What unpopular AFL opinions do you have? (Part 1 - cont in Part 2)

[Hard Ball Get]

that's simply not true.

i don't even know how you can argue this. the free kick is for in the back... the exact place Cam tackled him. That free kicked is payed several times a week.

at the very most it's contentious but it is by no means a howler.

had it been paid in the first quarter or if the Saints were 5 goals up, no one would have even looked at it twice

His momentum carried him forward, Gwilt made the most of it. Play on. At the very least it's contentious but it's by no means a certainty.

Your last paragraph basically sums up 90% of contentious umpiring decisions.

As a side, there is literally nothing worse than a sports fan obsessed with what they perceive to be bad umpiring. It's a parallell for life, the sooking and complaining is consistent with the way they are in life in most instances. Nothing is fair and always hard done by. You can just imagine a Monday lunch chat with them at work.

 

[Gavin Excell]

His momentum carried him forward, Gwilt made the most of it. Play on. At the very least it's contentious but it's by no means a certainty.

Your last paragraph basically sums up 90% of contentious umpiring decisions.

As a side, there is literally nothing worse than a sports fan obsessed with what they perceive to be bad umpiring. It's a parallell for life, the sooking and complaining is consistent with the way they are in life in most instances. Nothing is fair and always hard done by. You can just imagine a Monday lunch chat with them at work.

While true, we must all accept the Saints have suffered most by corrupt umpiring

 

[Skeptic]

His momentum carried him forward, Gwilt made the most of it. Play on. At the very least it's contentious but it's by no means a certainty.

Your last paragraph basically sums up 90% of contentious umpiring decisions.

As a side, there is literally nothing worse than a sports fan obsessed with what they perceive to be bad umpiring. It's a parallell for life, the sooking and complaining is consistent with the way they are in life in most instances. Nothing is fair and always hard done by. You can just imagine a Monday lunch chat with them at work.

I'm not saying it was a certainty... in that scenario I say umpires call. Even if it was Gwilt's momentum carried him forward, and that's a very dubious claim that you can't say definitively (which is ironic considering the position of a number of Bulldogs fans not 2 pages ago), Mooney still went into his back.

that is an undeniable fact

if it was more Gwilt playing it up (and it could be) fine but I certainly wouldn't crucify the ump for the call.

9/10 on first glance that's a free

 

[Hard Ball Get]

I'm not saying it was a certainty... in that scenario I say umpires call. Even if it was Gwilt's momentum carried him forward, and that's a very dubious claim that you can't say definitively (which is ironic considering the position of a number of Bulldogs fans not 2 pages ago), Mooney still went into his back.

that is an undeniable fact

if it was more Gwilt playing it up (and it could be) fine but I certainly wouldn't crucify the ump for the call.

9/10 on first glance that's a free

I never crucified the up? I said I thought it was play on. I've made my thoughts known on umpire bashing and people that constantly blame poor umpiring. It's pathetic.

I'd say it should be called play on in that situation. It's not a horrible call worth berating an umpire over, but think he made an error, no bigger than any other of the 3-4 he probably made that night. The opinion of others that happen to support the same club as me is irrelevant.

An irrational wild eyed individual with a lot of time on their hands might claim that the AFL aided a Saints victory and that it was rigged and the only reason they won was due to clear help from umps. I don't buy into garbage like that though...

 

[Skeptic]

I never crucified the up? I said I thought it was play on. I've made my thoughts known on umpire bashing and people that constantly blame poor umpiring. It's pathetic.

I'd say it should be called play on in that situation. It's not a horrible call worth berating an umpire over, but think he made an error, no bigger than any other of the 3-4 he probably made that night. The opinion of others that happen to support the same club as me is irrelevant.

