AFL Autopsy RND 10: Down to the Giants

[boncer34]

Honestly for anyone that think's there is an umpire conspiracy against us go read (off the top of my head) the Hawthorn, Freo and Richmond boards. They're all equally convinced the AFL umpires have it in for them and they all have just as many examples of inconsistencies that "prove" the conspiracy/AFL directive.

 

[eth-dog]

Honestly for anyone that think's there is an umpire conspiracy against us go read (off the top of my head) the Hawthorn, Freo and Richmond boards. They're all equally convinced the AFL umpires have it in for them and they all have just as many examples of inconsistencies that "prove" the conspiracy/AFL directive.

Ironic about Hawthorne and Richmond. They were untouchable for a long time (Hawks) and Richmond got a dream run on Saturday

 

[boncer34]

Ironic about Hawthorne and Richmond. They were untouchable for a long time (Hawks) and Richmond got a dream run on Saturday

Well yes they're all a bunch of delusional campaigners and we're the only ones with the right to complain as we're the REAL conspired against team.

 

[Maddogm]

Honestly for anyone that think's there is an umpire conspiracy against us go read (off the top of my head) the Hawthorn, Freo and Richmond boards. They're all equally convinced the AFL umpires have it in for them and they all have just as many examples of inconsistencies that "prove" the conspiracy/AFL directive.

I don't think there's a conspiracy, they're just s**t, and that shitness comes from the top. I'm sure some of them would be great umpires if they were given direction that you didn't require a lobotomy to think it made sense.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

 

[Bjchan13]

Because it didn't get him high. Like it's pretty simple, you choose to bump, you have to get the them the side otherwise it's a free kick and maybe suspension. He did, so why does he have to be punished?

To me it looks like he did partly get him high and Taranto is really only lucky Ridley turned to protect his head. The action is dangerous, and i was under the impression the AFL were now stamping out dangerous actions no matter the result. Dont get me wrong im a big fan of the bump or shepard but putting your hip towards someones head when they are bent over picking up the ball doesn't need to be part of the game. Especially when you dont have eyes for the ball yourself.

 

[owen87]

To me it looks like he did partly get him high and Taranto is really only lucky Ridley turned to protect his head. The action is dangerous, and i was under the impression the AFL were now stamping out dangerous actions no matter the result. Dont get me wrong im a big fan of the bump or shepard but putting your hip towards someones head when they are bent over picking up the ball doesn't need to be part of the game. Especially when you dont have eyes for the ball yourself.

Thought the Shaw hit was fair, albeit a shitty outcome for Townsend, and Taranto was at best possibly borderline a free to Ridley given lack of eyes on the ball.

You're still allowed to bump and attack the player, it's only if you get them high that there's a problem if it's in the contest. If it's late or off the ball that's a different story.

 

[eth-dog]

To me it looks like he did partly get him high and Taranto is really only lucky Ridley turned to protect his head. The action is dangerous, and i was under the impression the AFL were now stamping out dangerous actions no matter the result. Dont get me wrong im a big fan of the bump or shepard but putting your hip towards someones head when they are bent over picking up the ball doesn't need to be part of the game. Especially when you dont have eyes for the ball yourself.

I honestly saw no head high contact.

The "stamping out" is for illegal actions like head high bumps. If you do a legal act and someone gets injured as a result it's bad luck, plain and simple, like all these Syndesmosis injuries from tackles.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Honestly for anyone that think's there is an umpire conspiracy against us go read (off the top of my head) the Hawthorn, Freo and Richmond boards. They're all equally convinced the AFL umpires have it in for them and they all have just as many examples of inconsistencies that "prove" the conspiracy/AFL directive.

There is no afl directive but we have been on the wrong of end their calls for a long time now. The highest we’ve finished for frees in eight years has been 8th.

 

[owen87]

There is no afl directive but we have been on the wrong of end their calls for a long time now. The highest we’ve finished for frees in eight years has been 8th.

It seems like some teams (West Coast) have the benefit of generally lopsided home free kick counts, and others (Bulldogs) seem to be coached specifically in a way to extract free kicks from umpires.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

lol wards a piece of s**t and the umpires suck.

but when you lose a 29 point lead AT 3/4 TIME IN THE ******* WET there really is nothing else to blame.

We have the killer instinct of a goat and the skills of a jelly fish.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

To me it looks like he did partly get him high and Taranto is really only lucky Ridley turned to protect his head. The action is dangerous, and i was under the impression the AFL were now stamping out dangerous actions no matter the result. Dont get me wrong im a big fan of the bump or shepard but putting your hip towards someones head when they are bent over picking up the ball doesn't need to be part of the game. Especially when you dont have eyes for the ball yourself.

