked off of the mark himself and some allowance should be given for that.
Click to expand...
Are you seriously still rabbiting on about this?
The AFL clarified this as shown in a post a few pages ago if you wish to inform yourself so you look less the fool
 
Boxhead_31 said:
Are you seriously still rabbiting on about this?
The AFL clarified this as shown in a post a few pages ago if you wish to inform yourself so you look less the fool
Click to expand...
The AFL keep their interpretations loose and then clarify everything to suit themselves and minimise controversy. That doesn't mean what occurred is what usually occurs with the shot clock.

Tough break with the Hawkins suspension. The only week in the history of the game that a jumper punch would have resulted in a suspension.
 
El_Scorcho said:
The AFL keep their interpretations loose and then clarify everything to suit themselves and minimise controversy. That doesn't mean what occurred is what usually occurs with the shot clock.

Tough break with the Hawkins suspension. The only week in the history of the game that a jumper punch would have resulted in a suspension.
Click to expand...
Hawkins got what he deserved not denying that
 
PowerForGood said:
Yep, the whole competition doesnt know how to tackle Joel Selwood according to free kick stats. But whatever floats your boat.

However i do like the irony on the Geelong complaints about Tom Hawkins suspension. Suddenly what has happened every other time this year becomes REALLY important. The fact that he broke the rules (as in a real rule, not a guideline) doesnt seem to matter to Cats fans anymore apparently. Even rolling out Danger on national television last night to have a whinge. Oh the irony.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you do like a pig in excrement. Someone forgot to teach you not to rejoice in other's misfortune.

Paddy has important points to make regarding the lack of consistency in codified adjudicated decisions which he put forward in an intelligent manner. Something to take home there. At some point genuinely dangerous actions such as those metered out behind play by Port players each year will get dealt with.

Oh on guidelines since you point that out, Hawkins was adjudicated not as a fine but as a suspension due to revised 'guidelines' given to the MRP by Simon Lethlean the week previously on existing rules. The MRP is not independent of the AFL unlike the Tribunal. Lethlean freely admits to dropping in Mondays to assesses, whereas the tribunal is administered in a judicial fashion. There is however a rule that was being conducted as to shots on goal when going for goal to begin walk/run up with 30seconds. Dixon was allocated 33seconds from when he was called. And if he was in any doubt the time had started he was given a 15 second warning. So you would think he knew he only 15 seconds to go and as you 15 seconds is all you get for set kicks in field play. To conflate the two issues is not logical other than at best both players and their clubs might feel a bit hard done by. Tom was being bated, and held on the ground by two Crows and given a bit go on with and this after Joel was given a crack in the head by fist which lead to the incident in the first place. Neither the punches on the ground nor the hit to Selwood were sighted by the MRP and yet there is a very strong medical note to make that the both those were far more dangerous but not to the AFL's reputation hence Tom goes. He knew he was in bit of trouble even if the vision showed he was pushing a 'mouthing off' Crouch (one of the Kray twins) away when arched his back and it pushed through towards the chin. He was sucked in possibly. Dixon wasn't hard done by, by any stretch of the imagination. The umpire in question has indicated that he was given three warnings. How is he hard done by? What that it wouldn't be called at Adelaide oval? Probably true. So yeah you might have a point there after all but it's not a justifiable one.



Go cats!
 
Nickoo said:
I'm sure you do like a pig in excrement. Someone forgot to teach you not to rejoice in other's misfortune.

Paddy has important points to make regarding the lack of consistency in codified adjudicated decisions which he put forward in an intelligent manner. Something to take home there. At some point genuinely dangerous actions such as those metered out behind play by Port players each year will get dealt with.

Oh on guidelines since you point that out, Hawkins was adjudicated not as a fine but as a suspension due to revised 'guidelines' given to the MRP by Simon Lethlean the week previously on existing rules. The MRP is not independent of the AFL unlike the Tribunal. Lethlean freely admits to dropping in Mondays to assesses, whereas the tribunal is administered in a judicial fashion. There is however a rule that was being conducted as to shots on goal when going for goal to begin walk/run up with 30seconds. Dixon was allocated 33seconds from when he was called. And if he was in any doubt the time had started he was given a 15 second warning. So you would think he knew he only 15 seconds to go and as you 15 seconds is all you get for set kicks in field play. To conflate the two issues is not logical other than at best both players and their clubs might feel a bit hard done by. Tom was being bated, and held on the ground by two Crows and given a bit go on with and this after Joel was given a crack in the head by fist which lead to the incident in the first place. Neither the punches on the ground nor the hit to Selwood were sighted by the MRP and yet there is a very strong medical note to make that the both those were far more dangerous but not to the AFL's reputation hence Tom goes. He knew he was in bit of trouble even if the vision showed he was pushing a 'mouthing off' Crouch (one of the Kray twins) away when arched his back and it pushed through towards the chin. He was sucked in possibly. Dixon wasn't hard done by, by any stretch of the imagination. The umpire in question has indicated that he was given three warnings. How is he hard done by? What that it wouldn't be called at Adelaide oval? Probably true. So yeah you might have a point there after all but it's not a justifiable one.



