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

[deck]

However, the umpire had blown his whistle about 5 times before pendlebury kicked the goal, making the Geelong players look at the umpire rather than the play. If he had called play on straight away, they would have applied atleast some pressure, making a Collingwood goal less likely.

The umpire blew the whistle the second time as he was kicking it. He never blew the whistle 5 times.

 

[Mickaman]

Fn maggots. Umpiring appreciation week. Never appreciated them never will.

Being beaten is one thing. But the maggots were against all night Dawes was being manhandled anytime he got near the ball. If a Pies player gave a cats player the wrong look the maggots gave the cats a free kick and cost us the lead back with 2 minutes to go. F U MAGGOTS!

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

However, the umpire had blown his whistle about 5 times before pendlebury kicked the goal, making the Geelong players look at the umpire rather than the play. If he had called play on straight away, they would have applied atleast some pressure, making a Collingwood goal less likely.

He was a couple of metres clear. Its reasonable to assume that he would have goaled anyway.

 

[rickyp]

Fn maggots. Umpiring appreciation week. Never appreciated them never will.

Being beaten is one thing. But the maggots were against all night Dawes was being manhandled anytime he got near the ball. If a Pies player gave a cats player the wrong look the maggots gave the cats a free kick and cost us the lead back with 2 minutes to go. F U MAGGOTS!

It's posts like this which make me embarrassed to be a Collingwood supporter. Why can't you just accept we were beaten by a better team? We were comprehensively outplayed. Stop looking for excuses.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

... Dawes was being manhandled anytime he got near the ball.

This much is true, and would concern me greatly if it happened at the business end of the season.

I couldn't help but get frustrated at the number of in-the-back frees paid to Selwood too, even my Geelong supporting friend whom I often attend games with was embarrassed by some of these.

Still, no big deal. The Cats killed us in inside 50's, clearances, scoring shots and we probably should have won anyway. We have to get some key personnel fit (esp. Jolly, Maxy, Tooves) and make sure next time we aren't merely being kept in it by Geelong's appalling inaccuracy.

 

[Catters 09]

Umpiring was poor but the only one that really mattered was disallowing Pendlebury to take advantage.

They have been paying advantage all year - often when there has been no advantage, and when the ultimate advantage is taken, its disallowed.

That was the winning goal.

how was it the winning goal when there was just over 2minutes left when pendles kicked it anything could of happend Geelong could have got a quick clearance and got another goal, we will never know

 

[Somebody]

That was definently not play on, for 2 reasons.

1) After the umpire called the free kick, the next player to touch the ball was Ottens. For it to be play on advantage, the team who gets the free kick MUST be the next team to touch the ball. They were not

2) Play had stopped. Have a look, Pendles "busts" through the pack of no-one giving a crap as the umpire is going ******* blowing his whistle. No Geelong players were applying pressure but Varcoe.

Just had a close look at the replay - so:

1) Whistle started blowing when Ottens had hands on the ball, finished blowing when Pendles had sharked the knock - so that is a line-ball and open to interpretation of the rule, if the rule you mention even exists which I doubt. If it does it shouldn't. there couldn't be a stronger example of exactly why the play-on rule exists - to avoid a team being disadvantaged by being given a free kick.

2) Varcoe is the only player who *could* possibly have stopped Pendles (and did tackle him) so it didn't make any difference anyway.

 

[PieNSauce]

It's posts like this which make me embarrassed to be a Collingwood supporter. Why can't you just accept we were beaten by a better team? We were comprehensively outplayed. Stop looking for excuses.

I have to agree. There was one decision that was a howler and the AFL have agreed that Pendlebury's goal should have been allowed to stand... end of story. It's impossible to say with any certainty that it would have won us the game with 2 minutes to go.

Geelong won because they got first use of the ball and that's the fact of the matter. I can't believe that anybody wasn't fully prepared for the fact that without Jolly we just were never likely to get first use and therefore we always were a 50/50 proposition at best.

Some people need to suck it up and recognise the positives from this game rather than simply looking at the scoreline. We lost by 3 points FFS with serious personnel issues. How could anybody see that as a negative?

 

[MatthewBanks48]

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...dvantage-rule-is-confusing/20110516-cbex.html

Pendlebury has come out this morning and said the whole rule is pretty much confusing and not a good look.

