Review Round 11 = Fremantle 75-75 Collingwood

[danielnajdek]

No Naughton or Richards either.

Yep that's what I meant by their 2 better players.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

 

[Bramax]

Yep that's what I meant by their 2 better players.

Sorry mate. Yep I missed that.
Those 4 out definitely go someway toward balancing up our outs.

 

[Bramax]

Sensational effort. Didn’t go unnoticed by the coach either.
Coaches love this stuff.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Agree, but intent isn’t the issue. Over-zealous umpiring, yes, but sadly correct.

Sullivan was facing away from the umpire behind him, he handed the ball off to Nick who facing/moving toward the umpire rather than turn around and try to find the umpire. If anything it saved time rather than waste it.

Ridiculous in every sense.

Having said that, so was the free which led to Harrison’s second goal at the end of the first quarter. Preposterously soft. Essentially evens out in my book.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Actually by the interpretation of the rule, if the umpire believes the player is time wasting by leaving the ball on the ground they can pay a free kick against

Wasting time simply by refusing to save time? I wouldn’t put it past the AFL!

 

[Vicky Park]

Having said that, so was the free which led to Harrison’s second goal at the end of the first quarter. Preposterously soft. Essentially evens out in my book.

Agree with this. Although I wish I’d thought of calling it ‘preposterously soft’ - which it was

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

It’s a minimum timeframe, not a maximum. Players sometimes need longer. At local level, at least in some leagues, it’s three weeks, backed by neurologists.

That's what my comment says. 12 days minimum.

And yes I know it's 21 days for lower leagues.

 

[ThanksRossy]

Disgraceful that the AFL would back that umpiring decision and demonstrates a lack of honesty, accountability and integrity in the leadership of the competition. The rule cited is discretionary and subjective, but an umpire can get it wrong by misapplication and/or misjudgement and did here. It’s disingenuous and an insult to supporters for the league to say it was a correct decision. It was a bad decision and an organisation with integrity and respect for its fan base would admit this. You had a chance to show leadership and now have zero credibility AFL.
As for umpire Nicholls, this showed a lack of ability for good judgement - probably the most important quality for an umpire, along with fairness. It was at best incompetence, though seems worse than that in all the circumstances.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

 

[sideswipe]

That's what my comment says. 12 days minimum.

And yes I know it's 21 days for lower leagues.

How many times do you need to be told it’s return to play on the 12th day? Stop posting nonsense.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

How many times do you need to be told it’s return to play on the 12th day? Stop posting nonsense.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I was replying to someone else who queried the minimum days, when my comment clearly did say minimum. It was a direct quote from the AFL.

Settle down sidey. You win. They can play on the 12th day. We just don't seem to have been selecting them to play on the 12th day. Which is fine if they haven't passed all the necessary tests to play. I'd rather be cautious.

 

[sideswipe]

Commercial Law is your go isn’t it? Do you recommend it?
Tbh, I’m the retiring type. The monk’s life probably suits me better.

It was last century. I think the way to go these days is rort the NDIS as a dodgy provider or provide exorbitantly priced substandard aged care.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[bunter]

Went to Perth to watch the game, bit disappointed.
We ran out of petrol half way through the last and losing checkers was a massive blow, were just trying to hang on.
Shouldn’t have given up the lead but those umpiring decisions dictated the result of the game, bloody shithouse umpiring.
Was good banter with the dockers fans, some funny stuff.
Harvey is gunna be a star.

 

[partypie]

Just looked at "the decision" again, probably a bit of fatigue coming into play there, but players know they need to hand it straight back to the umpire so not sure why Sully didn't just do that. It's a bit crap that it was paid in front of goal, but if anything that should have been a trigger to be mindful and not giving the ump a reason to blow the whistle.

Despite giving up the lead a second viewing really did highlight that we were out on our legs in that last 10 minutes or so, held them off as much as we could but an undermanned team copping injuries including to the one player who could have made a difference in steadying the ship late made that a lot harder.

Two points is better than zero points, silver lining viewpoint would be that we managed to scrape away with a win's worth of premiership points in two games where we were really up against it late, so we're still in a good position if you view it as 7-4 from the first half of the season, especially given that we started 0-3.

 

[Stripes B and W]

It was last century. I think the way to go these days is rort the NDIS as a dodgy provider or provide exorbitantly priced substandard aged care.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

Those car cark are FULL!!
Speaking of last century, monks, rorts and aged care, oddly brings me back to umpiring.
Did anybody else feel the way the umpires addressed the players all night was officious, condescending and reminiscent of an old time school master speaking to a 5 year old.

