We are being crucified

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I don't agree, if they paid it you would have less scrums. It would have to go hand in hand with the prior opportunity rule. The player would need to keep possession of the ball rather than just dropping it out as they do now. It would have no incentive either way.

I don't agree that players deliberately drop it all that often. For the most part players want to dispose of the ball so punishing them for when they do drop it (accidental or not) won't achieve a lot.

[Nasher 33,617]

Neutrals on BF were comparing it to the "absolute murder" game between Adelaide & Fitzroy over there in 1991. For anyone who remembers the game you'll know that that was the most blatant display of biased umpiring you'll ever see (Roos involved that game as well).

For those who don't remember (look at the free against Roos!!!);

I'd never seen that before. Sickening. I feel gutted for Fitzroy just watching that 2 minute clip. Who was the commentator voicing his absolute disgust?

[rjay 25,097]

I don't agree that players deliberately drop it all that often. For the most part players want to dispose of the ball so punishing them for when they do drop it (accidental or not) won't achieve a lot.

Yeah they do, they just let it drop loose and often. They get a slight knock and the ball drops free, their ball skills are not that bad.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Yeah they do, they just let it drop loose and often. They get a slight knock and the ball drops free, their ball skills are not that bad.

I don't think it's deliberate, if I had the ball and I could either drop it at my feet or handpass/kick it I know which one I would prefer.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Just be thankful we overcame all that. We won and your what if's dont change anything. What do you expect when we go over there with all the crowd hostility that gets louder and more intimidating when the game tightens up? Whining is not going to change human nature. Just like when everyone laughs at sitcoms with canned laughter over crappy jokes, no one is immune. A problem with us now is we can't generate huge hostile crowds to help sway umpires as much as WC, Pies, Crows etc. We may have not got into the 1988 GF if umpires were immune to crowd influence. WC's Ross Glendenning was denied a clear mark in front of goal in the dying seconds that helped us beat them by a couple of points.and advance to the prelim final. I prefer venting my anger for when we lose.

that is crazy talk

sloane hits the post = everything's fine no problem ump

sloane kicks it = let's kick up a fuss

ridiculous, illogical position to take on the issue

[rjay 25,097]

I don't think it's deliberate, if I had the ball and I could either drop it at my feet or handpass/kick it I know which one I would prefer.

They drop it towards a teammate to advantage wherever possible.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,315]

I'd never seen that before. Sickening. I feel gutted for Fitzroy just watching that 2 minute clip. Who was the commentator voicing his absolute disgust?

That was only the last minute, the whole last quarter was terrible from memory, I remember watching as a 9 year old barracking Fitzroy home and being utterly dumbfounded at what was happening.

I think the commentator was Peter McKenna, I've got the last quarter somewhere on disc with a news report from the following night as Fitzroy supporters had vandalised AFL House with some slogans about how they were robbed! Can't find the news report on youtube but the rest of the game is up there.

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

I'd never seen that before. Sickening. I feel gutted for Fitzroy just watching that 2 minute clip. Who was the commentator voicing his absolute disgust?

That would be the great Peter McKenna.

Edited May 4, 2014 by america de cali

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

that is crazy talk

sloane hits the post = everything's fine no problem ump

sloane kicks it = let's kick up a fuss

ridiculous, illogical position to take on the issue

What are the answers? If you know them, speak up! Every single sport has the same issues with home team support and cowered officialdom. Edited May 4, 2014 by america de cali

[rjay 25,097]

I think in general we have a big problem with the "Evans/Campbell" led umpires in that they've now taken rule of the week to a ridiculous level. It's become a popularist approach driven by media outrage and it really needs to be about the rules not what everyones up in arms about this week.

The first phase was the no rules throw the whistle away approach. Might only have needed to be out there to bounce the ball at the start and then let the game go.

Then came the throwing the ball, that's all forgotten, you can throw it again now.

