And then the farking cheating maggot awarded a free against us & the Cats ran the ball down the ground & kicked a goal. Thats a 12 point non free from that maggot.
Doubling down to enforce his rule was unforgivable after his stupid non decision. Sack this fark from the AFL minimum needs to happen
Saw that one. Also on the slow no replay you can see one of the yellow maggots come into the shot watching the whole thing.
Apparently it was ok because he didn’t use his hands?
They are also four teams that the maggots always favour - especially against us.
Looking forward to five or six changes in rule interpretations for next round and next round only, and then back to business as usual.
It definitely was.
It is also no coincidence that our game against Fitzroy that year was the only game I have seen where the maggots stitched up our opponents. It was not something to be pleased about.
If a player is tackled instantly, why is it considered prior opportunity if he has one arm free? You can’t throw it, and attempting to drop it on the boot is no different to having both arms held instantly.
He actually outbodied him by putting both hands right on Ridley’s number in the middle of his back and pushed. I’m sure that is within the rules.
Weirdest bit was the commentary team jointly insisting there was a “three metre rule” regarding rushed behinds.
It certainly isn’t in the Laws of the Game, and I doubt they were quoting a non-published interpretation .
I was distracted by rage: was it a 7-point play? The laws suggest but don’t outright state that would be the case.
He absolutely is allowed to go for the mark with his back to the ball, so long as he is looking at the ball. And one arm is fine - you can mark or spoil one-handed. He’s not allowed to miss the ball and chop Draper’s arms.
Draper’s free kick stats pre Adelaide dive (including Adelaide game as the dive happened right at the end,)
1.2FF, 1.8FA per game
Draper’s free kick stats post Adelaide dive:
0.66FF, 2.3FA per game
Assuming he hasn’t changed his playstyle and discipline inthe last 3 games, it seems that since the Adelaide game he’s become 30% more visible to the umps when he infringes, and has simultaneously become 50% less visible to the umps when he’s infringed against.
The most amazing part of the Draper free was the positioning of the ump. He was 10m away side on. He immediately called play on
55000 people were no closer than 35m away and flabbergasted that there was no whistle
The one that annoys me most is the people ticking off the Ridley HTB as fine because he could have dropped it onto his foot. ■■■■■■■ hell, he was being spun in a 360, if he dropped the ball it would have missed his foot and without a doubt they would have pinged us for incorrect disposal. There’s no winning.
“Incidental contact” is allowed during the marking contest if the player’s sole objective is to mark\spoil. There’s no requirement for the player to actually complete the mark\effect the spoil, or to even touch the ball, as long as the ump believes that doing so was their sole objective.
It’s entirely up to the ump whether whatever contact that occurs (be it front on, or an arm chop, or a tunnel (btw that word doesn’t exist in the laws of the game nor the tribunal guidelines) or high contact) counts as incidental or not. The ump justified the decision as Touhy was “contesting the mark,” so presumably the ump did think the contact qualified as incidental. The AFL have all they need to sign off the decision as being correct. Would be nice if the umpiring was consistent though.
■■■■■■■ dog ■■■■■ you know this is exactly how it’s gonna go, just defies belief this ■■■■■■■ league I’m so ■■■■■■■ angry still
Yes, the problem with this is that you could argue any arm chop was an attempt at the ball that just missed.
I thought it was pretty blatant, to be honest. As he did it, I thought ‘oh sh*t, that’s deliberate.’
But I thought the punishment for that was a ball up, not a free goal.
I think what they will do is pick the most egregious single decision against Essendon and admit that single one was an error. And not mention any of the others.
What about some of the other misse one - there was a clear over the shoulder in a ruck contrary to Draper right in front of the umpire. I just can’t see how you miss such obvious things. The Stengle mark one is actually ok he is using firearms not blatantly pushing with hands. Having said that they just don’t pay push in the back anymore. Guelfo was blatantly pushed in the back by Holmes when kicking play on.
Same with a lot of high contact; player at the back’s arm goes through the up-stretched hands of the player in front, gravity does its thing, and the defender’s arm ends up over the player in front’s shoulder. Often gets called high contact, even if the defender does spoil the ball, and I’ve seen it called play on (and therefore incidental contact) even if the defender doesn’t make contact with the ball at all. Enough grey in the rules for the AFL to sign off on either decision being correct.