Toast Round 1 = Geelong 103-125 Collingwood

[Maggie5]

I have watched the replay and paid more attention to the free kicks. Most were technically there (didn't get the why of a couple of 50's).

My issue is that we too had similar instances where a free kick could have been paid but they weren't.

 

[sr36]

I reckon it would only be understandable if the rule was "insufficient skill" - as Maynard who was wedged between 2 defenders and tried to kick that ball off the ground to Daicos and it skewed off the side of his boot. It was a pure and simple skill error and zero to do with intent.

I reckon that decision was a howler, but maybe the umpire was distracted by Howe's wobbling arm.

They don't bother with the intent part of it anymore. If you kick it out without anyone getting particularly close to touching it, they give a free kick against you.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Where are all the Richmond players? Their supporters keep telling us they're such a juggernaut. Im confused

Notice ours is all the 2010 Premiership players?

They won 3 flags in 4 years.

How do they not have a single player in that bracket lol

 

[domus]

They don't bother with the intent part of it anymore. If you kick it out without anyone getting particularly close to touching it, they give a free kick against you.

Then change the wording because Maynard's second kick was off the side of his boot as he was being bumped. The umps must have some feeling for the game. That was disgraceful and both decisions led to goals. Even in the first instance, what do they want a defender to do as an opponent is rushing toward him- tap the ball back over his head into the lap of his opponent?

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

I have watched the replay and paid more attention to the free kicks. Most were technically there (didn't get the why of a couple of 50's).

My issue is that we too had similar instances where a free kick could have been paid but they weren't.

That’s always my issue with the umpiring

The lack of consistency is insane

How Taylor Adams was holding the ball and yet Esava wasn’t after Reef tackled him in the last is nuts.

I personally don’t think EITHER is actually holding the ball, but after paying the one against Adams, the Esava one HAD to be paid as well

 

[domus]

It was clearly high contact. Were the jumpers reversed, we would have been screaming if it wasn't paid.

It's like giving a slight shove in the back after the ball has rolled over the boundary line and you and your opponent are also over the line. Nine times out of ten the umps ignore it and call for the throw in. Murphy's arm rested on his shoulder after the ball had crossed the line and in no way impeded Henry's attempt to mark. Spirit of the game needs to be applied. And then the 50 after he missed! For what? I still don't know and no commentator gave a reason.

 

[domus]

By the way, does the rule book state that you can push an opponent in the back with your forearm and out of the contest without being penalized. I wrote before the game that Hawkins and Lynch have had license to shove players in the back with impunity for years. That shove put Howe out of the contest therefore it affected his ability to compete and should have been a free kick. To make matters worse an innocuous nudge in the ruck from Cox a few minutes later was called "in the back" and he was penalized.

I still haven't recovered from the double handed shove Grundy copped from Finnlayson in the 2019 prelim which led to a goal and a huge momentum changer. It was every bit as bad as the non free kick when Ginnivan had his head ripped off.

 

[JLC]

What did people think of the Jack Crisp

25

Jack Crisp

Age

30

Ht

190cm

Wt

91kg

Pos.

D/M

Career

Season

Last 5

D

21.2

5star

K

11.5

4star

HB

9.7

5star

M

4.6

4star

T

4.0

5star

MG

307.6

4star

D

17.7

4star

K

10.7

4star

HB

7.0

4star

M

5.1

5star

T

1.6

3star

MG

307.6

4star

D

14.4

4star

K

8.4

4star

HB

6.0

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

3.0

5star

decision to handball straight after taking a mark?

After watching the replay it appears that good old Brett did not blow his whistle quick enough, so Crisp thought the mark had not been paid.

I reckon Geelong got the rub of the green but that is nothing unusual.

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[neilk]

He was already over the goal line. We would die and go to heaven if we ever got frees for such nonsense.

I guess this applies. Anyway, I thought it was a free kick but like everyone else, did not understand the 50 awarded:

16.6.2 After the Kick
After a field Umpire has signalled that play has come to an end, any field Umpire may award a Free Kick to any Player after a Player has Kicked for Goal but before the field Umpire has signalled ‘All Clear’ or ‘Touched All Clear’. In such cases, the following shall apply:
(a) if the Player awarded the Free Kick is playing for the Attacking Team and a Goal is Kicked, the field Umpire shall signal ‘All Clear’ and a Goal shall be recorded;

(b) if the Player awarded the Free Kick is playing for the Attacking Team and a Goal is not scored:
(i) if the Free Kick occurs within the Playing Surface then that Player will take the Free Kick where the Free Kick was awarded or at the location of the Kick for Goal, whichever is the greater penalty against the Defending Team;
(ii) if the Free Kick occurs outside the Playing Surface then that Player will take the Free Kick at the closest point to the Goal Line, Behind Line or Boundary Line where the infringement occurred or at the location of the Kick for Goal, whichever is the greater penalty against the Defending Team; or
(iii) where a Behind is scored, that Player may elect to have the Behind recorded; or

(c) if the Player awarded the Free Kick is playing for the Defending Team, the Player shall be awarded the Free Kick where the infringement occurred. For the avoidance of doubt, any Goal or Behind shall not be recorded.

 

[NMBB]

Makes sense really. Last years premiers playing this years premiers..

Caution please.

 

[Bianconeri]

Then change the wording because Maynard's second kick was off the side of his boot as he was being bumped. The umps must have some feeling for the game. That was disgraceful and both decisions led to goals. Even in the first instance, what do they want a defender to do as an opponent is rushing toward him- tap the ball back over his head into the lap of his opponent?

