Review Post Mortem vs Bombers

[Prestigerrycomo]

It was clear from this first post alone, let alone the 50 or so posts since, that he (towelboy) is a troll.

Adam H

 

[Maggie5]

Mentioned Hooker out marking Cox the one where Stringer got ridden into the ground and the Moore missing the ball when he got tackled. Also Tippas high frees not paid and there was a free against Essendon for for holding the ball when he got ridden into the ground that should have gone to Essendon but we got for a throw. Also adamant Stringer should have got a 50 meter penalty.

None of this is what I asked you to reply to.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

The free to Baguley was the one the umpire said was against Langdon as he made the initial contact.

Quite clearly bullshit. Both players make body contact at the exact same time. Anyone who suggests "Langdon made first contact" is either lying or blind.

Just goes to show how they love revisionist history to fit their narrative.

 

[Towelboy]

So they discussed the ATM throw did they?

It was raised umpire said how can you determine that was a throw when so many similar actions during the day happened. In other words the umpires aren't sure anymore it's to damn quick.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

It was clear from this first post alone, let alone the 50 or so posts since, that he (towelboy) is a troll.

Very travising in style.

 

[lyfsux]

Swanny has tweeted that he doesn’t have a Facebook account and it’s not him.

Fair enough but it does suit him

 

[Towelboy]

Quite clearly bullshit. Both players make body contact at the exact same time. Anyone who suggests "Langdon made first contact" is either lying or blind.

Just goes to show how they love revisionist history to fit their narrative.

Go to the 13 minute mark tell me what you think of what Cox does to Hooker. There saying its a free I don't know.

 

[TradeDraft]

 

[HFF]

We definitely got the rub of the green with the umps.
However, had we converted our chances this game would have been a comfortable 5 goal win.
Our set shot misses were deplorable and despite not playing well after qtr time, we should have won it more comfortably than we did but credit to the opposition too.

You still need to find ways to win when things aren't going well and we did that especially in key moments.

Pendlebury superb.

 

[Black_White]

But dropping the ball is holding the ball.

By rule, its holding the ball due to incorrect disposal. You said it yourself ball drop. Unless you dig deeper into the rules where it gets very grey.

I was having this discussion with my old man before the game (funny that). About how there is a general confusion around holding the ball with people getting the many variants of the rule confused. Regardless of if you had prior opportunity or not. You did not dispose of the ball correctly by dropping it, throwing it, falling out whatever.

But to that point, the rules have too many ways of when umpires shall allow play to continue regarding certain potential holding the ball calls. Its open to personal opinion of the rules too much.

Being at the ground, i can feel the frustration towards the officials. And i'll be honest i booed them off the ground, but then I left. I didn't stay for what happened afterwards because I had a plane to catch. But it seems a little blown out of proportion by the media as usual.

There was a lot of general anger. So much so that by god if it was the queen that made a speech after the game instead of the medal presentation we would of booed her probably. People needed to vent. They pay the money to attend the game, they should be allowed to do what they want, including boo providing it doesn't breach laws that we abide by in day to day life. (discrimination, violence etc).

This notion of people were booing pendles needs to stop, it was far from the case. Nothing more then a headline for the blood sucking media.

We vented, Collingwood still won, we all went home and will be back again next year to do it all over again, and hopefully have another classic.

I am happy we managed to be competitive on the day. I was worried before the game we wouldn't be and you would kill us. Boy was I more worried at QT.

Same time next year

I would ask that you watch the video before commenting on wether the boos were for Pendles or not.
By your own admission you had left by that time.
But when a player walks to the microphone, steps up and begins to speak, then the loudest booing begins, the player has to stop speaking, you have to decide that it is him that they are booing.
The video doesn’t lie.

 

[sr36]

Feel free to touch on the umpiring if you want.

I'm not saying they didn't make poor decisions. They did. All day. AMT was taken high twice which was let go, Brodie Grundy was called for push in the back 2 or 3 times and on every single occasion never once landed in anyone's back lol. Collingwood and Essendon forwards were being blocked and bumped off the ball numerous times which were consistently let go.

But for so may to focus one one or two decisions late in the game simply because they were late in the game completely ignores everything that led to those moments. Had it been a pretty close game all day with Essendon equally deserving of a win, I could see more of an argument for the umpiring decisions, but given our first half dominance which we were unable to capitalise on, I struggle to accept umpiring decisions that were consistent with most of what had gone before it being the issue seems off to me.

It's similar (but not the same) as the Richmond supporters who complained about the free kick count in Round 2 while COMPLETELY ignoring our utter dominance of general play. If the opposition has like 70% of possession and then you don't lay any tackles when you don't have the ball, how can you expect free kicks (talking about Richmond here)?