The last couple of weeks it was taggers unfair tactics. All forgotten, do what you like again taggers.

This week it was 15 metre kicks.

What will it be next week. I reckon the sliding into players rule might get a run. The interpretation at the Geelong Richmond game today was just wrong on a few occasions, you can expect an over correction next week if the media jump on it.

Pay what's there, be consistent and get it right most of the time is the best approach I reckon.

[mauriesy 7,357]

Quite a few sliding into players and up-ending them in the Geelong-Richmond game today, without penalty.

[Redleg 41,503]

The other thing I'd do is instruct each player, that if you're holding the ball when an umpire wants it for a bounce or throw, put it on the ground, make them pick it up. Even tell them until they show us some respect they don't get any either. Is there any free kick rule against that?

They would pay a time wasting free and you could guarantee that player no frees for the rest of the game.

[camillo 106]

I'd never seen that before. Sickening. I feel gutted for Fitzroy just watching that 2 minute clip. Who was the commentator voicing his absolute disgust?

Being ex Fitzroy I remember that game only to well. But it isn't just adelaide some of the free kicks the swans got when they first went to sydney were just as rediculous. The powers that be want these interstate sides and AFL franchises up north to succeed. It's all about TV ratings and corporate earnings, they care little about the history and culture of our game.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

Why are we complaining? WE WON!

The best time to complain is after a win. Otherwise it looks like either whingeing or an excuse for losing, or both. And that sends the wrong message to the players who can find something other than their own performances to blame.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

What are the answers? If you know them, speak up! Every single sport has the same issues with home team support and cowered officialdom.

that is also completely incorrect

watch a game of tennis, golf or cricket, there is almost no umpire result on the outcome

i have watched the replay since and we seriously got a dodgy call on about 14 occasions, that is a 3-4 goal advantage easily, in a game where only 20 were kicked.. why do we keep tolerating this rubbish

[rjay 25,097]

Quite a few sliding into players and up-ending them in the Geelong-Richmond game today, without penalty.

...and more often than not the player doing the sliding got the free.

Watch this for rule of the week this week.

[John Crow Batty 8,879]

that is also completely incorrect

watch a game of tennis, golf or cricket, there is almost no umpire result on the outcome

i have watched the replay since and we seriously got a dodgy call on about 14 occasions, that is a 3-4 goal advantage easily, in a game where only 20 were kicked.. why do we keep tolerating this rubbish

Are you really saying there are no dodgy umpires in Cricket? Don't know what outcome you are looking for but I suggest the purchase of a stud finder may help reduce the injury and pain you suffer. Edited May 5, 2014 by america de cali

[Akum 2,660]

Two points:

Three Crow mids - Sloane, Wright, Petrenko - got 10 frees between them, at least half of which were by ducking their head (plus another for getting away with ripping off Jetta's head).

Second point: watched the Hawks very closely - you almost never see a Hawk sprawled on the ground with the ball trapped underneath them. It seems to be something they deliberately avoid, by only one player attacking the ball at a time and by keeping it moving. On the other hand, when they tackle, their objective is to get their opponent sprawled on the ground with the ball underneath them. It means that when the inevitable fickle umpiring decision comes, it's always in their favour, never against them. That's the way to do it.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Are you really saying there are no dodgy umpires in Cricket? Don't know what outcome you are looking for but I suggest the purchase of a stud finder may help reduce the injury and pain you suffer.

yes I am saying that you condescending clown, it used to be maybe one dodgy LBW decision in a 5 day match, now that doesn't even exist due to techonology/review systems, so yea, there is pretty much no umpire influence in cricket. It is certainly not in the same universe as AFL.

but of course you know that, it is very obvious, which means you are more interested in arguing than you are in actually being correct about anything and the moment that is clear i cease conversation with the poster in question. TW have you noticed that nobo9dy else in this thread agrees with you? does that give you a hint? goodbye.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Curry & Beer

[nutbean 8,838]

Why are we complaining? WE WON!