An irrational wild eyed individual with a lot of time on their hands might claim that the AFL aided a Saints victory and that it was rigged and the only reason they won was due to clear help from umps. I don't buy into garbage like that though...

you're saying there is a definitive right or wrong answer to that decision.
you said it's play on every day of the week

I'm saying there clearly is not. Mooney tackled Gwilt around the waist and his body went clear into Jame's back...
that is a fact, indisputable.

what happened next is either Cam's momentum went forward into his James' back pushing him down, or Gwilt's own momentum carried him forward as you've suggested.

you can't definitively say either view is correct but my impression is seeing that once in real time means that will/should be paid most times.

my dig is the hypocracy in demanding proof for one thing but but making a similar judgment call and calling your observation a fact in another

 

[Hard Ball Get]

you're saying there is a definitive right or wrong answer to that decision.
you said it's play on every day of the week

I'm saying there clearly is not. Mooney tackled Gwilt around the waist and his body went clear into Jame's back...
that is a fact, indisputable.

what happened next is either Cam's momentum went forward into his James' back pushing him down, or Gwilt's own momentum carried him forward as you've suggested.

you can't definitively say either view is correct but my impression is seeing that once in real time means that will/should be paid most times.

my dig is the hypocracy in demanding proof for one thing but but making a similar judgment call and calling your observation a fact in another

Seriously...?

I'm not even going to dignify that with a meaningful response. If you want a s**t fight quote someone else.

 

[Skeptic]

rtheran for the record, I would prefer that this wasn't a free kick.

however in this game where the rules are frequently being tweaked, and there are 10+ frees a game paid for incidental contact that doesn't effect the play, soft frees for mark infringements, blocking, confusion over who the nominated ruck is, when a forward and and back wrestle each other in a contest etc. that's a free at least most of the time

 

[Skeptic]

Seriously...?

I'm not even going to dignify that with a meaningful response. If you want a s**t fight quote someone else.

yeah right,

good on you

 

[BotsMaster]

Mooney did fall into his back so the free kick was there even if it was a tough call to make at that stage of the game.

Yeah but that was due to Gwilt's momentum carrying him forward. Mooney tackled from the side and around the waist.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

It's a free kick.
Didn't need to do it. The ball was released before he ride him into the ground.
Tough call at that stage of the game but there

 

[Skeptic]

i think the point is that it's a line ball decision that's sometimes paid and other times not... and seeing it once in real time, it's a perfectly reasonable decision even if it's wrong.

it's certainly not a terribly bad decision.


anyone that says it's clearly wrong is a drop kick that has no objectivity.


and the response of "I'm not even going to dignify that with a response" is what people say when they've dug themselves into a corner and are stuck... classic mating call of someone running away LOL

 

[Hard Ball Get]

i think the point is that it's a line ball decision that's sometimes paid and other times not... and seeing it once in real time, it's a perfectly reasonable decision even if it's wrong.

it's certainly not a terribly bad decision.


anyone that says it's clearly wrong is a drop kick that has no objectivity.


and the response of "I'm not even going to dignify that with a response" is what people say when they've dug themselves into a corner and are stuck... classic mating call of someone running away LOL

I'd say someone who resorts to name calling is someone without a substantial argument. In addition to that, someone who reverts to name calling long after the initial discussions is probably a little childish. Someone with an axe to grind or a person deliberately trying to initiate squabbles. But alas, you've roped me in and that argument you so desperately crave can happen.

I never said it was a terriblly bad decision in fact I made a point of saying that. I said it wasn't a horrible decision, just one I thought he got wrong. If you think that means every decision is black and white then that's on you.

Your response told me that I think there is a definitive right and wrong for that particular decision. I never said that and I don't think that, see above. Basically what you're saying is this...

It's a decision that could go either way. If you say that it's all good.
If you say he didn't make an error and paying it was correct then all good.
If you say that he made An error in paying it, you're an idiot.

So basically, according to you, it's 50/50 but you can't think the other 50 because you're wrong. You have to think 50/50 or pay it. You can't thibk 50/50 or let it go.... Right got it.

Oh and um... you're a flog... am I doing this right?

 

[edgie]

Geelong only won 2009 due to umpiring assistance, particularly favouring Hawkins.

 

[the_big_sav]

- rule changes only happen every year to keep afl prominent during feb and fallback topics during the year

- meters gained is a fairly useless stat but average meters gained would be a 'better' or more 'meaningful' stat. even if it was ave gained with efficiency % too (i.e a player may average 40m per kick but only go at 60% compared to someone who aves 30m at 80% to compare who is a 'better' kick)

- i miss the preseason comp meaning something. would love to a knockout or round robin set up. maybe 6 groups of 3. best 4 play off for granny (prelims) while other 14 play 2 more practice matches?