I'm an Essendon fan and I whole-heartedly agree with him. You guys were robbed.

 

[PieNSauce]

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...dvantage-rule-is-confusing/20110516-cbex.html

Pendlebury has come out this morning and said the whole rule is pretty much confusing and not a good look.

I'm an Essendon fan and I whole-heartedly agree with him. You guys were robbed.

I would probably agree that we were robbed if the stats didn't show that Geelong beat us in nearly every key stat.

We were robbed of a goal, not the game!

 

[rickyp]

http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne...dvantage-rule-is-confusing/20110516-cbex.html

Pendlebury has come out this morning and said the whole rule is pretty much confusing and not a good look.

I'm an Essendon fan and I whole-heartedly agree with him. You guys were robbed.

Which rule is that? The advantage rule in its current form has been in place a while now, the only difference from this season is if the umpire decides that there was no advantage he is no longer allowed to call it back. Otherwise its the same rule as it has always been.

 

[Somebody]

Which rule is that? The advantage rule in its current form has been in place a while now, the only difference from this season is if the umpire decides that there was no advantage he is no longer allowed to call it back. Otherwise its the same rule as it has always been.

So can you see the relevance of that change to this particular situation?

 

[rickyp]

So can you see the relevance of that change to this particular situation?

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.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I would probably agree that we were robbed if the stats didn't show that Geelong beat us in nearly every key stat.

We were robbed of a goal, not the game!

We were robbed of the chance to rob Geelong of the game.

 

[Neddysmith]

Being a GEELONG Supporter i am stepping into the lions den.....

But i will sy this....

The umpiring was consistant all night, TERRIBLE FOR BOTH SIDES, they should have put the bloody whistle away and stopped paying these very technical SOFT free kicks which it thought happened to BOTH sides.

I was watching it with a mate who is a Collingwood supporter and both of us were left scratching out heads time and time again when free kick were paid for either side, it was a great game ruined by over zealous umpiring!!!!!!

Oh and for the record Pendles was robbed, that should be advantage every day of the week, but we will take the 4 points.....

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Which rule is that? The advantage rule in its current form has been in place a while now, the only difference from this season is if the umpire decides that there was no advantage he is no longer allowed to call it back. Otherwise its the same rule as it has always been.

Rule/Interpretation of rule/application of rule.
It all amounts to the same thing.

Either way you cut it there has been a massive change this year. In past years the Pendlebury goal would probably have been disallowed. Under the current regime however the interpretation is clear that play on should be called if a player takes the initiative to take advantage.

We now have the ridiculous situation where the only time you can take advantage is when you saw the incident and know its your teams free kick. If you didnt see it, you cant afford to risk playing on, in case its your opponents free kick - you will give away a 50 metre penalty if you do so.

 

[PieNSauce]

We were robbed of the chance to rob Geelong of the game.

Exactly that. Had we won that game it would have been a total injustice given Geelong's domination.

Being a GEELONG Supporter i am stepping into the lions den.....

But i will sy this....

The umpiring was consistant all night, TERRIBLE FOR BOTH SIDES, they should have put the bloody whistle away and stopped paying these very technical SOFT free kicks which it thought happened to BOTH sides.

I was watching it with a mate who is a Collingwood supporter and both of us were left scratching out heads time and time again when free kick were paid for either side, it was a great game ruined by over zealous umpiring!!!!!!

Oh and for the record Pendles was robbed, that should be advantage every day of the week, but we will take the 4 points.....

Holy shit batman, a two eyed cats supporter!

 

[joxstrap]

This is another classic example of why the rule should be changed so that an umpire DOESN'T blow his whistle when ever there is a freekick when the side who won the free has the ball. He should just raise an arm and call 'advantage', then there is a set amount of time or distance (say two disposals, or 10 meters) for him to bring it back if the play resulted in no advantage. You could say that any shot on goal is an advantage to stop that situation occuring where a player has a free shot on goal.

This is how every other sport in the world uses the rule. The problem in our game is that the whistle goes and all the players stop. Then you get an artificial advantage when the opposition stops, you also get confusion about who won the free.