Because winning or losing and poor umpiring are two entirely different issues.

I don't think we particularly hard done by compared to Adelaide but I do think the umpiring was truly horrible.

Two things that really got up my nose.

Play on from a mark should be called if you move off your line or you have had used your allotted time - not after one second just because the ball has been chipped 20 metres sideways.

Not making a genuine attempt - I understand if you drag the ball in and dont make an attempt to get it out, although I also hate this rule because usually you have 18 opposition players sitting on your back and couldn't get the ball out with 20 tons of dynamite. BUT - the new interpretation when you get collared with no prior opportunity and have half the opposition team sitting on you and get pinged for not making a genuine attempt makes my blood boil ( Jack Viney free against for example)

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

Because winning or losing and poor umpiring are two entirely different issues.

I don't think we particularly hard done by compared to Adelaide but I do think the umpiring was truly horrible.

Two things that really got up my nose.

Play on from a mark should be called if you move off your line or you have had used your allotted time - not after one second just because the ball has been chipped 20 metres sideways.

Not making a genuine attempt - I understand if you drag the ball in and dont make an attempt to get it out, although I also hate this rule because usually you have 18 opposition players sitting on your back and couldn't get the ball out with 20 tons of dynamite. BUT - the new interpretation when you get collared with no prior opportunity and have half the opposition team sitting on you and get pinged for not making a genuine attempt makes my blood boil ( Jack Viney free against for example)

there was one against terlich, last qtr at half back, cost us a critical goal a couple of touches later, it was a pathetic call

[rjay 25,097]

Because winning or losing and poor umpiring are two entirely different issues.

I don't think we particularly hard done by compared to Adelaide but I do think the umpiring was truly horrible.

Two things that really got up my nose.

Play on from a mark should be called if you move off your line or you have had used your allotted time - not after one second just because the ball has been chipped 20 metres sideways.

Not making a genuine attempt - I understand if you drag the ball in and dont make an attempt to get it out, although I also hate this rule because usually you have 18 opposition players sitting on your back and couldn't get the ball out with 20 tons of dynamite. BUT - the new interpretation when you get collared with no prior opportunity and have half the opposition team sitting on you and get pinged for not making a genuine attempt makes my blood boil ( Jack Viney free against for example)

Me too mate, it's absolute garbage. The FD will need to employ an acting coach so all players can pretend to make a genuine attempt, whatever that is.

If you have been caught and there is no prior opportunity it is ball up, simple really.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

Me too mate, it's absolute garbage. The FD will need to employ an acting coach so all players can pretend to make a genuine attempt, whatever that is.

If you have been caught and there is no prior opportunity it is ball up, simple really.

Not quite. If you've been caught with no prior opportunity the player must still make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. And this is where the major problem lies.

I have no problem with a player who drags the ball in under him being pinged. But I don't understand how a player in any other circumstance and without prior opportunity can have a free paid against him for holding the ball when he can't even move his arms to make an attempt to dispose of the ball.

[rjay 25,097]

Not quite. If you've been caught with no prior opportunity the player must still make a genuine attempt to dispose of the ball. And this is where the major problem lies.

I have no problem with a player who drags the ball in under him being pinged. But I don't understand how a player in any other circumstance and without prior opportunity can have a free paid against him for holding the ball when he can't even move his arms to make an attempt to dispose of the ball.

I don't think you should have to make a genuine attempt, if you are caught with no opportunity then ball up. If you drag it in when you are on the ground then it is a free against.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,909]

I don't think you should have to make a genuine attempt, if you are caught with no opportunity then ball up. If you drag it in when you are on the ground then it is a free against.

I can see the point of the rule. Otherwise players won't make an attempt to dispose of the ball when tackled . They'd rather cause a stoppage as making an attempt under such pressure will likely result in a less than 50-50 chance to the team with the player being tackled whereas a stoppage will bring it back to a 50-50 contest.