It's almost like CS has loaded up on with Ablett and with one last hurrah he's done... 

I believe we are up there with those 2 teams. Hawthorn played well but like last year seem to fade in the last quarter.

Can't get around either of those two sides, and I'm judging all you that did.

They tend to deliver good footy games though.

Watching a little bit in more detail on Foxtel.  I have never seen the amount of challenges by Geelong players to the umpires before.

Just not the "fetted three" but ALL of them in general. Clearly a direction from the coaching staff. It really works far too often.

Hopefully next week, with the normal home town umpiring in Perth, Geelong will fall again. Well I can hope.

 

 

28 minutes ago, MT64 said:

Watching a little bit in more detail on Foxtel.  I have never seen the amount of challenges by Geelong players to the umpires before.

Just not the "fetted three" but ALL of them in general. Clearly a direction from the coaching staff. It really works far too often.

Hopefully next week, with the normal home town umpiring in Perth, Geelong will fall again. Well I can hope.

 

 

If not a direction from the coach, it certainly reflects his personality.

Edited April 2, 20187 yr by sue

Hawthorn are just masters at carrying out the game plan and coherently making a final attack, even in last dying minute or seconds. Everyone else bombs it long in hope. Its what got them over the line so often in their 3peat years. The ip is still there for them, and they'll be a fierce competitor to make the 8. We have our work cut out.

 

Edited April 2, 20187 yr by Doodle Dee

As much as I hate Hawthorn, I still enjoyed seeing Geelong fail. They (Geelong) won't win the Premiership as they just don't bat deep enough. Stanley is an absolute spud and the decision to play him was perplexing. McEvoy was close to best on but he was up against a klutz.

Anyone else noticed that The Rules (as adjudicated) for the first three quarters are different to The Rules (as adjudicated) in the last quarter. Why???  ie play on's, Dangerfield/Ablett, deliberate OOB's, etc.

Are there dangerous precedents being set here? 

57 minutes ago, Gorgoroth said:

That was dropping the ball by Danger every single day of the week.

Staggering non- decision. Pi55 weak from the umpire.

1 minute ago, willmoy said:

Anyone else noticed that The Rules (as adjudicated) for the first three quarters are different to The Rules (as adjudicated) in the last quarter. Why???  ie play on's, Dangerfield/Ablett, deliberate OOB's, etc.

Are there dangerous precedents being set here? 

Willmoy that happens every match mate where have you been!!!!

2 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Anyone else noticed that The Rules (as adjudicated) for the first three quarters are different to The Rules (as adjudicated) in the last quarter. Why???  ie play on's, Dangerfield/Ablett, deliberate OOB's, etc.

Are there dangerous precedents being set here? 

You can only imagine the hometown decisions down at the Cattery. And when I say imagine, I mean it. They only allow a half dozen opposition supporters into the ground. And Foxtel normally does the coverage so you have two cameras. Shitesville.

5 minutes ago, DemonOX said:

Willmoy that happens every match mate where have you been!!!!

Ah, good, that explains it then..........

Haven't watched much non MFC footy this year so it was the first time I've seen Dermie.

[censored] me, is that hairstyle some sort of April Fool's joke?

The poor [censored] looks like a billy goat turned upside down.

FMD , what a buffoon.

26 minutes ago, MT64 said:

Watching a little bit in more detail on Foxtel.  I have never seen the amount of challenges by Geelong players to the umpires before.

Just not the "fetted three" but ALL of them in general. Clearly a direction from the coaching staff. It really works far too often.

Hopefully next week, with the normal home town umpiring in Perth, Geelong will fall again. Well I can hope.

 

 

WC got reamed by the umps vs Sydney so not sure that advantage transferred from Subiaco. 

On ‎4‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 1:01 AM, radar said:

Shades of Wayne Gordon and Wally Amadeus

I met Wayne Gordon a couple of times as my uncle was a very good friend of his.

Even though he belted Stan Alves in the 77 GF which I didn't like  he did cross to Melbourne and we also got John Dellamarta! and I think Charlie Pagnocollo!

Anyway he was very serviceable for the Dees and as I said met him socially a few times and he was a terrific bloke!

My Cousin ( Who was the same Uncles Daughter) was married to Cameron Clayton another Richmond/ Dees player.