Just felt the rapport between umpires and players was severely lacking.

 

[3rdMan]

It doesn't.

Both decisions were technically correct but both games were poorer for them having been made. There's no conspiracy in either of of them but there is a creeping instance of over officiating in odd random moments. If both decisions are paid every time, no one blinks an eye. But they're not, so people are justified in asking - 'why now?'.

Nah. What you're advocating for is: an umpire sees an infraction but decides not to pay a free because it's late in the game. Not how it should work, especially for cut and dry decisions like running too far. There's no interpretation of intent here, it's simply did he run too far? Rankine very clearly did (by almost 10m). The umpire noticed he ran too far so needs to pay the free. This is one that is difficult to notice, but when noticed it should, and I would say is, always paid. If you want the umpire to not pay it even when he knows the player has infringed, taking an advantage, how far does it go? Can a player run from the 50 arc to the goal square? The entire field? There has to be a limit to generosity. For me the limit is the umpire being certain an infringement has occurred. In the Rankine case the umpire was correct and by enough of a margin (almost 10m) for it to be a good and reasonable call. If it was marginal I'd agree he should have given Rankine the benefit of doubt.

As already pointed out, even with the free not paid against Rankine the Crows did not have a goal. It looked like there'd be a ball up with just seconds remaining, with the chance of a win still slim. So, disappointing but not immediately effecting the scoreboard.

The free against Sullivan last night is a bit different. Given time off had been called, and even if not, the delay was minor, it seems at worst to be only an infringement of etiquette. It had no impact on the game that I could see (if there is an actual impact, not just technicality, then I'd like to know what it is). Sullivan, on the ground, threw the ball to the nearest standing player who handed it to the umpire. Didn't take a great deal of time. The free paid directly resulted in a goal, so extra angst is understandable to the Crows being denied a slight opportunity for a goal.

Assuming the call was correct, which is the other point: this kind of call is so rare that many of us can't recall having seen it before and are not even sure it was the right call (unlike running too far which everyone understands). If correct it seems harsh to call it at that point, given the seeming lack of impact, but I'd accept it.

The decision against Sullivan sucked and I can see how the Rankine one would have too, even though the latter was definitely correct and the Sullivan one I think will be ticked off by the AFL. The Rankine one, for me, has to be paid once noticed, he's infringed and taken an advantage. If this happened to the Pies I'd be disappointed but would blame the player, not the ump. The free against Sullivan, to my knowledge (prepared to be corrected), is a technicality and doesn't necessarily have to be paid, but I accept it if correct, if it was a wrong call, that's crap but mistakes happen.

All those too many words said, I don't blame the umpiring on us losing two points. We missed chances we should have taken in the last and a number of things went Freo's way, you can't win them all.

 

[Mick F]

Just looked at "the decision" again, probably a bit of fatigue coming into play there, but players know they need to hand it straight back to the umpire so not sure why Sully didn't just do that. It's a bit crap that it was paid in front of goal, but if anything that should have been a trigger to be mindful and not giving the ump a reason to blow the whistle.

Despite giving up the lead a second viewing really did highlight that we were out on our legs in that last 10 minutes or so, held them off as much as we could but an undermanned team copping injuries including to the one player who could have made a difference in steadying the ship late made that a lot harder.

Two points is better than zero points, silver lining viewpoint would be that we managed to scrape away with a win's worth of premiership points in two games where we were really up against it late, so we're still in a good position if you view it as 7-4 from the first half of the season, especially given that we started 0-3.

A few of their boys lifted too. Some nice kicks.

 

[TradeDraft]

Sums up last night

 

[Fat Jesus]

Sums up last night

Classic

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

 

[Captivating]

Quaynor admitted in an interview after the game he never touched it.

As much as I love Q, that's a pretty shit thing to do.

 

[IlovethePies]

The video says what I wanted to. It was an incredible achievement last night, to have more than matched Fremantle at their home ground, after a 6 day break, after two consecutive games which we had to play for substantial periods two or even three men down, and with such an inexperienced team missing so many Top 22 players.
The coaches again formulated a strategy capable of winning the game, and the team executed it, down to the last man.
This game was further proof of the incredible mental strength of this team, its refusal to ever accept defeat, amazing physical courage and fortitude, and resilience.
I will not put any limits on what this team can achieve. Once again, we are witnessing a special year.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

As much as I love Q, that's a pretty s**t thing to do.

What? Tell the truth?