****** Umpires!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Of course you'll take 4 points any way they come. The point was just about putting into their box those who believe that the reason we lost was because of one umpiring mistake.

When the umpiring mistake (which has been confirmed by officialdom as an error) is a disallowed goal to hit the front with just a few minutes left on the clock then theres fair cause for angst.

Its not as if I am sitting here whinging about Selwood's frees or Dawes being manhandled. These debatable things happen every week and you thave to go with the rub of the green.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the rule, however in past years as well as this year the same would have applied. The umpire deemed that the play was not continuous and called the ball back. It's the same interpretation as last year and all years prior.called. However, it wasn't, and this has nothing to do with the new rule.

I agree but it would have been applied consistently throughout the year. This year if you take off, its play on.

The umpires are this year instructed not to blow time immediately but to watch for a break and call advantage if neccessary, then call time when its clear play has stopped. But they blew time too quickly and thats why Pendlebury wasnt allowed to continue.

 

[Scodog10]

No, because whether it was this year or last year, the umpire judged that play had stopped and that advantage was not allowed. Whether or not you agree with the call is irrelevant, the new rule has nothing to do with it. If, however, the umpire called advantage and Pendlebury was tackled straight afterwards, resulting in a rebound goal to Geelong, then yes in this case the new rule would be in the spotlight.

This is where you're wrong, the call to not allow advantage was labelled incorrect by Adrian Anderson as there was no need to blow time on in that situation. I can agree that he was right to call it back once he had called time on, but again he should never have made that decision because it was clear that play hadn't stopped!!

The amount of time between the whistle blowing and Pendles grabbing the ball was the time it took for the ball to bounce maybe a metre or roughly a quarter of a second which nowhere near constitutes a stop in play. Just because some players stop for the whistle doesn't mean that the player who doesn't should be penalised, which Pendles was when the ball was called back.

 

[rickyp]

@Timmy, I know what you're saying, and you're right, I was just pointing out that it wasn't the new interpretation which stopped the goal. I heard that Pendlebury was talking about the 'new rule' so I thought I'd correct that notion.

I'll put this question out there, just to gauge a response.

What had a bigger effect on the outcome of the game. Didak, or the umpires?

In my opinion, it was Didak by an absolute mile. Yet we don't have a thread universally panning his inept performance.

 

[rickyp]

This is where you're wrong, the call to not allow advantage was labelled incorrect by Adrian Anderson as there was no need to blow time on in that situation. I can agree that he was right to call it back once he had called time on, but again he should never have made that decision because it was clear that play hadn't stopped!!

The amount of time between the whistle blowing and Pendles grabbing the ball was the time it took for the ball to bounce maybe a metre or roughly a quarter of a second which nowhere near constitutes a stop in play. Just because some players stop for the whistle doesn't mean that the player who doesn't should be penalised, which Pendles was when the ball was called back.

That's not what I said, I even mentioned later on that the call was incorrect, it doesn't change the fact that advantage was not called. If you read my follow up posts you'll see this

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

@Timmy, I know what you're saying, and you're right, I was just pointing out that it wasn't the new interpretation which stopped the goal.

Yes it was because umpires are now instructed to not blow their whistles and call time immediately. Part of the new interpretation involves the umpires supposedly letting play go for a few seconds to see whether theres a play-on or whether theres a stop in play.

In the past they would have called time pretty well immediately, as they did in this instance.

 

[Scodog10]

That's not what I said, I even mentioned later on that the call was incorrect, it doesn't change the fact that advantage was not called. If you read my follow up posts you'll see this

I was typing my post as you posted your follow up so I didn't realise that your opinion actually was that Ryan stuffed up

In my defence though it really did seem by the way you were tracking that you supported Ryan's misguided decision.

 

[PieNSauce]

When the umpiring mistake (which has been confirmed by officialdom as an error) is a disallowed goal to hit the front with just a few minutes left on the clock then theres fair cause for angst.

Its not as if I am sitting here whinging about Selwood's frees or Dawes being manhandled. These debatable things happen every week and you thave to go with the rub of the green.

Yes there's a fair case for angst at the fact that we would have been in front with 2 minutes to go. Nothing more and nothing less. The point, and I'll say it again, is that it did not lose us the game. Our crap play lost us the game and blind freddy can see that.

 

[rickyp]

I was typing my post as you posted your follow up so I didn't realise that your opinion actually was that Ryan stuffed up

In my defence though it really did seem by the way you were tracking that you supported Ryan's misguided decision.

No problem mate, thought that this might've been the case

 

[Scodog10]

Yes there's a fair case for angst at the fact that we would have been in front with 2 minutes to go. Nothing more and nothing less. The point, and I'll say it again, is that it did not lose us the game. Our crap play lost us the game and blind freddy can see that.