I can tell you we had some pretty solid social events at my uncles in Richmond and Both Wayne Gordon ( RIP) and Cameron Clayton were excellent company and although I was a few years younger, Loved the Bonhommie!

I'll tell you one thing Wayne Gordon said to me. Pound for pound Robert Flower was the most skillful, bravest, and self effacing bloke he ever met on the footy field!

Anyway just sayin 

33 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Anyone else noticed that The Rules (as adjudicated) for the first three quarters are different to The Rules (as adjudicated) in the last quarter. Why???  ie play on's, Dangerfield/Ablett, deliberate OOB's, etc.

Are there dangerous precedents being set here? 

This game is classed as a final. The umpiring is so different to a standard game

 

51 minutes ago, willmoy said:

Anyone else noticed that The Rules (as adjudicated) for the first three quarters are different to The Rules (as adjudicated) in the last quarter. Why???  ie play on's, Dangerfield/Ablett, deliberate OOB's, etc.

Are there dangerous precedents being set here? 

Troy Pannell, Razor Ray or Matt Nichols. Their philosophy seems like its merely about entertaining viewers with squaring up margins or dictating how each contest will turn out. When the match feels under umpires tight control and you can sense that contentious frees will happen and be talked about after the match for their impact, you can be sure its one of them. Big ego's.

Edited April 2, 20187 yr by Doodle Dee

15 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

This game is classed as a final. The umpiring is so different to a standard game

Malthouse was on the ball with his comments a few times, and a couple of decisions re deliberate OOB's were about "waiting for crowd reaction to the moment" style decisions.

Ripping game, which is painful because I can't stand either side.

The thought of Hawthorn being a finals contender (or worse) after only one year out of the 8 is not enjoyable. But there was joy to take from watching Geelong struggle despite "the three" - for most of the game the midfield battle was completely even. Granted, Dangerfield had a massive fourth quarter but by and large the three of them weren't dominant.

Whilst the umpiring of this game is being discussed.

I didn't watch it all but in the times I was I noticed a couple of times when Geelong players wondered through the protected area without following an opponent and with no 50 metre penalty given.

As usual it seems a lot of these rules are hot early in the first few games of the year and dry up later.

One was at the end of this game when scores were level the kick to Roughy from Smith, Menagola changes direction to run directly past Smith's left side...umpire didn't have the courage to call it but it was so obvious.

So we are within 4 points of those two sides atm,  hmmm.

 And 1/2 dozen blokes have carried us.

Reckon we haven’t played that great yet, with quite a few 6/10ers. Melksham, Hunt , Bugg ,Harmes, Lewis, Jetta, Wagner maybe Salem, Pedders absolutely cruising and Jonesy ( who does some good stuff) but keeps on bombing it ,to watching it come straight back over his head.

Might be time to get with the program boys, every one of you can be covered by someone at Casey or someone who is injured.

Remember, no excuses anymore, you all have to beat your opponent.

 

 

 

 

 

Have enjoyed watching Selwood choke and stumble on Talking Footy as he tries to defend his arm raises and ducking. 

I’m surprised he doesn’t have a well worn list of cliche answers to conjure up when asked about it. 

He did eventually manage to change the subject to Tom Mitchell by mumbling something about angles. 

42 minutes ago, Robot Devil said:

Have enjoyed watching Selwood choke and stumble on Talking Footy as he tries to defend his arm raises and ducking. 

I’m surprised he doesn’t have a well worn list of cliche answers to conjure up when asked about it. 

He did eventually manage to change the subject to Tom Mitchell by mumbling something about angles. 

Don’t tell me even the media are starting to notice this blatant cheating....

Selwood is nothing more than a conjurer of apparition which the umpires fall for Time after Time after time.

An absolute disgrace!!

25 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Don’t tell me even the media are starting to notice this blatant cheating....

Well they noticed and played slow motion footage of him lifting his arm and for once in eternity not getting a free kick (probably because the umpires are jack of it).

The panel then said things like “you’ve been doing it since you were a junior so it’s not your fault” and “it’s not ducking” during which Selwood looked visibly uncomfortable even with all the excuses being made for him. Selwood then stumbled through a series of unconvincing and unrelated words that barely formed a sentence.

I suppose watching himself play for a free kick on national TV would be enough to stun him into gibberish.