McKernan was almost stationary when they made contact. if anything Ward made the majority of the contact into McKernan. Regardless if you take a still shot from 99% of the game then there will be head high contacts all over the place.

Its up to the umpires to have a feel for the game of which whoever the * officiating the play at that moment did not. I do note though that it would be incredibly hard for an umpire to make a split decision call between a free and a dive in the heat of the moment. its up to the AFL to come down hard on guys like Ward so players are aware what the punishment is if they get caught staging.

Feel sorry that Ward is being publicly targeted over it but * him, if you dive then that's what you should get.

 

[JayJ20]

Honestly for anyone that think's there is an umpire conspiracy against us go read (off the top of my head) the Hawthorn, Freo and Richmond boards. They're all equally convinced the AFL umpires have it in for them and they all have just as many examples of inconsistencies that "prove" the conspiracy/AFL directive.

To be fair, Richmond and Hawthorn have been getting the rough end of the stick for a while. Fremantle don't get anywhere near as much "home town favouritism" as West Coast do. I don't think anyone is claiming we're the only team, but there is a noticeable trend with some teams over others. North, Bulldogs, Collingwood and West Coast almost always seem to be getting favourable interpretation of rules. Hawthorn, Richmond, Essendon and Fremantle over the years seem to have been getting less favourable interpretations of rules. Maybe it's how we play. Not sure. Richmond is proof that umpiring doesn't stop you from winning, which is why I don't blame umpiring for losses. For an ordinary side like us, it makes it difficult and confusing.

I don't think umpires are doing that deliberately as part of some conspiracy, but the AFL are making it difficult on umpires to adjudicate properly. Seems like they pay something in one play, then change the application of the rule in the next play due to the AFL's constant meddling with interpretation. To us, it seems like biased umpiring, but I don't think it is. Except West Coast in Perth.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

To be fair, Richmond and Hawthorn have been getting the rough end of the stick for a while. Fremantle don't get anywhere near as much "home town favouritism" as West Coast do. I don't think anyone is claiming we're the only team, but there is a noticeable trend with some teams over others. North, Bulldogs, Collingwood and West Coast almost always seem to be getting favourable interpretation of rules. Hawthorn, Richmond, Essendon and Fremantle over the years seem to have been getting less favourable interpretations of rules. Maybe it's how we play. Not sure. Richmond is proof that umpiring doesn't stop you from winning, which is why I don't blame umpiring for losses. For an ordinary side like us, it makes it difficult and confusing.

I don't think umpires are doing that deliberately as part of some conspiracy, but the AFL are making it difficult on umpires to adjudicate properly. Seems like they pay something in one play, then change the application of the rule in the next play due to the AFL's constant meddling with interpretation. To us, it seems like biased umpiring, but I don't think it is. Except West Coast in Perth.

the last 4 games at some point or another we have been at a ratio 1 to 3 free kicks down in each game - then it gets even up late (when the games already over) to bring us back to a relatively acceptable level of free kicks.

Gets tiring to watch you going circa 4-14 free kicks every single ******* game.

i dont think it stops you winning games...........but it certainly doesn't help...

 

[Squeaky]

It seems like some teams (West Coast) have the benefit of generally lopsided home free kick counts, and others (Bulldogs) seem to be coached specifically in a way to extract free kicks from umpires.

McRae could bring his own whistle...

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

Well yes they're all a bunch of delusional campaigners and we're the only ones with the right to complain as we're the REAL conspired against team.

Quite clearly, I'm glad you've seen sense.

 

[boncer34]

Quite clearly, I'm glad you've seen sense.

You do make me laugh.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I don't think there's a conspiracy, they're just sh*t, and that shitness comes from the top. I'm sure some of them would be great umpires if they were given direction that you didn't require a lobotomy to think it made sense.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

Between goal post gate, tribunal decisions and umpiring, it does feel like a conspiracy and if Gil had motive against any team, we'd be it.

Having said that, the level of co-ordination required to conspire against us to an in-game umpiring level would be significant. The AFL is just not that competent.

 

[JayJ20]

Between goal post gate, tribunal decisions and umpiring, it does feel like a conspiracy and if Gil had motive against any team, we'd be it.

Having said that, the level of co-ordination required to conspire against us to an in-game umpiring level would be significant. The AFL is just not that competent.

I still want Zaharakis' goal vs Gold Coast last year to be credited. How long do I have to wait?

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

I still want Zaharakis' goal vs Gold Coast last year to be credited. How long do I have to wait?

 

[Mootsy]

who's our rodman, jordan, pippen, y'know..

 

[yaco55]

- Midfield got beaten up in the second half
- Tippa made bad decisions with the ball which cost us the win
- Have posted for the last month teams are scoring too much from our back half.