Toast Round 1 = Geelong 103-125 Collingwood

[NMBB]

That was truly baffling.

It put the wind up me

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

And the umpires.giving them free kicks and 50's for god knows what which gave them three goals in a row in that 3rd quarter, I'm still baffled by that Henry free, I didn't see anything that warranted a free kick

I saw what warranted the free, it was technically there.

My issue was the 50. Ollie missed (there's one of the 3 you take off them during 16.1) and they randomly bring it back to give him 50. Like, what the f**k for?

They had 3 50s inside 50 lol which guaranteed them Goals.

Not really fussed what other arguments people want to use, when you somehow manage an anomaly like 16.1, that is the singular reason you're in the game. Do you think it's a coincidence we pulled away from them once the behinds started post 16.1?

 

[Lifelong Pie]

I saw what warranted the free, it was technically there.

My issue was the 50. Ollie missed (there's one of the 3 you take off them during 16.1) and they randomly bring it back to give him 50. Like, what the f**k for?

They had 3 50s inside 50 lol which guaranteed them Goals.

Not really fussed what other arguments people want to use, when you somehow manage an anomaly like 16.1, that is the singular reason you're in the game. Do you think it's a coincidence we pulled away from them once the behinds started post 16.1?

No coincidence at all

 

[davywap]

I thought it was fantastic, all the smiles from Cats players - and fans - as they were slotting goals through, like "yeah baby, we got this... dynasty time!". Only for us to mow them down and pulls their pants well and truly around their ankles in Q4. Now all the media is about how good we were, and theyve barely got a mention.

Those injuries were telling for them, but they also might have to get used to that. Some of those old boys in for a sore year year ahead methinks...

We lost a pretty important player too from memory...

 

[neilk]

And the umpires.giving them free kicks and 50's for god knows what which gave them three goals in a row in that 3rd quarter, I'm still baffled by that Henry free, I didn't see anything that warranted a free kick

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

 

[sideswipe]

I thought it was fantastic, all the smiles from Cats players - and fans - as they were slotting goals through, like "yeah baby, we got this... dynasty time!". Only for us to mow them down and pulls their pants well and truly around their ankles in Q4. Now all the media is about how good we were, and theyve barely got a mention.

Those injuries were telling for them, but they also might have to get used to that. Some of those old boys in for a sore year year ahead methinks...

You might be right. Age gets 'em all in the end. Except for Steele and Pendles.

Hawkins looked noticeably heavier compared with last year - which is not surprising given he wouldn't have been able to get the running in with his foot injury. He is a natural fatty, so let's hope he can't resist the cookie jar.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

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

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

 

[neilk]

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

So if the ball goes out of bounds and you grab someone who is over the line high, it won't be paid a free kick? I assume it's the same for the goal line.

 

[Lifelong Pie]

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

It was over the line and very minor, if we actually believe that was a free then it was terrible play by Murphy because there was no need to touch him but that free never gets paid except for that strange moment

 

[Lifelong Pie]

So if the ball goes out of bounds and you grab someone who is over the line high, it won't be paid a free kick? I assume it's the same for the goal line.

There was nothing in it, players get away with so much more when they shepherd the ball through

 

[sideswipe]

There was nothing in it, players get away with so much more when they shepherd the ball through

Was it the same umpire that called Cox's fleeting contact with the ball a mark?

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

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

I saw what the free was for. My question is, do frees like that normally get paid once the ball is over the line? Genuinely asking

 

[The Royal Sampler]

So if the ball goes out of bounds and you grab someone who is over the line high, it won't be paid a free kick? I assume it's the same for the goal line.

He didn’t “grab him”, but it was contact above the shoulder and would constitute illegal contact in the marking contest, if the ball was still in play and could be… you know… marked.

 

[Anzacday]

I saw what the free was for. My question is, do frees like that normally get paid once the ball is over the line? Genuinely asking

Only explanation I can think of is the goal umpire hadn't signalled a behind

 

[Lifelong Pie]

Was it the same umpire that called Cox's fleeting contact with the ball a mark?

No idea, I thought both Cox's marks for goals were solid marks , I can't actually recall what you talking about, I'll admit I'm one eyed when watching us play but I can watch a replay and be fair with my observations, I thought the umpiring was ordinary, I'm assuming you thought we did ok with them by your post

 

[sideswipe]

No idea, I thought both Cox's marks for goals were solid marks , I can't actually recall what you talking about, I'll admit I'm one eyed when watching us play but I can watch a replay and be fair with my observations, I thought the umpiring was ordinary, I'm assuming you thought we did ok with them by your post

Wasn't one of his goals - it was somewhere around the ground. I didn't notice the umps. There are always a few that could go either way - I was merely pointing out they go both ways.

 

[Lifelong Pie]

Wasn't one of his goals - it was somewhere around the ground. I didn't notice the umps. There are always a few that could go either way - I was merely pointing out they go both ways.

I do understand that, it was the fact that they got the three goals ina row all from free kicks which were at least questionable, the Maynard deliberate after Howe got injured, the high tackle and 50 to Atkins and then the henry free, he missed and then they gave it back to him and gave a 50, it was a run that we never seem to get

 

[sideswipe]

I do understand that, it was the fact that they got the three goals ina row all from free kicks which were at least questionable, the Maynard deliberate after Howe got injured, the high tackle and 50 to Atkins and then the henry free, he missed and then they gave it back to him and gave a 50, it was a run that we never seem to get

At the time I didn't think any of those decisions were questionable.

 

[Lifelong Pie]

At the time I didn't think any of those decisions were questionable.

We must have been watching a different game then, we won anyway so it was all good

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I do understand that, it was the fact that they got the three goals ina row all from free kicks which were at least questionable, the Maynard deliberate after Howe got injured, the high tackle and 50 to Atkins and then the henry free, he missed and then they gave it back to him and gave a 50, it was a run that we never seem to get

The Maynard “deliberate” is a little more understandable if framed as “insufficient intent”. Still could have gone either way.

Henry free kick in first instance was egregious IMHO, but the 50m was blown before he took his kick, hence they gave it back to him to apply the 50m. Presumably the 50m was for mouthing off, which I can also understand from the player’s point of view as it was a s**t decision.

The second action thing with Atkins I am ignorant about, and will reserve judgment.

 

[Pleasedontfail11]

And the umpires.giving them free kicks and 50's for god knows what which gave them three goals in a row in that 3rd quarter, I'm still baffled by that Henry free, I didn't see anything that warranted a free kick

Those were partially due to a few brain farts that happened after Howe went down. Im hoping we stop giving those away for a majority of the season.

 

[Kirby]

The Maynard “deliberate” is a little more understandable if framed as “insufficient intent”. Still could have gone either way.

Henry free kick in first instance was egregious IMHO, but the 50m was blown before he took his kick, hence they gave it back to him to apply the 50m. Presumably the 50m was for mouthing off, which I can also understand from the player’s point of view as it was a s**t decision.

The second action thing with Atkins I am ignorant about, and will reserve judgment.

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.

 

[Big Bryza]

They've got 47 key forwards surely one of them can go back. Young Darcy should be the one

Darcy will be playing VFL within a month.

 

[Big Bryza]

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.

 

[Fat Jesus]

Darcy will be playing VFL within a month.

He is a serious talent. Just needs to beef up. Nick should have been #1 and Darcy #2.. arguably because KPF's are harder to get in a draft.