Game Day Round 10 Adelaide vs Fremantle

[King Elvis]

That was the worst game between any two clubs this year. The wet conditions made it difficult no doubt, but what a terrible game. Ugly.

Serious?

Thought it was a great game.

You watch it last night?

Bored me *******.

 

[radiojake]

That was the worst game between any two clubs this year. The wet conditions made it difficult no doubt, but what a terrible game. Ugly.

You must not have watched Brisbane and Collingwood last night

 

[King Elvis]

The review did say that it was wrong. I don't understand how the reviewing ump came to that conclusion, given the TV camera angles he had to work with, but that's the decision he made.

The review came back as inconclusive?

It clearly hit the post, but the process was farcical.

 

[Vader]

Fremantle mauled us today, far better side, and emerging as a better club.

Last week's game looking increasingly incidental. We played one quarter of footy today, and we lost because the majority of our squad didn't play a wet weather game. At no stage did players gather front and centre of the ball, and at no stage did our ruckman or Brent Reilly familiarise themselves with the unconditional importance of distance gained.

That was very, very disappointing.

You are aware that, somewhat bizarrely, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters?
Q1: Adelaide by 10pts
Q2: Freo by 21pts
Q3: Adelaide by 3pts
Q4: Adelaide by 1pt

We had more I50s (52-44) and more scoring shots (19-16). We had more hitouts (61-38), clearances (46-43) and contested possessions (181-172). Statistically, Adelaide were the better team and deserved to win. We were certainly not "mauled" by a "far better side". That's just overly negative rubbish.

Adelaide lost this game because of two reasons - our kicking for goal remains woefully inaccurate (42% not counting shots which failed to register a score), and poor coaching which saw Freo continually able to kick cheap goals from out the back of the pack - goals which a high school football coach would have prevented from happening.

Fix those two problems and we would have won the game by 7-8 goals. Failure to address those issues resulted in a 7pt loss, despite being the better team on the day.

 

[Vader]

If I was a Freo fan I'd be stoked with that performance.

They were ferocious, smashed into the body like their life depended on it and the moment the ball got an inch past centre towards the Adelaide goal we were mauled at every contest.

We could learn a lot on how we should be playing our footy. They absolutely schooled us in toughness today and aside from Danger, Sloane and Laird we simply didn't have anyone stand up in that department.

Except that they didn't.. Adelaide were just as ferocious at the ball, to the extent that Adelaide won the clearances 46-43 and contested possessions 181-172. We were just as effective as they were "in close". Our failures were far more basic.

 

[Geoffa32]

Except that they didn't.. Adelaide were just as ferocious at the ball, to the extent that Adelaide won the clearances 46-43 and contested possessions 181-172. We were just as effective as they were "in close". Our failures were far more basic.

Those stats sound nice, but we were belted at a lot of contests purely because the Freo player hit it harder.

 

[scon]

The game could have been won by either side right up to the last 2 minutes.It was an enormous contest for 4 quarters with both sides competing with everything they had.Very even throughout and luckily for us we just fell over the line.
As I posted on our board there appears to be great respect for each other amongst the player groups.They have given their all against each other in the last 4 contests,match up very evenly and today's game I thought was just immense in terms of the incredible level of toughness,never say die,team play and relentless pressure.I think our two clubs are very evenly matched and will have plenty of similarly fierce battles.Great game,great contest right down to the wire.

 

[Vader]

Can anyone clear this up for me?
The Dangerfield Goal/Point.
The goal umpire called a goal, the side and field umpire then debate with the goal umpire for over 2 minutes before calling a video review (which is a joke in itself), the field umpire after the review clearly says the video is inconclusive, I'm calling it a point.
If the video is conclusive, shouldn't the goal stand?
Can the field umpire overturn a goal umpire?

They shouldn't be able to, unless it was due to an infringement in the field of play. For example, they deemed the ball to have been touched off the boot. Decisions about whether or not the ball crossed the goal line, or hit the goal posts, are supposed to be entirely the domain of the goal umpire. The field umpire was flat out wrong to overrule him and should be lining up in the VFL next week as a result.

This wasn't a matter of how he saw it, it was a matter of getting the process wrong. If the umpire doesn't know the rules, then he shouldn't be umpiring at the AFL level.

 

[Lach72]

You are aware that, somewhat bizarrely, we actually won 3 of the 4 quarters?
Q1: Adelaide by 10pts
Q2: Freo by 21pts
Q3: Adelaide by 3pts
Q4: Adelaide by 1pt

We had more I50s (52-44) and more scoring shots (19-16). We had more hitouts (61-38), clearances (46-43) and contested possessions (181-172). Statistically, Adelaide were the better team and deserved to win. We were certainly not "mauled" by a "far better side". That's just overly negative rubbish.

Adelaide lost this game because of two reasons - our kicking for goal remains woefully inaccurate (42% not counting shots which failed to register a score), and poor coaching which saw Freo continually able to kick cheap goals from out the back of the pack - goals which a high school football coach would have prevented from happening.

Fix those two problems and we would have won the game by 7-8 goals. Failure to address those issues resulted in a 7pt loss, despite being the better team on the day.

7-8 goals.

Rightio then .

Anyway, good hard game. Might see you at the pointy end

 

[Vader]

The imaginary free against Talia led to those though. I'm still raging about that. Was Thommo against the Hawks all over again.

There was nothing imaginary about that free - it was blatant holding, just like Crowley's hold on Dangerfield (which cost Freo a goal).

 

[Vader]

7-8 goals.

Rightio then .

