Non MFC Matches - Round 10

[daisycutter 29,613]

52 minutes ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:

Last week the Umpires didn't call Ben Brown to play on, 40 seconds into his set shot.

They were correct tonight.

incorrect last week.

mot sure it was technically correct either

the 30 seconds start  (i thought) after the umpire has set the mark and lined up the player properly

[Willmoy1947 4,085]

I actually saw a free kick tonight for interference in the forward line off the ball....give that white maggot a cigar!!!!

[puntkick 325]

Guess what. Next week cats play crows at home for 3rd week in a row !

Despite not having a recognised coach I'm gunna stick my neck out and tip the cats.

That's provided they get the same umpires again. Worst performance by them in a while.

WARNING its again on 7 and if he's commentating SA's " special/ delicious " caller will be EXCRUCIATING. STFU.!

[Akum 2,660]

"Frees for" count:

• Dangerfreeld + 2 Duckwoods - 12
• Other 19 Freelong players - 14
• All 22 Port players - 17

The umps must surely be aware that they've been gamed. You know, that sickening feeling in your gut that you've just realised that someone's made you look like an absolute idiot and there's nothing you can do about it. What beats me is why they keep coming back for more.

[puntkick 325]

2 minutes ago, Akum said:

"Frees for" count:

• Dangerfreeld + 2 Duckwoods - 12
• Other 19 Freelong players - 14
• All 22 Port players - 17

The umps must surely be aware that they've been gamed. You know, that sickening feeling in your gut that you've just realised that someone's made you look like an absolute idiot and there's nothing you can do about it. What beats me is why they keep coming back for more.

Substitute they for us is the real question!

[FireInTheBennelly 4,072]

So ah, when's umpire appreciation round again?

[puntkick 325]

5 minutes ago, FireInTheBelly said:

So ah, when's umpire appreciation round again?

Hopefully Saturday in the springs !

[Diamond_Jim 12,578]

Swans V Hawks

12th v 17th

who would have thought it

Hard to see Hawks getting up but would not mind seeing the Swans get a little more humble pie.... Their success in recent years is staring to make some of their supporters Hawthorn like in their arrogance... (yes... I am insanely jealous!!)

[sue 9,102]

18 hours ago, daisycutter said:

mot sure it was technically correct either

the 30 seconds start  (i thought) after the umpire has set the mark and lined up the player properly

I thought they had 30 sec before they started moving towards goal on their run-up.  If I am right, this seems a stupid rule.  You could waste an awful lot of time by having a ridiculously long run up and walking in very slowly in a tight match.   Is there a common sense override?

But I'll be buggered if I can find any reference to it in the rules. Hard enough to find the rules at all.

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

31 minutes ago, sue said:

I thought they had 30 sec before they started moving towards goal on their run-up.  If I am right, this seems a stupid rule.  You could waste an awful lot of time by having a ridiculously long run up and walking in very slowly in a tight match.   Is there a common sense override?

But I'll be buggered if I can find any reference to it in the rules. Hard enough to find the rules at all.

The real rules are a tightly held secret stored in a secret underground mushroom farm so that interpretations can be made on the fly as it suits by the AFL illuminati.

Edited May 26, 2017 by america de cali

[daisycutter 29,613]

37 minutes ago, sue said:

I thought they had 30 sec before they started moving towards goal on their run-up.  If I am right, this seems a stupid rule.  You could waste an awful lot of time by having a ridiculously long run up and walking in very slowly in a tight match.   Is there a common sense override?

But I'll be buggered if I can find any reference to it in the rules. Hard enough to find the rules at all.

i'm still confused, i'm sure the ump doesn't do it by stopwatch so he must just guess it or someone is communicating to him by earphone. also seems unclear when the clock starts

overall though i didn't think he was slower than heaps of other times this year (esp norf's brown) where there was no play-on. why start to enforce it all of a sudden without warning and at a critical time in the game. this is the first time i can recall play-on being given for a set shot in any game.

surprisingly there has not been any real fuss in the media. sure it would be different it was a geelong set shot and they lost or if another vic team.   haven't checked a port forum (assume they have one) but expect they'd be livid

[Lucifers Hero 39,758]

7 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'm still confused, i'm sure the ump doesn't do it by stopwatch so he must just guess it or someone is communicating to him by earphone. also seems unclear when the clock starts

overall though i didn't think he was slower than heaps of other times this year (esp norf's brown) where there was no play-on. why start to enforce it all of a sudden without warning and at a critical time in the game. this is the first time i can recall play-on being given for a set shot in any game.

surprisingly there has not been any real fuss in the media. sure it would be different it was a geelong set shot and they lost or if another vic team.   haven't checked a port forum (assume they have one) but expect they'd be livid

The clock starts when the mark is paid.  (I assume that is on the whistle).  But the umpire can allow extra time if the ball is hit away/spills free in the mark etc.  The clock doesn't stop (I don't think) the umpire guesses the extra time.

What I thought was unfair for Dixon is he went to ground on taking the mark.  I didn't count how long it took to get up but I would guess at least 5+ seconds.  Normally, an umpire would allow the player that extra time and let the clock run out.