Can't argue with that, I view it as a sliding doors moment anyway along the lines of the Milne bounce in the GF. The odds are that in both cases the opposing team, Geelong on Friday us in the GF, would've taken it up the other end and kicked a goal from the resultant centre bounce because the result was destined to go one particular way regardless of one decision or bounce. The decision was wrong but did it influence the result of the match? Not in the slightest!

 

[PieNSauce]

Can't argue with that, I view it as a sliding doors moment anyway along the lines of the Milne bounce in the GF. The odds are that in both cases the opposing team, Geelong on Friday us in the GF, would've taken it up the other end and kicked a goal from the resultant centre bounce because the result was destined to go one particular way regardless of one decision or bounce. The decision was wrong but did it influence the result of the match? Not in the slightest!

I guess you have to concede that almost any outcome was possible but to assert one over the other just defies logic. The fact remains that had we not been smashed in nearly every key statistic in the game we would have won. We were and we didn't. /story

 

[Muffo]

I havent read every page of this thread, but has anyone mentiond the goal that Dick missed late in the 4th...?

 

[Bring back Moloney]

I was at the game Friday, and have finally watched a replay of the game.

I've already been WARNED by a mod for some of my comments regarding this thread, but I'd like someone to explain how ANY of Selwood's free kicks weren't clearly justified.

Not one time did Joel purposely "duck" his head as everyone would make it seem. The whole debate has been fueled by propaganda, and had got to the point where everytime Selwood recieves a free, people instantly think he's ducked to get it. Simply not the case.

Please show me video evidence from Friday night of him ducking. I'd love to see it.

 

[KissStephanie]

I've already been WARNED by a mod for some of my comments regarding this thread, but I'd like someone to explain how ANY of Selwood's free kicks weren't clearly justified.

This article from today's paper explains it pretty well, and I certainly don't think it's propaganda...

"Last Friday night presented an example of a tactic of Selwood's play to draw the free.

At the start of the second quarter and with the ball on the boundary, Selwood was down low and rising when tackled by Dane Swan. First contact was across the right bicep. Selwood turned into the tackle then rose, tucked the ball under his left arm and shot his right arm up. He didn't try to handball to a teammate in front of him (see vision in link below). What his action did was help move the tackle up around his neck and a free kick was awarded for too high. It was smart and it worked. Again.

His former teammate and captain Tom Harley observed the approach in the TV commentary: "He lifts his arm up and the arm of the tacklers slips up over the shoulder." It takes great smarts, to say nothing of strength, to do as Selwood did and few other players can manage it. Like KB, it does not diminish his standing as a player that he may seek to find an advantage and draw free kicks by exploiting the rules."

Not one time did Joel purposely "duck" his head as everyone would make it seem. The whole debate has been fueled by propaganda, and had got to the point where everytime Selwood recieves a free, people instantly think he's ducked to get it. Simply not the case.

He bends his knees and forces a tackler with his arm to grab him around the neck and head region. He is constantly drawing free kicks by exploiting the rules. This article is from last August, and I don't think it's propaganda either...

HAWTHORN legend Dermott Brereton believes Geelong midfielder Joel Selwood is cashing in by turning legal tackles into free-kicks for high contact. Brereton yesterday said Selwood was benefiting from a "clever tactic" after the Cats star won another four free-kicks for too-high tackles in Saturday night's loss to Collingwood.

Selwood has been awarded a staggering 104 free-kicks for high contact since the start of 2007, clearly No. 1 in the competition in that time. His brother, West Coast's Adam Selwood, is second with 86 and Sydney's Jude Bolton a distant third with 58.

Brereton said Selwood was "completely contributing to getting high tackles. It's definitely a tactic and definitely a secondary action to somebody who's applied a fair and reasonable tackle on most occasions," Brereton said. "He's not ducking, but he's making sure the same result is found. "The first point of contact is a legitimate area and he then makes a secondary action that makes sure it goes up around the neck."

 

[wmvaux]

I thought the umpiring was pretty good on the night, yes the Pendlebury decision went against the interpretation of the game this year, and I felt Dawes was man handled many times with no frees, but the better team on the night won.

I think we played at 80% and Geelong played at 90%, we had more players down and the way I see it, this time last year they beat us by 36 points, so we're 5 goals better than them this year

 

[Bring back Moloney]

This article from today's paper explains it pretty well, and I certainly don't think it's propaganda...

"Last Friday night presented an example of a tactic of Selwood's play to draw the free.

At the start of the second quarter and with the ball on the boundary, Selwood was down low and rising when tackled by Dane Swan. First contact was across the right bicep. Selwood turned into the tackle then rose, tucked the ball under his left arm and shot his right arm up. He didn't try to handball to a teammate in front of him (see vision in link below). What his action did was help move the tackle up around his neck and a free kick was awarded for too high. It was smart and it worked. Again.