Anyway, good hard game. Might see you at the pointy end

Shoulda, coulda, woulda.. didn't. That's what could have happened, if Adelaide fixed the problems that were within their ability to control. I'm sure Freo could come up with a similar list of things that they could/should have changed, which would have seen them win the game by an even larger margin.

At the end of the day, Freo won by 7pts and take away the premiership points. Congratulations to your team. I still don't think that the best team won on the day.. but Adelaide only have themselves to blame for the loss.

 

[Wood_Duck]

The review came back as inconclusive?

It clearly hit the post, but the process was farcical.

In the end it was a terrible miss from a footballer of his quality.

 

[Gary17]

You have seen far from our best.

Likewise...

 

[fairfooty]

They shouldn't be able to, unless it was due to an infringement in the field of play. For example, they deemed the ball to have been touched off the boot. Decisions about whether or not the ball crossed the goal line, or hit the goal posts, are supposed to be entirely the domain of the goal umpire. The field umpire was flat out wrong to overrule him and should be lining up in the VFL next week as a result.

This wasn't a matter of how he saw it, it was a matter of getting the process wrong. If the umpire doesn't know the rules, then he shouldn't be umpiring at the AFL level.

Agreed. I find it absolutely bizarre that every man and his dog seems to be able to overturn a goal umpires decision. IMO we either need post cameras or go back to the good old-fashioned 'rely on the umpire on the spot - the goal umpire'. In every sport I've ever played its always the goal umpires decision is final (or field ump if there's no goal umpire). The episode today over Dangers goal/point was unbelievable - absolutely farcical. The arguing umpires looked like they needed a bex and a good lie down while they worked it out! 'Tea anyone'? I've never seen anything so bizarre in all my life - and meanwhile the clock keeps going!! At least stop the bl**dy clock!!. Madness.

 

[jenny61_99]

Those stats sound nice, but we were belted at a lot of contests purely because the Freo player hit it harder.

That was certainly true in the final quarter. One instance where the ball was loose and a crow (kegs I think) and a docker run to it, only the docker was more ferocious. They definitely fought hard for it I thought, and had that little extra bit of grunt.

 

[Geoffa32]

That was certainly true in the final quarter. One instance where the ball was loose and a crow (kegs I think) and a docker run to it, only the docker was more ferocious. They definitely fought hard for it I thought, and had that little extra bit of grunt.

That was the main difference between the sides on the day. They were harder.

 

[jedi mind tricks]

Great hard edged game lads. I hope both teams make the finals as both tems worked their guts out and did some inspirational things today.

Some of those smothers in the last 5 mins in Freo's forward 50 by the Crows players were great. Much the same some of the 1% Freo players did too. Anyway hope to see you lads come finals time.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Im calling it now - will beat sydney.

If you play like you did today, I think you will too.
Your stoppages and clearances work today was strong.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

That was certainly true in the final quarter. One instance where the ball was loose and a crow (kegs I think) and a docker run to it, only the docker was more ferocious. They definitely fought hard for it I thought, and had that little extra bit of grunt.

That was Michael Johnson.
That wouldn't have been said of him two years ago, he looked like he was playing with a beer guts.

 

[Vader]

Agreed. I find it absolutely bizarre that every man and his dog seems to be able to overturn a goal umpires decision. IMO we either need post cameras or go back to the good old-fashioned 'rely on the umpire on the spot - the goal umpire'. In every sport I've ever played its always the goal umpires decision is final (or field ump if there's no goal umpire). The episode today over Dangers goal/point was unbelievable - absolutely farcical. The arguing umpires looked like they needed a bex and a good lie down while they worked it out! 'Tea anyone'? I've never seen anything so bizarre in all my life - and meanwhile the clock keeps going!! At least stop the bl**dy clock!!. Madness.

Even post cameras wouldn't have helped in this situation. They're great for determining whether the ball had completely crossed the line before being touched, but they're useless for determining whether or not it made contact with the opposite post, 2m from the top of the post.

The only angle which could have produced a conclusive answer would have been to mount a camera on the umpire's head, as he was looking directly up alongside the post. They have used these cameras in some games this year.. sadly today's game was not one of them.

 

[SpeciousArgument]

That's how it works if the reviewing umpire deems the vision to be inconclusive. That did not happen on this occasion. The reviewing umpire looked at the replays and (bizarrely, in my opinion) came to the conclusion that the ball did hit the post. It was not deemed to be inconclusive. He then passed this decision to the field/goal umpires, who paid a point.

What it was, was a massive waste of time while the on-field umpires bickered and argued, before finally deciding to review the decision. This delay cost Adelaide their game winning momentum.

Pretty sure the review came back inconclusive.

 

[Vader]

Pretty sure the review came back inconclusive.

Apparently so.. At least the umpire in the tv studio got it right. Pity about the muppet on the field, who stuffed this thing up 3 ways to Sunday.

 

[fairfooty]

Apparently so.. At least the umpire in the tv studio got it right. Pity about the muppet on the field, who stuffed this thing up 3 ways to Sunday.

If it came back inconclusive then surely the goal umpire's decision should stand??

 

[SpeciousArgument]

well... at least ports going to lose to WB so i guess thats something...

 

[SpeciousArgument]

Apparently so.. At least the umpire in the tv studio got it right. Pity about the muppet on the field, who stuffed this thing up 3 ways to Sunday.

thats the bit im so confused about. what was the boundary umpire doing in there insisting that it was a behind? assuming it was a failure of process i dont see how they could have gotten that wrong. since when does a boundary umpire get to overrule a goal umpire? if that was the correct process and in the event of an inconclusive they go with whoever was 'most confident' then that needs to be addressed.