I’d be fine if that became the rule. Same with boundary throw ins.
You can punch it across in a marking contest. I guess with behinds you can also touch it as a defensive effort. Anything else, it’s a free kick against last touch.
“The AFL has conducted a review of umpiring decisions from Saturday’s Geelong vs Essendon match. We are comfortable that the decisions were correct and will be making no more comment on the matter”.
Don’t twist your brain into knots expecting anything different. In the unlikely event any statement differs from that, so what? I mean, who gives the very faintest of shiits? What’s done is done…
Perhaps next time we can grow some nuts, and not wave the white flag quite so comprehensively…
5 Likes
Exactly we wilted and dropped out heads and the comments in the press from Langford and Caldwell comes across as whining and soft. We need to be harder that that and come back. It’s annoying and frustrating and I do think it impacted the momentum and result but still we need to be tougher.
The fact that they peeled away so as not to have immediate pressure is horseshit. Is the player meant to turn around to see if they’re still on his hammer, thus creating prior opportunity and a free kick.
5 Likes
Great to see we haven’t heard a peep out of the AFL today
1 Like
They could bring Shaun Ryan back to justify the ANZAC Day 2019 calls…or was it Baghdad Bob?
Easy fix, scrap the deliberate rushed behind rule. If a player wants to concede, let them. If professionally paid umps (and players) can’t adjudicate what’s right and wrong so just get rid of the rule period. Less 50/50 rules, less confusion
4 Likes
You just know that Mollison is the f*cking problem. That bloke has screwed us time and time again
7 Likes
Ill almost…almost…overlook it if the umps give us an armchair ride to a win over the pies.
Then another armchair ride through to a finals win
Almost
I dont disagree that the players should have re-grouped, and got on with it. Thats what good teams do…etc.
But when its that bad I just think they where dumb founded. It was incredible. So many decisions in that short space of time worst ever umpiring. At the top level you only need to be half a percent off to look terrible.
The elephant in room though. I Know many see it as umpire incompetence etc.
But if that’s the case wouldn’t we see incompetent decisions going both ways? It was very very CLEARLY going one way, like the outcome of the game was pre-determined.
It does make me wonder once again.
7 Likes
The biggest blight on the game in this decade, is the players appealing for free kicks…… before the ball goes over the boundary line or it’s rushed for a behind.
There’s been times when players are appealing for a free kick for deliberate, and the ball doesn’t even go out of bounds.
It’s a f*cking disgrace, and needs to be stamped out.
9 Likes
Lets not forget when and why the rule was brought in. A certain team with hoops had a problem in a grand final they lost.
Yep the AFL darlings, whos ■■■■ dont stink. Whos captain can do what ever he wants and get cleared to play. Same team funny that.
A certain team who had an ex captain that brought in another blight on the game. Milking free kicks for dropping at the knees and getting smacked in the head. He was such a good role model for the kids though.
Let our kids learn how to get concussed great role model indeed.
In case you havent noticed I have that farking club with a passion
1 Like
Thats the players job.
As fans we can ■■■■■ and moan as much as we like
4 Likes
Totally agree who is showing less intent then. Remember the Simpson one I think in the wet against FC he could have actually got to the ball but let it go out.
1 Like
The whole reason they bought the rule in was so fullbacks wouldn’t walk the ball back over the line instead of kicking out. Teams were willing to concede a point or points to run the clock out. Pretty bad look if your full back wastes time then turns around and slots 4 points. Knowing our luck though we would kick it through the goals and the umps would pay it as a goal.
That’s what the rule was meant to stop. Not what happened on Saturday night.
3 Likes
The one that ■■■■■■ me off, was the one where Hind kicked the ball off the ground and wanted to run onto it.
The umpire calls it deliberate. It defeats the whole purpose of the rule.
There is such an emphasis on the umpires to let the game move, that the Hind decision is simply baffling.
What are they actually paying a free kick for?
1 Like
No.
Apart from that being a non-standard reading of such formatting, you have to remember that the rule was written after Richmond extracted the urine from the old rules. If you read bits of that as “and”, it does not stop the kick-out player from wasting huge amounts of time (as they come under pressure eventually, but only after they had oodles of opportunity to dispose).
What other team has been reamed as deeply as this & turned it around.
Answer is … none
2 Likes
Of course the AFL don’t want to explain it this week. Why would they want to bring attention to it and answer questions if they can hide like cowards and wait for people to forget or calm down.
7 Likes