His former teammate and captain Tom Harley observed the approach in the TV commentary: "He lifts his arm up and the arm of the tacklers slips up over the shoulder." It takes great smarts, to say nothing of strength, to do as Selwood did and few other players can manage it. Like KB, it does not diminish his standing as a player that he may seek to find an advantage and draw free kicks by exploiting the rules."He bends his knees and forces a tackler with his arm to grab him around the neck and head region. He is constantly drawing free kicks by exploiting the rules. This article is from last August, and I don't think it's propaganda either...

HAWTHORN legend Dermott Brereton believes Geelong midfielder Joel Selwood is cashing in by turning legal tackles into free-kicks for high contact. Brereton yesterday said Selwood was benefiting from a "clever tactic" after the Cats star won another four free-kicks for too-high tackles in Saturday night's loss to Collingwood.

Selwood has been awarded a staggering 104 free-kicks for high contact since the start of 2007, clearly No. 1 in the competition in that time. His brother, West Coast's Adam Selwood, is second with 86 and Sydney's Jude Bolton a distant third with 58.

Brereton said Selwood was "completely contributing to getting high tackles. It's definitely a tactic and definitely a secondary action to somebody who's applied a fair and reasonable tackle on most occasions," Brereton said. "He's not ducking, but he's making sure the same result is found. "The first point of contact is a legitimate area and he then makes a secondary action that makes sure it goes up around the neck."

What a load of rubbish.

The first line of that article says "Selwood was down low & rising", so straight away it's proven he isn't ducking.

He's gathered the ball off the ground, and is on his way up when Swan goes to tackle. As soon as the tackle hits, Selwood tries to break free, or shrug, the tackle. This seems pretty obvious to me, as why would anyone allow them selves to get tackled? Yes, this then can cause the tackle to slip high, and a free is justifiably rewarded.

Had Swan layed a tackle around the waist, or atleast lower than the upper bicep, then there's no way Selwood could manage to slip through.

Joel has done NOTHING wrong. He is simply trying to shrug a tackle. Sometimes he manages to. Sometimes the tackle is successful and he gets wrapped up, and SOMETIMES, when the tackle isn't applied correctly, it's high & a free kick is given.

This has not proven Selwood to be a cheat, far from it. It's just grasping at straws. He's just manipulating the tackler into giving away free kicks. It's not cheating, it's not dishonest, it's just smart play.

 

[Pie eyed]

What a load of rubbish.

The first line of that article says "Selwood was down low & rising", so straight away it's proven he isn't ducking.

He's gathered the ball off the ground, and is on his way up when Swan goes to tackle. As soon as the tackle hits, Selwood tries to break free, or shrug, the tackle. This seems pretty obvious to me, as why would anyone allow them selves to get tackled? Yes, this then can cause the tackle to slip high, and a free is justifiably rewarded.

Had Swan layed a tackle around the waist, or atleast lower than the upper bicep, then there's no way Selwood could manage to slip through.

Joel has done NOTHING wrong. He is simply trying to shrug a tackle. Sometimes he manages to. Sometimes the tackle is successful and he gets wrapped up, and SOMETIMES, when the tackle isn't applied correctly, it's high & a free kick is given.

This has not proven Selwood to be a cheat, far from it. It's just grasping at straws. He's just manipulating the tackler into giving away free kicks. It's not cheating, it's not dishonest, it's just smart play.

Put whatever spin on it you like. The portion of the footballing public with their eyes open know Selwood ducks, that he consciously lifts his arm to drag the tacklers arm up to his neck and that he benefits from the current interpretation of the rules. Harley has admitted it is a genuine tactic he and the other Geelong players were aware of even when he was captain.
You are going to have get over your own insecurities about it.
Personally I see nothing wrong with a player taking full advantage of a poorly enforced rule. Good on him. Until the umps wake up he should take every advantage he can.
If others see it as "unfair" or "cheating" then they are entitled to say so.
The one thing no-one can deny, regardless of your opinion on Selwood is that it happens and that he instigates it.

I don't really care how you justify it.

 

[Bring back Moloney]

He DOES NOT DUCK! I agree he uses a tactic to roll his shoulders and force the tackle high, yes, but I will never agree that he ducks, because he flat-out doesn't!

You may put whatever spin on it you like, but you're all using the term 'duck' as a general description, when it really doesn't apply to Selwood.

Instigate high-contact - YES
Ducking - NO

 

[topic97]

Does anyone think that perhaps he has been using this tactic for years, even back in his junior days, to actually shrug away tackles and that its just that they have changed and extremely enforced the head high rule over the past few years that he is getting the frees for it?

Honestly, anyone in that photo can tell that he has his left foot planted to stop him so he can change direction.

