Review Round 11 = Fremantle 75-75 Collingwood

[Pistol Night]

I'm one of those annoying pr#cks who picks these things up - a great day for me - cheers

Im going to drop a few "too" and "choose" like bombs in from now on.

 

[NMBB]

Im going to drop a few "too" and "choose" like bombs in from now on.

Sometime's I just look and sigh privately - don't always go for the grammar jugular

jathanas - please note

 

[Pistol Night]

Sometime's I just look and sigh privately - don't always go for the grammar jugular

jathanas - please note

If i see someone mix up lose and loose i literally "loose" shit

 

[NMBB]

If i see someone mix up lose and loose i literally "loose" shit

Your more than welcome - sometimes loosing sh#t may not be affective though

 

[Pistol Night]

Your more than welcome - sometimes loosing sh#t may not be affective though

Two funny

 

[sr36]

Agree there are things we should have got better - but the decision paid against Sullivan was right out of the super techo book - so much so that a near identical action in yesterday's Hawthorn game was not paid

Yeah. We undoubtedly got unlucky with the umpiring at the end of that game - not only the WTF time wasting call, but 3 other dubious ones in the centre square.

My view is that pretending that the luck of umpiring doesn't impact games is as silly as going into full on rants about cheating and taking the AFL to court.

Luck always impacts games - from the bounce of the ball to umpiring decisions.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

It was wasting the umpire’s time. He needed that ball back two seconds faster.

It makes all the difference.

Sullivan -> Nick -> Nicholls was faster than what Sullivan -> Nicholls would have been.

Nicholls was behind Sullivan and he would have had to turn around, locate him and walk in the direction opposite that in which he was already travelling.

It’s impossible to argue it wasted time, only to argue that it appeared to be intended to waste time.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

there were 2 sliding door monets for me.

Firstly, after Hills goal Freo got a clean clearance and kicked a goal immediately. If they could've burned a few minutes there they game was probably done.

Secondly, Hill not getting the ball out of bounds on the far side. That just had to get over the line so they could set up behind the ball.

Sullivan punching the ball clear of the contest instead of attempting to mark, or hold the ball in.

 

[NMBB]

Sullivan -> Nick -> Nicholls was faster than what Sullivan -> Nicholls would have been.

Nicholls was behind Sullivan and he would have had to turn around, locate him and walk in the direction opposite that in which he was already travelling.

It’s impossible to argue it wasted time, only to argue that it appeared to be intended to waste time.

AFL here - stop time wasting with detailed logic

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Pass the ball directly, fools, this is time wasting!

 

[lyfsux]

since where on the umpires train, I remember hearing whilst watching, freo had the ball on the 50 arc and the umpire said to Maynard ( I think it was ) if you don’t man the mark it’s 50. Does. Their always have to someone on the mark ?

Yep I heard that and thought WTF!

 

[Granit1962]

For exactly the same reason clubs defend their players when they do something dumb.

You’ve got to support them in public. But that doesn’t stop you from reading them the riot act behind closed doors.

Let’s hope so. Hopefully, a one off spiteful act - and the umpire given a warning. After all we are all human, but it is a really bad look for the umpires. I expect if he had his time again, he would have chosen a more opportune time to make his point. While the ump’s behaviour is poor and inexcusable, I believe that without that poor decision we would have won, however, human decision - which for a one off should not be banished. If it is a pattern, then yes needs to be disciplined.

What concerns me most, this is as more about the afl issuing directives to umpires, which aren’t purely about rule interpretation - like let’s stamp out time wasting. Such directives are only effective when aligned with specific rules, along with disciplined, consistent, interpretation and application. I feel (maybe incorrectly) that the AFL tries to unduly ask umpires to influence games in a manner which is more than purely interpreting rules.

All in all, one more experienced player on the park, one less injury, we probably win even with all the freakish things that happened in that last 10 minutes. Time to move on.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

It was wasting the umpire’s time. He needed that ball back two seconds faster.

It makes all the difference.

The difference in time between Sullivan going direct to the umpire vs going from Sullivan to Daicos to the umpire would have been a fraction of a fraction of a second of difference

Not only was time off already blown, I'm not sure even a defence made up of Superman, the Flash, Speedy Gonzales, Usain Bolt, Bobby Hill and Beau McCreery would have "set up" any quicker given the ball was already deep in defence and we would have already been set up.

I'm inclined to think the umps had a chip on their shoulder after we spent most of the night leaving the ball on the ground for them and decided to screw us over under the guise of "WeLl TeChNiCaLlY iT's A rUlE"

Given there were further terrible decisions and non-decisions that all went against us in those final minutes, it seems to be a pretty safe assumption.

 

[sideswipe]

I'm curious as to why you believe it's unhinged when history is absolutely littered with examples of corruption and incompetence not only in sport, but basically in all types of management/governance situations.

Like...these people in positions of power in the AFL, be it umpires or execs all most likely have a team they support yeah? That's not crazy to assume?

Safe to say those same people also follow those teams fairly passionately like we all do? Again, doesn't seem totally out of the realms of possibility?

There's a saying that goes "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

I'm not saying one way or the other whether I believe in it, I'm just saying I don't think it's necessarily an "unhinged" conspiracy theory when we have examples as recently as last year (or was it 2022?) of scandal/corruption in the umpire ranks.

