Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
The only ump whose name I know is the chromosomal question mark who goes by the name of Williamson and wears jumper number 22 - true story. Thats all you get because I have to cook dinner now.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Still not sure if you are serious or not but might be wise to remember that Waite was 32 in the first year that he played at North. He had played 11, 14 and 16 games in his last three years with us.
I don't agree. Jarrad Waite signed a 2-year deal, yes at age 31, but having previously been a highly contracted player at Carlton and was on decent money at the Roos. While i'm not arguing the compensation should have been the same, the fact that we got nothing for Waite whereas Essendon were gifted a first round section for a three year deal on pretty average money for a bloke who had barely played a game in two years shows the corrupt nature of the AFL. While we haven't had many players lost via free agency, numerous other free agency trades around the league have gone through for more money and far less compensation than was provided to Essendon with respect to Daniher. The Daniher compensation was one of the most obvious examples of the corrupt nature of the AFL in recent years.
So they have or haven't taken measures?
One has nothing to do with the other
The 50 against Doc (which I suspect was an error even the AFL would admit) changed the game? Come on mate.
Magnifique JAB
Same here - the only yellow shirt whose name I bothered to look up after too many wtf episodes over too many games...
amp.abc.net.au
Pick any game this weekend and track the frees and stoppages attributed to a player dropping their knees. The above exploitation is trivial in comparison.
'Something we prefer not to see': AFL announces crackdown on playing for high free kicks
The AFL issues a warning that players will no longer be rewarded with free kicks when they duck or shrug their heads in tackles after debate over the umpiring of Collingwood's Jack Ginnivan.
“The AFL has sought to clarify its position on head-high contact.
It says a player with the ball, who is deemed to have a prior opportunity, and attempts to shrug, duck or lift an arm will be called for holding the ball.”
Yeah this will really clarify things. Umpire has to decide if there was prior opp, an attempted shrug, duck or arm lifting involved to call HTB. Good luck trying to call that consistently.
Yes the Daniher deal was very dodgy, as quite quickly down the track the Lions tacked another two years onto his original contract with the extra amount of money being part of the true deal involved and he was on less money over five years, whereas his first contract actually made it look like he was getting a bigger amount for those three years, and that deal was cooked up between Brisbane and * and the AFL knew what they were doing as other clubs bitched that something wasn`t kosher about the whole thing, but the AFL still gave the bummers the early pick. I still remember the other clubs scoffing when the Lions quickly added the extra years to the deal......and I agree that the AFL treated us badly with the Waite non-compo thing, as North obviously thought he still had something left in him.....
Elani just isn't a very good umpire.
Hanlon's razor: never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.
Correct, but the AFL is still responsible here. First, they could simplify and streamline the rules and stop introducing rules designed to artificially impact the product to allow the game to be more easily umpired. Second, they could provide a more enticing and supportive umpiring network through higher pay and full time position / framework. They waste plenty of money on various programs which do not impact the core product. Instead they should be focussing on maintaining the excellence of the core product and the rest will flow from there.
I don't disagree with any of that. All I was objecting to was the idea that any of the current set of umpires goes out there with a deliberate intent to pay frees one way.
