Observe his fumbling and bumbling:

 

2 hours 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? 

That could mean that at least some rules are being adjudicated correctly some of the time.

Which is indeed a dangerous precedent. I expect the AFL will clamp down on this nonsense immediately.

3 hours ago, Wiseblood said:

Dangerfield just got tackled and basically lay the ball on the ground.... 'play on'... Ridiculous.

The umpire was actually shouting “he handballed”.

Different rules for different players.

27 minutes ago, Robot Devil said:

Observe his fumbling and bumbling:

 

He cheats and it will diminish his footballing legacy after he retires..

Hawthorn’s style of play relies on good skills and a brilliantly coached system.

We rely on pure grunt and effort.

If we can get a bit more of the way Hawthorn play then we will be a much better and more well-rounded team.

49 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Hawthorn’s style of play relies on good skills and a brilliantly coached system.

We rely on pure grunt and effort.

If we can get a bit more of the way Hawthorn play then we will be a much better and more well-rounded team.

I hope that’s just a matter of evolution, mate.

I do get and ‘see’ your point.

2 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

That could mean that at least some rules are being adjudicated correctly some of the time.

Which is indeed a dangerous precedent. I expect the AFL will clamp down on this nonsense immediately.

Yes , you could be right, i am a touch dramatic, but our "Umpire ensemble" are "cometh the moment" devils, aren't they......

LMAO at Guthrie turning it over twice in the last minute to cost Geeloing any chance of winning, loved it, what's he got to say now, Karma

9 hours ago, Robot Devil said:

Observe his fumbling and bumbling:

 

 

Amazing that carey says " he doesnt duck" when he CLEARLY does in the segment shown. How can anyone see that clip ( and see this slice of it)  and say he doesnt duck??? amazing. Hes been doing it his whole career and should never have been able t get away with it. I think the way they judge the greats ( and like it or not I guess he is one...just one that cheats)  is different to the everyday player. 

Selwood is a cheat.  I put him on the same level as the Essendon drug cheats.

Would love to see him banned for a year too.

There was talk in the press (?HS) that Sicily shouujd he cited for kneeing Selwood.

The maggot should actually be cited for failing to penalize a very blatant trip, which brought Sicily down on to him

It's well known that "top" teams get better treatment from the umps.

The umps, like any spectator, seem to know who is "supposed" to win and conform to the script.

So if (eg) last year's grand finalists play last year's cellar dwellers, the cellar dwellers can expect the rough end of the pineapple in the important 50/50s. (They might get some cheap evener-uppers later.)

Not the rule, of course, but it is the trend.

This applies to individual players too. Champion players get away with more because they're better players so naturally less likely to infringe ... aren't they?

The very best attain the legendary status of "good bloke" and can do no wrong at all.

I mean a "good bloke" like Hodge wouldn't callously shove a bloke into a goal post, would he?

A "good bloke" like Judd wouldn't eye gouge another player.

A "good bloke" like Selwood wouldn't spend a career bending the rules to his advantage.

A "good bloke" like Ablett wouldn't approach the umpires at quarter time and give them some friendly advice unless he really had their best interests at heart. (Imagine if Clarry tried that.)

The umps have a really hard job, made harder by the conflicting direction they receive from above. Classic example: the protected zone. Hard policing of it this year. Red hot! Strictly by the book! For an entire round. By round two, forgotton. Because the chumps at AFL house have realised that the wording is too strict! What is the intent of the law? By the end of round 2, the player with the ball was again being crowded, or the man on the mark harassed, which are the very reasons why the rule was brought in.

And these amateurs (literally) have to adjust to this change of direction. Add in deliberate out of bounds, ducking, sideways kicking for goal (moving off the line of the mark) ... they end up umpiring to a set of rules that exist only in someone's head. (This year it's Hocking's.)

20 hours ago, McQueen said:

All this ‘Dangerwoodlett’ crap has me getting behind the Hawks today which makes me feel quite dirty.

Anyone else have a similar sentiment?

Looking forward to a future with Olivinacca.

21 hours ago, Robot Devil said:

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. 

Repeated concussions can have that effect ..... not sure if intentionally received ones are different that incidental ones though.  

23 hours ago, Robot Devil said:

Observe his fumbling and bumbling:

 

Geez, what a disgrace he is. Clearly uncomfortable, his languagr and body language give him away. If this were 30 years ago he would've copped a massive whack the first time he did it and he wouldn't have done it again.

And what happened to Wayne Carey? Looks more like a ladyboy than a former Aussie Rules great.

Sicily deserves credit for stomping on that cheater's head.