All they need to do is let the play unfold naturally, without a whistle, and bring it back if the team playing on gets tackled or turns it over. Then sound the whistle and bring it back to the spot the free was won.

It makes way too much sense to be implimented though.

Surely I'm not the only one thinking this way?

 

[Mickaman]

It's posts like this which make me embarrassed to be a Collingwood supporter. Why can't you just accept we were beaten by a better team? We were comprehensively outplayed. Stop looking for excuses.

Get off your high horse buddy.

Yes Cats were a better team on the night I can accept the loss.

What I can't accept is the maggots and their piss poor efforts. The maggots can go get stuffed.

If you thought the umpiring was fair that is your opinion but the consens was the umpiring was sh1thouse.

I have even had cats supporters say the same thing so why don't you get back in the hole you crawled out from you knobhead.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Exactly that. Had we won that game it would have been a total injustice given Geelong's domination.

A win's a win and we were robbed of one. Its irrelevant that we wouldnt have deserved it.

 

[PieNSauce]

This is another classic example of why the rule should be changed so that an umpire DOESN'T blow his whistle when ever there is a freekick when the side who won the free has the ball. He should just raise an arm and call 'advantage', then there is a set amount of time or distance (say two disposals, or 10 meters) for him to bring it back if the play resulted in no advantage. You could say that any shot on goal is an advantage to stop that situation occuring where a player has a free shot on goal.

This is how every other sport in the world uses the rule. The problem in our game is that the whistle goes and all the players stop. Then you get an artificial advantage when the opposition stops, you also get confusion about who won the free.

All they need to do is let the play unfold naturally, without a whistle, and bring it back if the team playing on gets tackled or turns it over. Then sound the whistle and bring it back to the spot the free was won.

It makes way too much sense to be implimented though.

Surely I'm not the only one thinking this way?

I'm pretty sure that's how it works in Union and I've always thought there's a better than ordinary case for it in aussie rules. Why the hell blow the whistle? It doesn't make sense and only ever confuses the player. If they think continuous play is the key to advantage then surely it makes sense not to blow the whistle. If a player plays on and takes advantage when the whistle is blown he is taking an enormous risk of being pinged 50m if his estimation of which way the call is going proves to be wrong. What's more, in 99.9% of cases most players will stop if the whistle is blown so in effect there is almost never a scenario where advantage is a true reflection of the advantage that would have existed had the play been uninterrupted.

A win's a win and we were robbed of one. Its irrelevant that we wouldnt have deserved it.

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.

 

[TownleyTime]

A win's a win and we were robbed of one. Its irrelevant that we wouldnt have deserved it.

Exactly. I've lost count at how many crucial games Collingwood have lost b/c of umpiring decisions when they deserved the victory. I'm not so sure that the opposition supporters that tasted victory in these instances said they didn't deserve the victories to justify the incorrect decision.

 

[rickyp]

Get off your high horse buddy.

Yes Cats were a better team on the night I can accept the loss.

What I can't accept is the maggots and their piss poor efforts. The maggots can go get stuffed.

If you thought the umpiring was fair that is your opinion but the consens was the umpiring was sh1thouse.

I have even had cats supporters say the same thing so why don't you get back in the hole you crawled out from you knobhead.

My embarrassment stands. And people wonder where the Collingwood supporter stereotype comes from.

 

[captain peanut]

can we please close this embarassing thread?

accept the loss and move on to what looms as a genuine danger game v neil craig and his boys this week

 

[rickyp]

Rule/Interpretation of rule/application of rule.
It all amounts to the same thing.

Either way you cut it there has been a massive change this year. In past years the Pendlebury goal would probably have been disallowed. Under the current regime however the interpretation is clear that play on should be called if a player takes the initiative to take advantage.

We now have the ridiculous situation where the only time you can take advantage is when you saw the incident and know its your teams free kick. If you didnt see it, you cant afford to risk playing on, in case its your opponents free kick - you will give away a 50 metre penalty if you do so.

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. The Pendlebury situation has nothing to do with the new interpretation, which involves an umpire recalling the ball after advantage has been paid, which it was not.

I'll say it again, in my opinion the play was continuous and advantage should have been called. However, it wasn't, and this has nothing to do with the new rule.