Regardless of what you think of Caro personally, she's also put her name to a claim that the umpires were basically pissed at us for not returning the ball directly to them throughout the night as we were just leaving it on the floor and that that final free kick was revenge for that.

Bucks was on the radio this morning reading the rule out live on air and the wording is "can pay a free kick" as opposed to other rules where the wording used is must.

This would indicate the umps have discretion to not pay that a free kick in certain circumstances and guess what, despite it being SUCH a crucial point in the match, that umpire decided he would pay a free kick that has been paid a total of four times throughout this entire season. Four. I doubt the other 3 were paid in the final few minutes of a close game.

So is it totally impossible/unhinged to think there's some dodgy stuff that goes on?

I wouldn't have thought so

What was being suggested was systemic corruption. Not one rogue actor like the umpire example you raised. Systemic corruption requires a large number of conspirators - all of whom would be acting irrationally by risking their livelihoods and reputations just to get a preferred team over the line?

Don't be ridiculous.

As for your mention of Bucks, I didn't hear it, but that is wrong. Rule 18.13 has the wording "the umpire shall pay a free kick". So you can dismiss that idea.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

What was being suggested was systemic corruption. Not one rogue actor like the umpire example you raised. Systemic corruption requires a large number of conspirators - all of whom would be acting irrationally by risking their livelihoods and reputations just to get a preferred team over the line?

Don't be ridiculous.

As for your mention of Bucks, I didn't hear it, but that is wrong. Rule 18.13 has the wording "the umpire shall pay a free kick". So you can dismiss that idea.

Oh I didn't really interpret it as widespread system corruption

You said yourself my example was a rogue actor so not sure why I was being ridiculous with my post

I was speaking generally about corruption in sport which we know for a fact exists. I was only saying I don't believe it's "unhinged" to suggest dodgy stuff goes on

 

[sideswipe]

Oh I didn't really interpret it as widespread system corruption

You said yourself my example was a rogue actor so not sure why I was being ridiculous with my post

I was speaking generally about corruption in sport which we know for a fact exists. I was only saying I don't believe it's "unhinged" to suggest dodgy stuff goes on

You need to work on your comprehension skills. The post to which I was responding made the contention that the entire competition is fixed.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

What was being suggested was systemic corruption. Not one rogue actor like the umpire example you raised. Systemic corruption requires a large number of conspirators - all of whom would be acting irrationally by risking their livelihoods and reputations just to get a preferred team over the line?

Don't be ridiculous.

As for your mention of Bucks, I didn't hear it, but that is wrong. Rule 18.13 has the wording "the umpire shall pay a free kick". So you can dismiss that idea.

On the free



Again “can”. Direct from Steve.

Although if you happen to have a link to it I’d love to read what it says

 

[sideswipe]

On the free



Again “can”. Direct from Steve.

Although if you happen to have a link to it I’d love to read what it says

You want me to send you a link to the rules of AFL football? It's 18.13(d). Look it up.

A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:...

 

[NMBB]

On the free



Again “can”. Direct from Steve.

Although if you happen to have a link to it I’d love to read what it says

This looks like current rule book - February 2024

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[Pistol Night]

On the free



Again “can”. Direct from Steve.

Although if you happen to have a link to it I’d love to read what it says

Thats fine. Why didn't they enforce it the rest of the weekend though

 

[sideswipe]

This looks like current rule book - February 2024

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

No, that's the Regs. Different.

 

[Pistol Night]

On the free



Again “can”. Direct from Steve.

Although if you happen to have a link to it I’d love to read what it says

Can? So maybe it gets paid or maybe it doesn't. Great way to enforce a rule

 

[NMBB]

No, that's the Regs. Different.

Ok - thanks

 

[jathanas]

I'm just going to leave this here.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

I can pretty well debunk your entire post.
I understand you made it with the right intent.

In absolute isolation the Sullivan decision absolutely cost Collingwood the game.

Absolutely.

My angst was not with that decision in isolation.

The decision making in the last half of the last quarter of the the game was intolerably inconsistent.

Unless you have never played the game the selective nature of the decisions, specifically directed at giving a specific team every opportunity to come back is obvious.
It has been obvious in numerous matches not including and including Collingwood for several years.
It is a mandated objective of the AFL.


Rules are specifically created, worded and enforced to allow for subjective interpretation.
Specifically brought in to favour certain game plans, tailored to benefit a preferred (by the AFL and/or the broadcast rights holder) "game style",

It's become clear the entire competition is becoming a fix.

Fixed to meet the desires of the "fixers"

You are as naive as **** if you think they will just fix the games to be closer, faster and more exciting if they can also make them more profitable,.

Do you really believe the CEO of the AFL does his job for the betterment of the game or for the salary?

Lets see how many of these campaigners line up for a $100,000.00 PA salary.

I guarantee it's none, nata, zero

you debunked my post by quoting a free kick given in the last 2 mins?

How about Nick kick 1 of his 3 shots. Or sully kick a regulation snap and the last 2 mins don’t happen.

You actually haven’t debunked anything about my post. Arguably you have enhanced it!

Ps. There is no conspiracy mate.