25 minutes ago, Beetle said:

Shuey is as weak as [censored]. Refused to win a hard ball all game then lifts the elbow for a rubbish free kick late. 

 

Id take a weak as winning me a final anyday over a group of weak as who cant get the job done.....

5 minutes ago, Macca said:

I've been saying for over 30 years that the high tackle free kick should only ever be paid for a dangerous high tackle. 

Otherwise, the grey area of the high tackle ruling will remain forever. 

In league, union and even in soccer, incidental high contact is simply ignored and play just goes on (unless a player is hurt/incapacitated from incidental contact)

It's becoming more of a blight on the game as there are now numerous players who are able to milk high contact. 

might be cathartic to head over to the Port Board on Big Footy or similar

Will be interested in the replays. On TV it looked like a clear free kick but who knows

Wow what a ending. as soon as I saw it was Shuey, I thought yep he gets his ducking free. I can see why it was paid. 

Port had there chances especially in that 3rd quarter. I think we have found  anew team thats hurting more than us. 

I might be missing something but I thought the free kick was there. His left arm was low but the right was over the shoulder before Shuey slipped it higher. Getting panned for this view currently so won't be surprised if DL does too.

that was Melbourne's game to win... I hope the players watched and felt the misery of not being out there 

Just now, Diamond_Jim said:

might be cathartic to head over to the Port Board on Big Footy or similar

Will be interested in the replays. On TV it looked like a clear free kick but who knows

It nearly always looks like a free kick so why would we expect the umpires to be able to sort it out. 

As previously stated,  if we only ever paid high contact for a dangerous high tackle,  it wouldn't be such an issue.

Was the tackle on Shuey dangerous? In my opinion, obviously not. 

It should be play on and if he doesn't dispose of the ball properly,  he should get pinged.  That might seem harsh but is it?

I don't have a dog in this fight either - neither team holds any interest whatsoever to me.

45 minutes ago, Petraccattack said:

We drafted Toumpas over Wines

lol that in my opinion is worse than tambling over buddy, unforgivable 

the amount of twigs drafted in the hell years for Melbourne still haunts me to this day

wines is a beast.. look at Richmond all their players are strong and competitive yet not the most skilled team in the comp, they will go close to the flag 

The Port Big Footy Site is painful reading....

No complaints against that last free and overall acceptance...

To MFC supporters this comment may resonate:

" The mental fragility of this team will see us crumble following this game for next season"

 

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/a-fitting-end.1176756/page-2

Around the neck is always a free kick, imagine if that was an MFC player and it wasn't paid!!!

Imagine if it was an MFC player making the tackle and it was?

*riot*

5 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Around the neck is always a free kick, imagine if that was an MFC player and it wasn't paid!!!

the rules state that play on is called if the ball carrier is responsible for contact via a shrug, a drop, an arm lift or a duck

 

incorrect decision but umpires should be more consistent with the rulebook throughout the year 

Just now, Elegt said:

the rules state that play on is called if the ball carrier is responsible for contact via a shrug, a drop, an arm lift or a duck

 

incorrect decision but umpires should be more consistent with the rulebook throughout the year 

Looked like a high tackle to me. Tackle lower and you don't get pinged...

Just imagine if that type of free kick/non free kick that we saw in the Port/Eagles game was the deciding factor in a GF.

I've got the adjudication on the Shuey incident as play-on where as with the current ruling, there will nearly always be divided opinion as to whether it should be a high contact free or holding the ball (with these types of incidents)

 

Edited September 9, 20178 yr by Macca

I missed the game in its entirety.

Was busy having a shag.

32 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Looked like a high tackle to me. Tackle lower and you don't get pinged...

nope started around the chest then as shuey raised his arm the tacklers arm went around the neck

12 minutes ago, Elegt said:

nope started around the chest then as shuey raised his arm the tacklers arm went around the neck

Different Camera angles give different stories. 

Hadn't seen that Angle before. 

Where are the Umpires eyes?

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Actually, the goal was referred for review (you could hear the umpire referring it) and it was deemed ok, so the Centre bounce went ahead. Regardless of that, as the earlier goal by Port was accepted by the 3rd umpire when it was clearly touched at the same point of impact by the kicker as that Kennedy goal, then it had to be given.

But wow, what a game (apart from the 2nd and 3rd quarters).

That is something i dont quite understand....they say every goal is reviewed while the ball is being carried back to the centre (if its not asked to be reviewed)....so why ask any goal to be reviewed in the first place if its reviewed anyway?.....or i dont know maybe just stand there and wait for the all clear or something........whatever they certainly need to fix the friggin cameras, theyre clear as mud mostly.....try borrowing some of the tennis ones from Rod Laver arena i dont think they use em during the footy season.

2 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

WA just became unliveable for at least the next week. 

I know the feeling too. Papers will be full of Eagles crap.

My nasty wish was for the Eagles to lose by just ONE point. Then they would know what Melbourne felt like two weeks ago. Didn't happen. Next week my two least favoutite teams ( not counting Collingwood) GWS and the Weagles. Is it possible they could both be disqualified and play no further part this season. Wish it was.

5 hours ago, McQueen said:

I missed the game in its entirety.

Was busy having a shag.

It was a long game.

 

11 hours ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

Essendon look like a team that snuck into the 8 because they played the bottom 5 teams twice.. 

If we only played bottom five teams we probably would have only won a handful of games.

Shuey.... such a punchable head. What a little turd, but he got away with it.

I was thinking during the last qtr which team lost the coach is under some pressure to maintain their job. I think Hinkley could get the lemon and sars after a poor few years and losing a final they should have won.

GWS to win by 100 next week is a real possibility.

7 hours ago, McQueen said:

I missed the game in its entirety.

Was busy having a shag.

Better than a shag....  I can get a shag any time.

Watching a game like that in the last 10 minutes plus extra time might not come around for a very very long time

8 hours ago, Elegt said:

that was Melbourne's game to win... I hope the players watched and felt the misery of not being out there 

They were probably still hungover  after celebrating their achievements on mad Monday. 

7 hours ago, McQueen said:

I missed the game in its entirety.

Was busy having a shag.

Does it take you that long?