At the end of the day, he doesnt "stage" for frees as most would like to claim, every time he is tackled you see him immediately play on - unless its like the above tackle where you cant tell me that swan knew he had him around the neck by the time he makes that obvious dumping movement you can see above.

He may be taking advantage of the rules, but good on him.
Its no worse than the way nearly every other midfielder in every other team runs into a pack with their head down at one point or another to draw the high free - god I have even seen Swan and Pendlebury do this from time to time - and why not, if the umps are going to pay frees for it then good for them!! But I would never stoop so low as to calling them cheats for taking advantage of a ruling that has obviously got out of hand!!

Fact of the matter is the head high ruling has gotten out of hand and they really need to pull up players that are deliberately ducking and running into packs.

Personally I would welcome if they started picking Selwood up on his tactic, because 9 times out of 10 he shrugs the tackle and it would allow him to play on instead of having to stop and take the free and slow down play - usually for him being a good forward 50 entry!!

 

[topic97]

He DOES NOT DUCK! I agree he uses a tactic to roll his shoulders and force the tackle high, yes, but I will never agree that he ducks, because he flat-out doesn't!

You may put whatever spin on it you like, but you're all using the term 'duck' as a general description, when it really doesn't apply to Selwood.

Instigate high-contact - YES
Ducking - NO

I agree with this too.
There are more duckers in the Collingwood midfield than Selwood - and he doesnt duck!!

And having said that, nearly every midfield player ducks and runs into packs at one time or another.

 

[joxstrap]

You might be right Moloney, but what he does is lose his knees to help the contact high once a legitimate tackle has been laid. It's not the leaning forward type of ducking you normally see, but he's reducing his height to bring on contact by losing his knees, which is a type of ducking.

He's a complete gun and is getting away with his tactic, so good on him.

 

[Bring back Moloney]

You might be right Moloney, but what he does is lose his knees to help the contact high once a legitimate tackle has been laid. It's not the leaning forward type of ducking you normally see, but he's reducing his height to bring on contact by losing his knees, which is a type of ducking.

He's a complete gun and is getting away with his tactic, so good on him.

Yep, most Geelong supporters will have no problem admitting that he definitely helps the tackle slip high, that's obvious.

What we will not accept is the slur of being a 'ducker' or constant abuse of being a CHEAT.

I have just watched on the Foxtel replay right now that Swan freekick illustrated above from the newpaper article, and it was an OBVIOUS FREE KICK any day of the week. Watch it, and I dare you to say it wasn't a free.

Swan was sloppy and lunged at Selwood as he was still getting up. Blatant.

 

[DWil6]

Yep, most Geelong supporters will have no problem admitting that he definitely helps the tackle slip high, that's obvious.

What we will not accept is the slur of being a 'ducker' or constant abuse of being a CHEAT.

I have just watched on the Foxtel replay right now that Swan freekick illustrated above from the newpaper article, and it was an OBVIOUS FREE KICK any day of the week. Watch it, and I dare you to say it wasn't a free.

Swan was sloppy and lunged at Selwood as he was still getting up. Blatant.

Of course the tackle was high. That's what Selwood does. Creates high contact to gain a free. As does his brother. It's pretty damn obvious to every football follower and as the rules stand, he gets away with it. No issue here. Unless the rules change he will continue to exploit this advantage.

 

[Connoisseur]

Not Selwood's fault opponents are too physically weak to tackle him and make it stick.

I can't believe the sort of complaints I'm reading on this board. Are you people seriously suggesting Selwood should not even try to break a tackle?

Ridiculous.

Last time I checked the rules evading/breaking tackles was perfectly legal in Australian Rules football.

The fact Selwood has the strength to break his opponents grip and slip their arms all the way to his head (and sometimes win a free kick from that contact) is an indictment on the lack of physical strength of his opponent.

It's got SFA to do with him as a player.

 

[rose jam]

Not Selwood's fault opponents are too physically weak to tackle him and make it stick.

I can't believe the sort of complaints I'm reading on this board. Are you people seriously suggesting Selwood should not even try to break a tackle?

Ridiculous.

Last time I checked the rules evading/breaking tackles was perfectly legal in Australian Rules football.

The fact Selwood has the strength to break his opponents grip and slip their arms all the way to his head (and sometimes win a free kick from that contact) is an indictment on the lack of physical strength of his opponent.

It's got SFA to do with him as a player.

The tactic is weak. Other players stand up in the tackle to free their arms and give off the handball. Selwood takes the soft option by crouching and drawing contact that slips up from the shoulder into the neck which doesn't even tickle. It is soft. It is far tougher to take the full brunt of tackle and try and keep the play moving then crouching and cop a neck high arm.
Cheat of the highest order and the whole league knows it. They say it without being able to publicly say it.