Even this Hawthorn supporter says Bombers were ripped off by the maggots in his review.
4 Likes
He even brought up a few more I missed.
Agree with all that but you also can’t deny that we have more inside 50’s and contested possessions so although we are no where near as clear and efficient as the Hawks, who did look to have our measure, removing those momentum shifting moments could possibly result in us winning.
Teams win ugly all the time.
1 Like
Finn McGuinness (I think) did the most blatant one handed handball/throw right in front of ump and not paid.
Could see Merrett blowing up about it too haha
8 Likes
The bolded is the big issue.
People are citing the prior opportunity as evidence to the correct call. And that is an accurate statement.
But it has never once been paid in this manner that I’ve seen.
1 Like
Yep - think how many times you’ve been watching a game & the commentators scream how the player could & should have rushed it through but they don’t understand the rule. IF its going to be interpreted the same as McGraths in any other match this year then players should almost never rush it through because strictly speaking having the time to dispose of the ball through the goals is the same as having the time to dispose of it elsewhere.
6 Likes
Saw that . So blatant. Like you say, right in front of the ump.
1 Like
Wasit because McGrath had possession and ended up handballing it through, rather than tapping it through in the other cases?
I think its purely because he slipped. When we slipped it was considered prior opportunity. When Hawthorn slipped it was deemed we’d tackled them too high.
5 Likes
Has to be - didn’t they say the Menzies one was a mistake last year after the game ans he was under less pressure than McGrath when he actually handpassed the ball.
One of the big issues is asking a bunch of people who sleep with the lights on to judge if a player is under pressure or not.
1 Like
The real issue is that the AFL deliberately leave rules ambiguous to create drama & give them some level of control (see the 2016 Grand Final). For the most part the rule has seemed clear - if you are outside 9m of the goals you can’t rush it through. Where the problems start is having words like “Immediate physical pressure” & “Time & space to dispose of the ball”. Nowhere are these quantified. Imagine the 1st part simply said if the players is too far away from the goals then what the hell is too far? The same confusion can be applied to what exactly is immediate pressure. That kent Chamberlain stated that because Watson was 4m from McGrath when he got the ball he wasn’t under immediate pressure which is just moronic because any player let alone a speedy forward can cover that 4m in less than 0.5 of a second. The rules could easily be clarified by having the 9m rule apply to all elements. If the players is within 9m of goal & an opponent is within 9m when they take possession then that constitutes an opportunity to rush a behind. Clear, concise & easy for all players, coaches & supporters to understand. Take the bias, the crowds & the control out of it & have actual rules.
8 Likes
I think it was because he left the goal square, then met pressure, slipped over, then put it through. So he had a clear option.
The one that made me laugh was related to the commentators’ outrage at Sam Draper’s lying on the ball and not penalised. Barass just laid on the ball…no effort…no outrage.
1 Like
In fact when Shiel rushed through a behind later in the match under way less pressure than McGrath, he wasn’t penalised. Maybe the maggots thought that the Hawks had it in the bag at that stage?
4 Likes
This is how you call out bad umpiring in the post game presser!
The storm off at the end is gold.
10 Likes
He’s so getting fined
worth it.
4 Likes
I found it disrespectful that he didn’t take his rubbish with him.
Also disrespectful he wasn’t wearing a suit.
4 Likes