enough to overturn a GOAL the campaigners
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

BigFooty Tipping Notice Img
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Opening Round
The Golden Ticket - Official AFL on-seller of MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
enough to overturn a GOAL the campaigners
Exactly, never enough evidence to overturn the goal.enough to overturn a GOAL the campaigners
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Can go with Jacks shepherd free against.Robbo claimed on the radio this arvo that the Cameron running over the mark one was the worst umpiring decision of the year.
I think abusing the umpires, and complaining about the umpires, is part of the pantomime of the football, it is not personal, so I see zero problem with calling them a white maggot or some such pejorative. half of them are lawyers for chrissakes, tells you everything, and nothing.
Obviously the "Fonz" is running the umpire dept; can't admit fault under any circumstances...http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-22/league-ticks-off-no-50m-call-for-dusty
"We don't think it's a 50," the spokesperson said.
It is a reset at best. All Cameron tries to do is get away from Grigg, who tries to put a block on him."
The league does hate us.
Hes the man on the mark, hes supposed to be standing still. Why is he trying to "get away" from Grigg.
The ump ****** up by letting Grigg stay there then ****** up by letting Cameron run over the mark.
So there is 2 correct options, reset the kick or give 50m. Instead they picked do nothing which is the 1 wrong option and the league say it was right. ******* cheats.
Yep what a howler that was, I swear I saw the umpire signal too high for that one as well, not in the back, Walters was the beneficiary I think.yep, Id like to add the absolute shocker of a decision 5 mins before the caddy disallowed goal where edwards executed a perfect tackle inside 50, brought the player down and even fell sideways not to go into his back and despite being an absolute perfect example of executing a tackle to win a HTB decision, the umpire paid it in the back.I was still losing my shit over that decision that cost us a shot on goal when Caddys goal was disallowed by the same umpire.
He did call it too high.Yep what a howler that was, I swear I saw the umpire signal too high for that one as well, not in the back, Walters was the beneficiary I think.
Robbed.
Is Schwab the only person who thinks this was the correct call? Making up rules as they go.Schwab came out and said the non 50 call was correct lol
Didnt an ump have a go at a Hawthorn player a couple of years ago? IIRC quite a few hawk supporters on here got upset! Pathetic.
Wasnt it the bloke below who was known for giving it back to players just as good as they gave to him? Fair enough too.
And while you're at it RFC_Official get the four points back.Just on that overturned goal, just saw some behind the goals footage, now this is my issue, the goal was awarded so the ball should've been put on the ground in the centre circle until a decision was reached, why as soon as the decision was made a behind could GWS kick it straight in, upon the goal being overturned the ball should've then been picked up by the umpire who then would run down and hand it over to the player kicking in.
Remember the original decision was a goal, the goal umpire didn't run out and say i'm not sure review it.
RFC_Official maybe something to hand over to the club and then to the AFL because IMO the ball should've been in the middle as the decision was being reviewed and not ready for a potential behind.
Just on that overturned goal, just saw some behind the goals footage, now this is my issue, the goal was awarded so the ball should've been put on the ground in the centre circle until a decision was reached, why as soon as the decision was made a behind could GWS kick it straight in, upon the goal being overturned the ball should've then been picked up by the umpire who then would run down and hand it over to the player kicking in.
Remember the original decision was a goal, the goal umpire didn't run out and say i'm not sure review it.
RFC_Official maybe something to hand over to the club and then to the AFL because IMO the ball should've been in the middle as the decision was being reviewed and not ready for a potential behind.
Players holding their arms up and letting the ball go across the line will be introduced as a new rule this week. Conveniently, with 30sec to go in the last quarter on Richmond's half forward line, against Richmond, leading to a 50m penalty for a player going over the mark to get around a sheperder that shouldn't be there that will really be a 75m penalty and Joe Daniher will kick a goal in the scrimmage at the top of the square that was actually touched but it won't be checked on score review because the siren has already gone.Three weeks of cheating from the rorters in fluro.
I'm sure they will make up another rule for the Dreamtime game.
Richmond will be twenty ahead early in the last,Essendon get a goal and the rorters in fluro will not be able to contain themselves.
Every Richmond supporter will know one made up decision will come.
Ophidian Old Boys
They want more female umpires that's why the center bounce will go and another unique aspect of our game will be discardedThe umps are launching an OHS claim to the AFL to ban the bounce. According to Barrett on Footy Classified. They are blaming shoulder and back injuries on having to bounce the ball and want it eradicated.
My take is the bigger issue is that the vast majority of them can't execute this skill all that well and most of their attempts are farcical and need to be recalled and just thrown up. Trying to save face. Past generations of umpires seemed to have less trouble and the grounds were in far worse condition, remember the glue pots that were often found in the centre squares.