Tippa high frees will be an interesting watch. He gets really low when he changes direction to avoid or break a tackle and is going to be taken high a lot. It's not the Selwood technique, but I think the Selwood technique began as a legitimate tackle breaking technique with Selwood responding to tacklers moving from pinning the hips to pinning the arms. He and others later milked the technique, becasue it got him so many free kicks. Are the umpires going to adjudicate Tippa as dropping at the knees - play on? I reckon that's what they were going with yesterday.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Tippa high frees will be an interesting watch. He gets really low when he changes direction to avoid or break a tackle and is going to be taken high a lot. It's not the Selwood technique, but I think the Selwood technique began as a legitimate tackle breaking technique with Selwood responding to tacklers moving from pinning the hips to pinning the arms. He and others later milked the technique, becasue it got him so many free kicks. Are the umpires going to adjudicate Tippa as dropping at the knees - play on? I reckon that's what they were going with yesterday.

Tippa 100% goes in very low. He's already a short bloke and he fully leans into that fact. So I"m happy one fo the two wasn't paid, but there was one that definitely should have been paid.

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

Go to the 13 minute mark tell me what you think of what Cox does to Hooker. There saying its a free I don't know.

If we are getting technical (which they should) while Cox has his back turned, not facing the ball and holding Hooker, the ball hasn't been kicked yet. The image below shows that once the ball is kicked, Cox is facing the ball:



There is no rule against not facing the ball if you aren't in a marking contest. As the ball gets kicked Cox lets go of Hooker and turns around to face the ball.

Again, if they are an officiating panel, they should know this if they aren't being biased.

 

[Gaben]

But dropping the ball is holding the ball.

I appreciate you chucking this in at the start of your post, saved me having to bother to read the wall that followed.

Dropping the ball is NOT holding the ball. Dropping the ball after having prior opportunity to dispose of it while being tackled IS holding the ball. Dropping the ball without making a genuine attempt IS holding the ball.

No doubt you won't see the distinction, most struggle with it

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

Guess the ex AFL umpire with 300 games knows the rules less than you.

Yep you got me. Great logic, Essendon completely robbed

 

[Towelboy]

Quite clearly bullshit. Both players make body contact at the exact same time. Anyone who suggests "Langdon made first contact" is either lying or blind.

Just goes to show how they love revisionist history to fit their narrative.

He stops Hooker from contesting.

 

[Maggie5]

He stops Hooker from contesting.

Careful, your colours are showing and they ain't black and white!

Still waiting for your expert response to my questions.

 

[sideswipe]

Careful, your colours are showing and they ain't black and white!

Still waiting for your expert response to my questions.

Must say that at the time I commented that if Cox did that in the backline it would be a free every day of the week. I think they missed that one. I'll go get my towel.

 

[EddiesBigBucks]

He stops Hooker from contesting.

Anyone taking bets on who this bloke supports? Richmond, Essendon or a general Collingwood hater?

 

[Magpie Monopoly]

He stops Hooker from contesting.

Cox isn't holding Hooker in the marking contest. There is no rule against two players getting locked up, as Hooker was also holding Cox. When Treloar kicks the ball, Cox isn't holding Hooker, he also isn't facing away from the ball, so it isn't a free kick.

If the suggestion is that Hooker was going to leave Cox and chase Hoskin-Elliott to spoil that mark, let alone have any impact on that contest, we are being delusional. Hooker made no effort to leave Cox, so the legality of the block would only be an issue if he had illegally blocked Ambrose, which he didn't.

 

[eth-dog]

Anyone taking bets on who this bloke supports? Richmond, Essendon or a general Collingwood hater?

It's AdamH, a bitter St. Kilda supporter.

 

[Towelboy]

Careful, your colours are showing and they ain't black and white!

Still waiting for your expert response to my questions.

What were your questions?

 

[dmoore30]

Bomber fans can get as salty as they want.

They're obviously completely ignoring the fact that the game should have been over at quarter time.

9 scoring shots to 1 and their 1 goal took a miracle sot from the boundary while we missed set shots directly in front and running into open goals.

Score should have been at LEAST 7.2 to 1 goal at quarter time.

Bad kicking is bad football.

 

[Maggie5]

What were your questions?

Of those 10 frees, how many resulted in goals to us?

What about those missed?

Did they mention McDonald-Tippenwutti's throw?

 

[Towelboy]

Cox isn't holding Hooker in the marking contest. There is no rule against two players getting locked up, as Hooker was also holding Cox. When Treloar kicks the ball, Cox isn't holding Hooker, he also isn't facing away from the ball, so it isn't a free kick.

If the suggestion is that Hooker was going to leave Cox and chase Hoskin-Elliott to spoil that mark, let alone have any impact on that contest, we are being delusional. Hooker made no effort to leave Cox, so the legality of the block would only be an issue if he had illegally blocked Ambrose, which he didn't.

Good argument but again seeing both sides I wouldn't like Moore having a player with his back to the play not allowing him to contest. Remembering you are allowed to contest balls that your man isn't going for.