Toast Round 15 = Collingwood 88-77 GWS

[Wearmouth]

On the Sidebottom 30 seconds, I think we just need to disguise it more. Fiddle with your socks, tie shoe laces or go back further to lengthen the run in. Standing at the top of the goal square and looking up at the scoreboard was always going to get the umps attention.

Yes.

However it still doesn’t excuse that, it’s never happened. That an umpire has demanded he kick the ball at goal. They’ve always allowed their time. After their 30secs they’ve made them play on. Understandable. And most of the contentious decisions were from the same umpire. That’s more the alarming issue for me. It just seems like there has been a discussion somewhere about this and he has taken it literally to prove he can deliver when asked to.

Umpires too have biases. No one can tell me they don’t…..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wearmouth]

McCrae admitted in the presser that he tells the boys to use the 30 seconds as much as possible.

It’s about getting those little breathers throughout the game. Taking you 30sec, having a shot at goal. Walking the ball to the boundary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Markfs]

Not so sure, possible that he has dual citizenship.

I think his father said so at the ceremony interview....he doesnt have to give up his us citizenship and it makes it a hell of lot easier to go home during a break..

 

[Wearmouth]

I don't think it should have mattered. I would have thought it'd be adjudicated the same way as deliberate out of bounds and that wouldn't have been called deliberate.

The problem that exists with this situation is that the two players competing for the ball can both do the same thing and the decision is totally different. If the GWS player gets there first and taps the ball it’s not considered deliberate. Moore gets their first and taps the ball and he is penalized for deliberate. What other options in the circumstances of the wet day does Moore actually have.

Realistically Moore did exactly what he should have done. Get to the ball first. In the well it was going to be difficult to do anything more. But he did. He manages to get a second tap to it over the goal line. So again. What other options were available that wouldn’t concede a deliberate free against him.

It seems that he either concedes the goal or he concedes the free to concede the goal. Because if he doesn’t get there first. The GWS player tow taps it through anyway.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Maggie5]

I thought the Americans did not allow dual citizenship I know you have renounce your nationality when becoming US citizen.

Think it is allowed.

Dual Citizenship: What It Means, How to Get It, and Key Benefits

Learn what dual citizenship means, how to get it, benefits and risks. Explore rules for Americans, dual passports, & countries that allow it.

www.globalcitizensolutions.com

 

[Wearmouth]

Huh?

I don't get the controversy on this one, even as a Collingwood supporter who frequently complains about the umpriring.

It's one of the most black and white rules we have.

You can't rush a behind outside the goal square. It's pretty simple. Had GWS done the same thing down the other end we would have been screaming for deliberate

It doesn’t make the rule right.

Where the AFL have gotten it wrong is when the ball is in open play and no one has possession. I think the deliberate rule is wrong.

I agree that someone with possession of the ball and they then dispose of it intentionally should be paid deliberate.

However in this instant. Both the GWS player and Moore are attacking a loose ball. The outcome for both players should be the same. No matter the action. Moore has to be allowed to clear the contest or save his team from conceding as much as the GWS player has the right to be able to score a goal. So if Moore’s actions involve conceding a behind or having to put it out of bounds he should be able to. As he doesn’t have possession. Imagine it’s a draw with 10 secs to go. And that scenario is at play. What is the defenders options. Dive on it. It’s a free. Kick it through. It’s a free. Tap it out of bounds. It’s a free. What more is left to them. If they allow the opposition a chance at it. They may tap it through and score the behind they need and he loses. So what is left for the defender to be able to do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Markfs]

how do people here go with soccer? Games there are determined by refs all the time. And then there's rugby union which is a game specifically designed to entertain referees...

 

[gerryg400]

If it smells bad, it is bad imo.

What really got my goat is the umpire telling Sidey he was "taking the Mickey" and was being penalised for doing so, even though it's well within the rules to take his full 30 seconds. The umpire overstepped 'interpreting' the rules to 'twisting' the rules because of his personal bias or some other ego-driven thing.

If 30 seconds is not, in fact, 30 seconds then come out and say it for everyone. Otherwise it does look like a very unfair and unprofessional ruling.

There is no rule that says the player must be allowed 30 seconds to kick. It’s entirely up to the umpire. This is the rule;

20.2 DISPOSAL FROM BEHIND THE MARK
(a) A Player who has been awarded a Mark or Free Kick shall be directed by a field Umpire to dispose of the football within a reasonable time in a direct line from The Mark to the centre of their Goal Line.
(b) If a Player does not dispose of the football within a reasonable time, or attempts to dispose of the football other than in a direct line over The Mark, the field Umpire shall call ‘Play On’ and the football shall immediately be in play.

EDIT: IMHO, one of the big problems in our game is that none of the commentators knows the rules.

 

[Gone Critical]

If the kick was the last touch, then I could understand it, although he was clearly under pressure . If it was the touch on the goal-line, then it is obviously laughably, calamitously wrong. They certainly didn’t try to review whether he touched it on the goal-line and as it was going to be a rushed behind either way, I’m not sure it was reviewable.

I worried it was a free as soon as I saw it. Not sure touching it before the line makes any difference. Its the fact he kicked it towards the goal from more than 10 m out. Similar to you cant paddle the ball over the line if you start padding before the goal square even if you touch it again inside the 10m. The fact he was desperate to get to the ball after kicking suggests he was also worried. Also being under pressure is only a factor within 10m I believe, being under pressure when he kicked was irrelevant

 

[Gone Critical]

Same umpire that called play on for Sidey when he had time on the shot clock. campaigner just making up his own rules.