- mcevoy (if fit) will have his best season as a hawk. with vickery and Roughead instead of dual ruck set up he can go back to being a 80-90% ruck which is when he plays his best

 

[Skeptic]

I'd say someone who resorts to name calling is someone without a substantial argument. In addition to that, someone who reverts to name calling long after the initial discussions is probably a little childish. Someone with an axe to grind or a person deliberately trying to initiate squabbles. But alas, you've roped me in and that argument you so desperately crave can happen.

I never said it was a terriblly bad decision in fact I made a point of saying that. I said it wasn't a horrible decision, just one I thought he got wrong. If you think that means every decision is black and white then that's on you.

Your response told me that I think there is a definitive right and wrong for that particular decision. I never said that and I don't think that, see above. Basically what you're saying is this...

It's a decision that could go either way. If you say that it's all good.
If you say he didn't make an error and paying it was correct then all good.
If you say that he made An error in paying it, you're an idiot.

So basically, according to you, it's 50/50 but you can't think the other 50 because you're wrong. You have to think 50/50 or pay it. You can't thibk 50/50 or let it go.... Right got it.

Oh and um... you're a flog... am I doing this right?

lol, so predictable..

and no you're not doing right. you're basically just resorting to making up your own lame arguments and debating those. the fact that you think the above is a rational thought is disturbing.

Lets go with a highly mature and sensible reponse... "I'm not even going to dignify this with a response" - i bet that shows you

 

[mike123]

His momentum carried him forward

Doesn't matter the tackler still can't land in his back.

 

[Hard Ball Get]

lol, so predictable..

and no you're not doing right. you're basically just resorting to making up your own lame arguments and debating those. the fact that you think the above is a rational thought is disturbing.

Lets go with a highly mature and sensible reponse... "I'm not even going to dignify this with a response" - i bet that shows you

You're right, I should have stuck to that. 

 

[DemonTim]

lol, so predictable..

and no you're not doing right. you're basically just resorting to making up your own lame arguments and debating those. the fact that you think the above is a rational thought is disturbing.

Lets go with a highly mature and sensible reponse... "I'm not even going to dignify this with a response" - i bet that shows you

You're both arguing in the same manner, just on opposite sides. Makes the bolded even funnier, I guess

 

[Hard Ball Get]

You're both arguing in the same manner, just on opposite sides. Makes the bolded even funnier, I guess

The argument doesn't even make sense to be honest, which is why I initially tried to avoid it.
When someone tells you what your opinion is, it's pretty hard to engage in meaningful conversation.

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Geelong only won 2009 due to umpiring assistance, particularly favouring Hawkins.

Grand Final or whole season?

 

[edgie]

Grand Final or whole season?

Grandd Final

 

[Ricky Vaughn]

Grandd Final

Fair enough.

I obviously disagree, but I guess that's what this thread is about.

 

[edgie]

Fair enough.

I obviously disagree, but I guess that's what this thread is about.

There's the obvious one that hit the post, then there was another where he was awarded a free kick that he goaled, but after being given the free, responded by putting his hand around a Saints players throat and pushing him to the ground. Strong grounds for a reversal.

 

[Plugger35]

There's the obvious one that hit the post, then there was another where he was awarded a free kick that he goaled, but after being given the free, responded by putting his hand around a Saints players throat and pushing him to the ground. Strong grounds for a reversal.

The umpires also ignored a high tackle on Schneider in the last quarter which would have given him a shot at goal, probably payback for him sarcastically clapping the umpires in a previous game for awarding him a rare free kick.

As for the 2010 Qualifying Final, Geelong got quite a few favourable decisions in the 2nd half which helped them get back into the game, without those it probably wouldn't have been as close as it was at the end so it's a bit rich to say the umpires cost them the game.

 

[edgie]

The umpires also ignored a high tackle on Schneider in the last quarter which would have given him a shot at goal, probably payback for him sarcastically clapping the umpires in a previous game for awarding him a rare free kick.

As for the 2010 Qualifying Final, Geelong got quite a few favourable decisions in the 2nd half which helped them get back into the game, without those it probably wouldn't have been as close as it was at the end so it's a bit rich to say the umpires cost them the game.

In fairness to the argument of frees not deciding the game, he probably would have missed.