The media hasn't made a fuss because Hinkley said the umpire was right, while diplomatically adding he had never seen play on called before.  So he diffused any fuss.

I reckon Port were cheated not only with that call but all the holding of Grey that was ignored.  Hawkins got paid those against us!

[sue 9,102]

That's correct - if you read what Brown's coach says at http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-05-26/shot-clock-wont-time-out-on-brown

 they just have to start their run up within 30 sec.  Since there appears to be nothing in the laws about this, presumably it is a matter of 'interpretation'.  Maybe it is also interpretation  for an umpire to decide that running back to the oppos goals within the 30 seconds and then walking in for 5 minutes is not allowed. Or maybe it is if it is part of your 'natural arc'.

[Call Me What You Will 751]

Interesting how it now seems OK to drive your palms into your opponents head, chest or back whenever you "win" a free kick from the clowns for "holding the ball". See Roughhead in the first quarter. Unsociable? Guarantee that should a Melbourne player undertake such a tactic, then then clowns will not hesitate to reverse the decision.

[Deemented Are Go! 3,677]

What a crap game of footy 

[monoccular 17,427]

Just now, Deemented Are Go! said:

What a crap game of footy 

Not a Franklin fan but how could that not be a free in the marking contest?

[pineapple dee 2,892]

22 hours ago, Chook said:

Has an umpire ever called play-on for a player taking too long kicking at goal before?

NEVER !!!!!!!!

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

22 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Should have been a 50 metre penalty prior to the call of play on.  Umpire was looking right at it as well.  Pathetic from the umpires.

More craziness from the umps.

Here's a rule that is actually written down ... if a player goes into the "protected area", it's 50 (unless following within 2 m of his opponent).

Now here's the joke part...

The "30 seconds to take your kick" is NOT IN THE RULE BOOK.

Even if we give some leeway because it's commonly understood to be something that umps are supposed to rule on ... it's still bullsh!t because nowhere is it defined when the 30 seconds starts. Is it when the ump calls mark or free kick? When the player gets on the line of the mark and takes aim? No one knows. It's not defined.

So the umps stare at a blatant 50 and do nothing, and then adjudicate on something not in the rules at all.

The AFL has lost control.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The clock starts when the mark is paid.  (I assume that is on the whistle).  But the umpire can allow extra time if the ball is hit away/spills free in the mark etc.  The clock doesn't stop (I don't think) the umpire guesses the extra time.

Of course that will be written down somewhere. Or even in one of those explanatory videos the AFL put on their web site to explain the illuminations of the clarifications of the interpretations of the rules.

But it's more elusive than the Yowie.

[dl4e 5,851]

20 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

What a crap game of footy 

Thats right. However most games at the SCG are crap games. It is the worst oval to play AFL at. Oh hang on maybe the Sydney olympic ground is.

[sue 9,102]

2 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Of course that will be written down somewhere. Or even in one of those explanatory videos the AFL put on their web site to explain the illuminations of the clarifications of the interpretations of the rules.

But it's more elusive than the Yowie.

Is there any other sport where rules are not written down?  It is perhaps arguably OK to not revise the rules when you make a minor change to interpretation, but to not revise the rules when you think up a new thing like the 30 seconds it just amateur.  

[daisycutter 29,613]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 

The media hasn't made a fuss because Hinkley said the umpire was right, while diplomatically adding he had never seen play on called before.  So he diffused any fuss.

I reckon Port were cheated not only with that call but all the holding of Grey that was ignored.  Hawkins got paid those against us!

i couldn't believe hinkley defused the situation. there are just far too many grey areas in this "rule". you could drive a truck through the holes. despite this i'm still surprised others in the media didn't make a fuss over it but i suppose they are just too vic-centric in this case

dunno why it worries me with mfc not involved. i just wanted to see that smug scott's face when they lost, so i felt cheated

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i couldn't believe hinkley defused the situation. there are just far too many grey areas in this "rule". you could drive a truck through the holes. despite this i'm still surprised others in the media didn't make a fuss over it but i suppose they are just too vic-centric in this case

There is a groupthink at play, with the AFL executive, the umps department, and the media all in it.

They actually believe in "interpretation" of rules. In making up rules that don't exist (who can forget Gieschen's "natural arc"). In ignoring rules at various times for no good reason ("oh, that's a tiggy touch wood free!" .... "five minutes to go, the umps have put the whistle away!").

The media don't hold them to account because they have bought in to it and are too lazy to read the rules. Would have though that's one of the first things a new recruit into the footy media would do.

They have made it so hard for the ones at the coal face ... the ones in green ... that with no clear guidelines -- let alone a rule book that the powers pay any respect to -- no wonder their performance degrades by the week.

[beelzebub 23,364]

Interpretation of Rules is just as f'd as f'd can be.

Rules are rules.....unless the likes of Gil doesn't like it.   Oooh wait...he likes nothing straight up and down, doesn't really like rules at all as such.

The wrong ppl are running the game.

[Ethan Tremblay 30,856]

RIP a free kick being payed for incorrect disposal while being tackled.