I thought the first one was unfair since Maynard’s intent to keep it in was impeded by a Gary Rohan bump, second one seemed complete bullshit since the kick was obviously meant for Daicos but missed the target because of pressure.

 

[domus]

I thought the first one was unfair since Maynard’s intent to keep it in was impeded by a Gary Rohan bump, second one seemed complete bullshit since the kick was obviously meant for Daicos but missed the target because of pressure.

Yes. I thought the knock toward the boundary was as much to keep it away from the Geelong forward who was closing in on him. It's ludicrous. In a grand final he would literally have to either punch the ball sideways likely into the oncoming path of an opposition forward or back behind him which is even worse. Perhaps he could grab the ball and get tackled and probably pinged for holding the ball. Who'd be a defender?

 

[RobJD]

They don't bother with the intent part of it anymore. If you kick it out without anyone getting particularly close to touching it, they give a free kick against you.

I picked up an umpire's call during the game that a spoil that ran over the line wasn't deliberate as is was insufficient force to warrant a deliberate out of bounds. Helps explain why they called the Blicavs spike as deliberate and the Maynard kick off the ground as deliberate - seems like the umpires may have been instructed to take into account the amount of force used to get the ball over the boundary line (regardless of where you are on the field when you make the contact).

 

[Chili]

Was an awesome game. So glad to see the Pies get up. Big rally after after Howie hit the deck.
I might be in trouble here. But Hodge and his words made me laugh. Nothing funny about Howie, he's amazing.
But Hodge said "I can't watch this again, I saw the it once, I never want to see it again"
Not nice but I broke my arm worse than that in a crazy motorbike accident. Let's be honest, it was a sporting injury. Not great but that was it. No violence, no intent.
Hodge, seriously, Hit From Behind Hodge, who hit intentionally peoples faces, jaws, launched himself off of the ground to intentionally injur, went Snow Flake "i cant watch this again" Watch your own footage gutless coward hitter then tell us.
Also, the network's show us over and over violent intentional hits from every angle. Picket, over and over, violence, but snow flake people from normal non violence sports injuries. Mmmmmmm.
Hope Howie's all good. Great player and all the best to him.

 

[TradeDraft]

The cats' autopsy thread made for a fun little read. One of the running themes on loss reasoning is their "limited pre-season".

Massive difference the 7 days must have made between theirs and ours.

Pack of Sooks they are

 

[sideswipe]

Yes. I thought the knock toward the boundary was as much to keep it away from the Geelong forward who was closing in on him. It's ludicrous. In a grand final he would literally have to either punch the ball sideways likely into the oncoming path of an opposition forward or back behind him which is even worse. Perhaps he could grab the ball and get tackled and probably pinged for holding the ball. Who'd be a defender?

The current wording is "...and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play". This is different from the old idea of "intentional out of bounds". I thought they were the right decisions in this day and age. They umpire that very harshly. Reckon it is overall good for the game.

 

[TradeDraft]

So some campaigner rings SEN this morning suggesting Howe should have been reported in the incident where he broke his arm. Apparently he attacked Stengle too aggressively. Pardon.

You Listen to SEN?

 

[sr36]

The current wording is "...and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play". This is different from the old idea of "intentional out of bounds". I thought they were the right decisions in this day and age. They umpire that very harshly. Reckon it is overall good for the game.

They were predictable calls that you knew were coming, which is what you want from the individual umps. I do find it frustrating from the rules committee though that a skill error is insufficient intent, yet blatantly walking the ball over the line with an opponent near you is a throw in.

 

[Mollythedolly]

You’d still think the likes of Cotchin, Riewoldt etc. would make the list given their longevity and Richmond’s alleged relevance in the footy world during their careers.

That's a media generated myth.

 

[sideswipe]

They were predictable calls that you knew were coming, which is what you want from the individual umps. I do find it frustrating from the rules committee though that a skill error is insufficient intent, yet blatantly walking the ball over the line with an opponent near you is a throw in.

Agree - that is definitely one that should be policed a bit harder.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Kinda nuts to see Cats fans basically refuse to acknowledge the fact that they kicked 16.1 which is almost the singular reason they weren't blown off the park lol

Even with 16.1 they lost by 4 goals

They kick a little more "normal" and we kick a little straighter and that 4 goals becomes 10 goals.

We also had a couple of out on the fulls to add to our 19.11, don't recall them having any. Only amplifies your point.

 

[Apex36]

They don't bother with the intent part of it anymore. If you kick it out without anyone getting particularly close to touching it, they give a free kick against you.

Which is strange given the rule is ‘deliberate out of bounds’.

 

[sideswipe]

Which is strange given the rule is ‘deliberate out of bounds’.

It's not - see above

 

[Mollythedolly]

It's like giving a slight shove in the back after the ball has rolled over the boundary line and you and your opponent are also over the line. Nine times out of ten the umps ignore it and call for the throw in. Murphy's arm rested on his shoulder after the ball had crossed the line and in no way impeded Henry's attempt to mark. Spirit of the game needs to be applied. And then the 50 after he missed! For what? I still don't know and no commentator gave a reason.

The commentators mentioned the reason for the 50's was "abuse" or dissent or some such so you're unlikely to see much justification.

 

[nahnah]

I have watched the replay and paid more attention to the free kicks. Most were technically there (didn't get the why of a couple of 50's).

My issue is that we too had similar instances where a free kick could have been paid but they weren't.

First half we just weren't getting the calls they were. We got totally screwed in the third but very favoured in the last.