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.
disagree the only extra step he took was to push himself back behind the mark - he needed to step forward to go back because he was overbalanced looking to play on but not actually playing on.The block was a borderline call. But every team does it. Collingwood block for Cox at almost every contest. Basically every team's defence does this to some degree.
The play on however was so obvious. He stopped, moved a couple of steps and then decided to go back for the shot.
Interesting screenshot, that is further out than I remembered it. I don't disagree that Shuey was taking the piss and was never going for goal, but I've seen it all season where players have been allowed a "shot" from 70m. I think the issue is more with the rule and its interpretation rather than the individual decision.
The umpiring was horrific both ways. Appalling.
View attachment 567051
There would not have been a single other example of a player being allowed the 30 seconds from within the centre square all year. He was clearly never having a shot and should have been called to move on much sooner. I highly doubt any player in the game would get the distance on a set shot from there, on the run yes but not a set shot (don’t think the shot clock should be allowed for Hail Mary torps from those distances either). If players are allowed to start milking the shot clock when 65m from goal, that’s setting a dangerous precedent for future games, where 99% of the time they will be called to play on. Many many times during the season players were called to move it on from a closer distance than Shuey was, needs to be a consistent ruling.
It’s incredibly unlikely that the extra 20 seconds milked from this instance would have had any impact on the result of the game but we can’t have players wasting time when that far out from goal.
He’s almost standing in the centre circle, that’s just crazy to allow that
Not the only calls Pies fans want overturned from the match...
https://www.change.org/p/australian...lightning_2primary_share_options_more.control
Not only did Stephenson run 26m, but there were a number of missed frees that could have resulted in WC scores.Stephenson apparently ran 26m before kicking his 2nd goal, clearly a free kick. Might get a petition up to have the winning margin extended.
Interesting screenshot, that is further out than I remembered it. I don't disagree that Shuey was taking the piss and was never going for goal, but I've seen it all season where players have been allowed a "shot" from 70m. I think the issue is more with the rule and its interpretation rather than the individual decision.
Shuey can kick 60m and a 55m set shot is within his range/ability.The mark itself is probably 55m out meaning he is probably kicking from 60-65.
Earlier this year Daniel Howe had a shot and the man on the mark was maybe just outside 50.
The ump called him to play on!!!!! Like what? He was having a set shot!
Howe rushed the kick and made the distance easily.
Umpire is damned if they do, damned if they don't.
If it was Lance Franklin would you think differently? Can't change rules on your or the umpires belief on how far the player can kick.I think the worst umpires decision of the day was to allow shuey his 30 seconds to have a shot on goal from inside the centre square. Pathetic to not call that play on earlier as there was no way he was ever going to get a goal from there. Wasted 20 seconds that could again have impacted the result.
Overall though, thought it was one of the best umpired games all year as they let the little things slide and play continue.
Just got home from the game. Collingwood got the better of the umpiring all day. In the second quarter the Eagles were bent over. No doubt about it. The rubbish 50 that went the Eagles' way and the Rioli infringement (was right in front of me actually) were the only two obvious passages I could see at the game which went the Eagles' way. Also curious why Sidebottom wasn't penalised for a deliberate rushed behind at the end. Haven't seen a replay but at the game it looked like it should have been called deliberate.
Free kick to Maynard should have been paid, but I think it was ambiguous enough to not be paid, as well. Likewise, the issue of whether Sheed ''played on''.
Can understand Collingwood supporters being slightly aggrieved about it
That’s all well and good , now can you quote the high contact rule as Maynard’s hand was clearly on Rioli headSo, argument for the free being paid.
Prohibited contact and payment of a free kick 15.4.5 - e) unduly pushes, bumps, blocks, holds an opposition Player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player, who is in the act of Marking or attempting to Mark the football;
Argument against the Free Kick being paid
Permitted Contact 15.4.3 - e) if such contact is incidental to a Marking contest and the Player is legitimately Marking or attempting to Mark the football.
Personal opinion - Rioli would have acted in the same manner had Dom Sheed not been there. He was looking at the ball, protecting the drop zone and making a legitimate attempt to mark or contest the football. Umpire made the right call.
How can you be taken seriously when you don’t even know the rules? Deliberate rushed behind while under pressure as long as it’s within 9m is perfectly legal.
You’re not worthy of getting a grand final ticket, trade it in next time for someone who understands the game and it’s rules.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
How can you be taken seriously when you don’t even know the rules? Deliberate rushed behind while under pressure as long as it’s within 9m is perfectly legal.
You’re not worthy of getting a grand final ticket, trade it in next time for someone who understands the game and it’s rules.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
"under pressure"
the eagles players stopped and watched as Sidebottom had delusions of playing for the wallabies
If it was Lance Franklin would you think differently? Can't change rules on your or the umpires belief on how far the player can kick.
I agree, but does that rule exist or is it subjective?Even if it was franklin I wouldn’t like to see them get the 30 seconds from that distance. In every game I’ve seen this year they have been told to move it on from that distance, so to be consistent so should shuey.
How would you feel if in the last 2 mins when the pies were up still, if they lined up 65m from goal and just kicked it along horizontally and all took up their 30 seconds and won the match by taking up the time with no intention of going for goal. There needs to be a consistent limit on what’s allowed, and my view is that from where shuey was that shouldn’t be allowed the shot clock.
I agree, but does that rule exist or is it subjective?
Nothing ambiguous about this... would love to know what Brett “I’m from WA” Rosebury has to say about
mmmm Yes WA.... The AFL certainly need to look into more Victorian umpires, get the balance right.
Nothing ambiguous about this... would love to know what Brett “I’m from WA” Rosebury has to say about
View attachment 567366
mmmmm yeh WA.... the AFL really need to use more VIC umpires, get the balance right.
The last seven Grand Finals have been Vic v interstate clubs. Not once has a competing interstate club in any of these Grand Finals won the free kick count. Probably just a coincidence though.
Stephenson apparently ran 26m before kicking his 2nd goal, clearly a free kick. Might get a petition up to have the winning margin extended.