Don't think so. As he explained once you are seen to be milking the time rather than preparing for the shot at goal they have been instructed to call play on. Once Sidey looked at the countdown clock to see how much time left its considered milking

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

how do people here go with soccer? Games there are determined by refs all the time. And then there's rugby union which is a game specifically designed to entertain referees...

I stopped watching soccer years ago because of the corrupt refereeing

I’m kinda hoping the same fate doesn’t befall AFL. But it does look like it’s heading there

 

[Wearmouth]

Be nice if the cheer squad could stick to pies flags… all I’m saying

This is the problem with censorship. Does the flag bother you. Maybe the people with the flag are from the US and same part of town as Cox. Letting him know they are there and supporting him. Whatever the reason. It’s there’s. It has absolutely nothing to do with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wearmouth]

its been a rule for years now so you'd think professional footballers would know the rule.

Sidey didn’t overstep the 30sec. The umpire wanted him to get on with it well before the 30sec.

The rule is that it’s at the discretion of the umpires to be consistent with the rule. Hence the 30sec for all kicks to be taken. The umpire was being overzealous and not consistent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Don't think so. As he explained once you are seen to be milking the time rather than preparing for the shot at goal they have been instructed to call play on. Once Sidey looked at the countdown clock to see how much time left its considered milking

Agreed, the umpire did nothing wrong, we need to move past that one

 

[Gone Critical]

Common bloody sense has to apply. He did not deliberately soccer the pill.It was at his feet and he was running at top pace and he tripped on it more than kicked it. That rule was brought in to prevent players under no pressure handballing or kicking the ball through in order to get a reset and kick in.

None of the above were applicable in Moore's situation.

Watch it again. He deliberately toed the ball. Tough but it was a free

 

[Wearmouth]

Umpire restarted the clock when he set the mark.

Common sense? Ump pings Sidebottom for 'taking the mickey' on simple shot

The umpire repeatedly urged Steele Sidebottom to take his kick, then called play on before the time had expired.

www.theroar.com.au

I haven’t had a chance to see the footage again.

But it still doesn’t explain the rule being umpires need to be consistent. I understand that it’s a fait accompli, but they can’t choose when to and when not to allow the 30sec. Need to be consistent….


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gone Critical]

He did, but then he followed it up by clearly touching it on the line.

Looking at it another way, if a player wildly kicked the ball to a boundary with nobody in the vicinity, but the player then chased down their own ball and got to it at the boundary but their momentum carried it over, would that player then get called for deliberate out of bounds? No.

Different issue, you cant rush it through for a point from outside 10m. Dont think it matters if you touch the ball again but Moore started rushing from well outside 10m. Rushing over the line doesnt have the distance issue and isnt applied to a ball touched over the line even if by inches.

 

[TW Sherrin]

I worried it was a free as soon as I saw it. Not sure touching it before the line makes any difference. Its the fact he kicked it towards the goal from more than 10 m out. Similar to you cant paddle the ball over the line if you start padding before the goal square even if you touch it again inside the 10m. The fact he was desperate to get to the ball after kicking suggests he was also worried. Also being under pressure is only a factor within 10m I believe, being under pressure when he kicked was irrelevant

in the situation Moore really didn't have many choices. if he tried to pick it up Riccardi probably kicks a goal off the ground. really the only choice he had was to kick it forward.

 

[Wearmouth]

More to the point the umpire asked him to kick it and he ignored him.

The umpires only have the instruction to be consistent. Not to decide that the player should kick it when they tell them. Otherwise, they need to do that all the time. Not just when they deem it. The rule is they need to be consistent. That’s it. The distance from the goal is not their adjudicate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sr36]

Don't think so. As he explained once you are seen to be milking the time rather than preparing for the shot at goal they have been instructed to call play on. Once Sidey looked at the countdown clock to see how much time left its considered milking

So the secret is to have a teammate look at the clock and tell you when there is a set amount of time to go? It's a silly unworkable rule that is going to irritate by being umpired inconsistently.

Ultimately though, I'm glad they called play on. We were dominating. It's GWS who should have been looking to waste time to limp to the break before too much damage was done and reset there system at the break.i think we're silly to waste time when the game was at the stage it was.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Haven’t cringed at something as much as the Texas flag in our cheer squad yesterday.. why?

Does it matter? Surely supporters are able to show their support any way they choose.

 

[Markfs]

I stopped watching soccer years ago because of the corrupt refereeing

I’m kinda hoping the same fate doesn’t befall AFL. But it does look like it’s heading there

well it's a matter of degree. Referees give penalties in soccer that can determine a game...completely against the flow. They send people off when opponents dive... Thats not even counting corruption....

 

[Mollythedolly]

Cox.
He's an Aussie citizen now so...no need anymore.

So he’s not from Texas anymore?

 

[Pie eyed]

I thought the Americans did not allow dual citizenship I know you have renounce your nationality when becoming US citizen.

NO problems with duel citizenship in the US, unless you want you run a media company.
Murdoch renounced his Australian citizenship to gain licenses in the US.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Whilst they have a 30 second shot clock, how the player elects to use the 30 seconds should be up to them. Whose to say Ben Brown doesn’t go back 50m just to waste time and use up the 30 seconds.

Sidey was not even close to using up 30 seconds as the umpire had only just finished setting the mark.

For mine that’s a poor call.

Seems the bloke with the whistle disagrees with you.