I wouldn’t go that far. It will be a meek and mild ‘enquiry’ and then accept whatever response is provided. What more could you expect from this Club.
Cooney also saying Ablett is a protected species, hard to disagree.
Fantasia said he did the groin injury in the first kick of the day, and still kicks 4 goals.
right quad - expecting to miss 2-3 so wont be back till after the bye.
6 Likes
The AFL decided to go for optics and say it was all OK.
McLachlan made the point and spelt that out very clearly. Actually praised the umpire for showing commonsense.
When it was clear to all a rule was broken and for some reason the umpire decided not to implement the rule.
Why go for optics? Especially after the disaster on ANZAC Day. They should have played the issue on its merits and called it for what it was - a very bad and wrong decision by the umpire.
They created a massive issue. Serves them right. But of course it’ll be forgotten soon enough. Unless some player would like to do the same thing to see how what happens.
What an inept, untrustworthy and disreputable AFL administration.
21 Likes
The words “Seeking clarity” are manifestly wrong. “Appealing the decision of the game” should have been used.
X man goes BANG!
Or was it more like a pop?
1 Like
All we can do is exactly what we are doing ie letting the AFL know in private that we are very unhappy with getting shafted again. There is nothing to appeal. The result cannot be changed as we were denied the chance to get in front on the scoreboard.
Our management complaining non-publicly, and our team and coaches forgetting about it and moving on, is absolutely the best response in this case.
3 Likes
It’s either the ‘let’s do whatever it takes for the Swans to win (after all, we can’t afford for them to have a bad season. We might damage our toe-hold in the Sydney market)’ basket. Or it’s the ‘let’s get Essendon for the trouble they caused with the Saga’ basket. Maybe it’s the ‘we’ll defend the umpires even if they don’t know the rules and/or are incompetent’ basket.
Whatever it is, it won’t be the ‘let’s get some competent umpires/ensure unbiased umpiring’ basket since the AwFuL don’t have one them.
3 Likes
So glad he got over his bad case of laryngitis. Had it for about a month I reckon.
Seeking clarity. ■■■■ me
X: so gil, about that free kick that shouldn’t have been paid
Gil: it was the right call
X: then why fine rampe?
Gil: It was the right call
X: sounds good, thanks gil.
Gil: see you in the big office in a couple of years
3 Likes
The AFL copped it for not back up the umps after ANZAC day, so came out and blindly back them up vs Sydney. This is the biggest problem with the umpires. The umpires should be accountable for their mistakes. This can only happen if they acknowledge their mistakes. Absolutely farcical that the umpires are demanding blind support, and even more farcical that the AFL are giving it.
7 Likes
More like a “pffft”.
And not a silent-but-deadly one either.
1 Like
What do we expect to gain out of this ?
That the AFL was wrong ? That’d be best case scenario… are they going to award us the game ? No. Simple as that.
1 Like
It’s the polite way to lodge a protest without actually lodging a protest because you know that there is no actual satisfactory outcome achievable.
It’s pointless, but allows us to register our dissatisfaction in a manner that allows our AFL overlords to not lose face any more than they have already inflicted upon themselves.
4 Likes
The stupidest part is there is still no clarification about the rule. Nufties are still arguing that climbing the goal post is within the rules and the AFL has not actually said it’s a violation. Going by Gil’s comments, I’m pretty sure it’s an infringement except when it could change the result and then it’s ok. Am I right?
The 2nd question is the one that’s causing the most discussion as there simply should not be an allowance for it
But yet we are seeing it happen time and time again
As Tim Watson, Garry Lyon and NRiewoldt discussed earlier in week sets a dangerous precedent if that is AFL’s position and continually different adjudication based on umpire interpretation/vibe at the time
Can be seen here…
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2657522157598249&id=264132003603955&tn=%2As%2As-R
2 Likes
Only to retract his statement moments later
13 Likes
“Id like to apologize to the afl for asking the question”
13 Likes
Apparently David King correlated the various videos in the last quarter and found that at the last stoppage Essendon went 5, 6 and 6. with a player running off the bench at the bounce to a favourable ? position for us.
Immediate uproar. Essendon cheating again?
No, its perfectly legal. At least that concern was put to bed quickly.
X went on to say he was sure it was not a standard practice that had been trained at Essendon.
However, some clubs have used a many as 3 players off the bench after the bounce where it was to their advantage, dependent on the position of the bench relative to the backline/forward line of course.
1 Like
AFL are farked. Rule is clear, post shook, free kick should’ve be given. Love how X gave the AFL a none to subtle whack about umpire subjectivity, the ROOT BLO_DY CAUSE of player/supporter frustrations. If it’s a rule and the act is as black and white as it gets, play the blo_dy free kick! How on earth are the AFL going to justify not playing the free when it’s an actual rule. Well done X for not allowing this issue to be swept under the carpet and for making the AFL and umpiring department accountable. Definite like by me and a show of backbone by the club to make this public as well.
4 Likes
Essendon ‘HEY AFL!!! Explain this to us?!!!
AFL ‘SHUT UP’
Essendon ‘Sorry’
1 Like