Go cats!
Click to expand...
Wow what a diatribe not totally devoid of truth. Hawkins was baited absolutely, but punching is punching. Warned and failed to heed the warning.

Your ongoing assertation of the "facts" re Dixon however keep going back to the incident and NOT the consistency of application of the rule. Have a look at how it was applied prior weeks and this past week. Time and again players were given extra time to gather themselves together after a mark BEFORE the clock was started. This inconsistency is the issue, not the letter-of-the-law application of the guideline.

Looks like someone can't handle an inconsistent AFL yet likes to lecture others who have similar concerns with AFL consistency in other areas. Hence why the irony with respect to Cats fans (not Hawkins himself) is enjoyable.
 
PowerForGood said:
You keep confusing ducking for courage.

Selwood shows plenty of courage in normal play which is why its so embarrassing that he also ducks for free kicks.

And as for the 30 sec clock (which isnt a rule by the way) you might have found it interesting that this week Roughead took a mark in almost exact same circumstances to Dixon last week, and guess what? Clock didnt start until Roughhead got up off the ground 5 seconds later. What a surprise.

Good luck. Hope you manage to play as well away from Kardinia Park soon.
Click to expand...

Just a quote from Ex-umpire of AFL.com;
Saints

1. Joel Selwood – Geelong

As many fans would expect, Selwood has received almost half of his free kicks from high tackles.

But, contrary to popular opinion, Selwood does not receive them as a result of any action he takes. He does not duck his head and he rarely raises his arm to draw contact; rather he has adapted to the new rule interpretation introduced last season. He also receives about 13 per cent of his free kicks from poorly executed tackles resulting in pushes in the back; again symptomatic of him being first to the ball.

Not surprisingly, he does not win many free kicks for holding the ball as more often than not he is first to the ball and the one being tackled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nickoo said:
Just a quote from Ex-umpire of AFL.com;
Saints

1. Joel Selwood – Geelong

As many fans would expect, Selwood has received almost half of his free kicks from high tackles.

But, contrary to popular opinion, Selwood does not receive them as a result of any action he takes. He does not duck his head and he rarely raises his arm to draw contact; rather he has adapted to the new rule interpretation introduced last season. He also receives about 13 per cent of his free kicks from poorly executed tackles resulting in pushes in the back; again symptomatic of him being first to the ball.

Not surprisingly, he does not win many free kicks for holding the ball as more often than not he is first to the ball and the one being tackled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
"Adapted: = "Plays for free kicks"
 
Rarely raises his arm? Rubbish

He doesn't uppercut the air like mclean or matheisen, but he certainly contributes to the high contact

By the way im fine with saying he doesn't duck, but most of his high frees should be play on
 
Nickoo said:
Just a quote from Ex-umpire of AFL.com;
Saints

1. Joel Selwood – Geelong

As many fans would expect, Selwood has received almost half of his free kicks from high tackles.

But, contrary to popular opinion, Selwood does not receive them as a result of any action he takes. He does not duck his head and he rarely raises his arm to draw contact; rather he has adapted to the new rule interpretation introduced last season. He also receives about 13 per cent of his free kicks from poorly executed tackles resulting in pushes in the back; again symptomatic of him being first to the ball.

Not surprisingly, he does not win many free kicks for holding the ball as more often than not he is first to the ball and the one being tackled.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What about the new 'ducking', ie, going weak at the knees with your neck stretched to as long as it can go? It's as rampant as ducking was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Frederico_WA
Rules Official 2024 season rule tweaks
Replies
22
Views
1K
D-N-R
D
Mr Meeseeks
Umpiring Easter Monday 2024 Cats v Hawks Umpire Chat
2
Replies
25
Views
796
Footy_Fan2007
Footy_Fan2007
Obeanie1
Umpiring Whats with umpires not knowing or forgetting the rules of the game?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
BomberManU
B
MYOB
Grand Final Umpires
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
5K
Chronz
Chronz
G
Umpire Integrity and Game Outcomes.
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
RedV3x
RedV3x
Didak Wine
Umpires call plus inconclusive evidence equals shambles.
2 3
Replies
67
Views
3K
Demon in Hell
Demon in Hell
G
Umpiring
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Mitchell Madness
Mitchell Madness

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top