The AwFL is banking on that “we” won’t.
And since EFC has done absolutely nothing against all sorts of corrupt actions — from suspending John Coleman through to making us scapegoats to cover up for Premiership winning drug cheats through to all sort of umpire abuse (ANZAC day, final against Footscray, Geelong game, all those Margetts games against wCE etc etc etc etc) — the AwFl would be pretty confident EFC would just bend over and take whatever they want to dish out.
The first AFL officials I remember getting booed at Grand Finals by all supporters were Aylett and Hamilton.
Of course there were more corrupt people before them especially that Rsole from FCFC … older Blitzers can enlighten us.
Appreciate the effort to write that up but you’ve made up a lot of stuff that didn’t happen and I’ve wasted my time checking. To name a few. Myers disposes of it correctly, Wright’s was deliberate out of bounds and De Koning clearly handballs, does not throw. I’d be a lot more worried about the umpiring if you were one. It’s a nice one eyed write up to make us angrier than we already are.
Well tell those farking maggots we haven’t forgotten the way they stitched up the game’s greatest ever player ever to get him suspended and cost us a flag.
Nor the way they then reported John Coleman when he was a coach. (Has any other coach been reported?)
Nor the way they gave the '68 GF to FCFC.
Nor the way the AwFL parachuted in that Rsole maggot Peter Cameron to intervene in the '80s to try to even up the comp when we had that champion team of champions.
Nor the way they stitched us up in the '90s Elimination Finals.
Nor the way they refused to give a vote to James Hird for his undoubted BOG performance against West Coke drug addicts.
Nor for them failing to see farking Rampe climbing the farking goalpost despite them previously reporting Fletch for even touching a goal post.
Nor for them waving Footscray through in that final
Nor for those disgraceful ANZAC Day travesties of justice.
Nor eleventy bazillion other “Sensible Umpiring” decisions they made against us over the years.
Not really relevant but worth posting anway.
Oh the chuckles when I see this😂
No worries Laura
My sister tells me that Mitch Duncan’s little boy’s favourite player is Sam Durham, followed by Dyson Heppell and another Don.
Not sure what you’re talking about. If you’re referring to Ridley worked under the ball, it was legal.
Draper - take your pick between front-on contact, or chopping of the arms. Both are illegal according to the rule-book.
Menzie was under pressure when he conceded - so it should not have been a free.
And Ridley, did not have prior opportunity, was penalized. I’d let this one go (given the new interpretations), except that they did not award the same free kick a few times when Geelong players had the ball. All I ask for is uniformity without favour.
All three happened one after the other, taking a very close game in the wet out of reach. And the players gave up after that. The odd howler happens from time-to-time, but this was beyond coincidence.
Why bother watching a sport if it’s not free or fair, where a team can win on merit (within the rules)?
We got rogered and our players got increasingly frustrated and demonstrative. It didn’t help
We need to learn to channel that frustration into aggression at the contest rather than releasing it in the direction of the umpires who will, and did, just double down.
fixed.
Kinda takes the shine off it doesn’t it? We have enough issues with our team actually performing at the required level and we might bust our ass all year to fall into finals and then potentially get rogered again due to some unknown agenda
You missed my point I think. I agree with everything you say- but apart from those mistakes by the umps there were frees for pushes in the back we should have had- yet again
A good team wouldn’t let bad umpiring decisions affect their performance, it seemed to have them rattled. It was a sign of immaturity
We are not a good team…yet.
Still.
Front on is not illegal if the ball is your only object (you don’t take your eyes off it up to contact). In dental contact is allowed, same as any mark. But he chopped the arm without really getting the ball. That’s the free.
This keeps being brought up.
The umpire was quite right to say that, as the player is absolutely allowed to contest the mark. That he had his back to the ball and there was some front on contact is all fine, because he had his eyes on the ball and was legitimately contesting the mark.
It was not a front on contact free.
However, it was the biggest arm chop of all time, and didn’t just chop them but pukked them down as well… how the umpire didn’t see that, who the ■■■■ knows.
He wasn’t contesting the mark because when it hit the contest he wasn’t looking at the ball and his hands weren’t in any position to grab the ball.
