POSTGAME: Rd 06 vs Gold Coast

[jnrmac 19,481]

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

this isn't true. it would be only true if he didn't make contact with the ball. which in this case he did 

Against Richmond Kossie flew high over a Melbourne player(!) and they gave a free to Richmond for an unrealistic attempt!

 

Outrageous.

[daisycutter 28,722]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Against Richmond Kossie flew high over a Melbourne player(!) and they gave a free to Richmond for an unrealistic attempt!

 

Outrageous.

yes the realistic part is open to interpretation, but it's not true to say if you fail to mark it, it will be a free. generally if you get your hands on it it will be ok, but there is still an element of interpretation. rankine's effort was realistic. can't remember cozzie's effort accurately

Edited July 16, 2020 by daisycutter

[sue 8,592]

22 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yes the realistic part is open to interpretation, but it's not true to say if you fail to mark it, it will be a free. generally if you get your hands on it it will be ok, but there is still an element of interpretation. rankine's effort was realistic. can't remember cozzie's effort accurately

Rankine did touch it, but it's often a free if you hit your opponent on the head at the start of your 'realistic' attempt as Rankine did. Hands on shoulders however are often overlooked, but usually only if you do actually mark it.  As you say, open to interpretation.

[BigFez 1,425]

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

Against Richmond Kossie flew high over a Melbourne player(!) and they gave a free to Richmond for an unrealistic attempt!

 

Outrageous.

That was outrageous.  On his own player and touched the ball as well.

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

4 hours ago, sue said:

Rankine did touch it, but it's often a free if you hit your opponent on the head at the start of your 'realistic' attempt as Rankine did. Hands on shoulders however are often overlooked, but usually only if you do actually mark it.  As you say, open to interpretation.

 

4 hours ago, BigFez said:

That was outrageous.  On his own player and touched the ball as well.

These are the hidden costs of being an unfashionable team.

Rankine = immediate excitement machine. (Luke Darcy voice:) Aw, gee, you can't award a free kick against an exciting player just because he's given away a free kick!

If it was Cyril Rioli, he probably would have been awarded a free against May. For attempted loss of balance.

The umps are so compromised in their directions, they barely know what game it is they're refereeing. They may think it's darts.

Only way out is to win games and have our own players considered winners and excitement machines.

[Pates 9,551]

9 hours ago, daisycutter said:

this isn't true. it would be only true if he didn't make contact with the ball. which in this case he did 

I've seen plenty of players make contact with the ball and the umpires still say "unrealistic attempt". He jumped early and took May out of the contest, from what I've seen that's usually a free kick.

EDIT it's also true it's open to interpretation, so my "every day of the week" point was probably a bit over the top! ?

Edited July 16, 2020 by Pates

[Dr. Gonzo 22,785]

I'm watching the replay this morning, I forgot how arsey all the Suns 1st quarter goals were! All 3 were kicked from relatively wild snaps Weller's was the most conventional being a kick from 50 out on the boundary.

We were reamed by the umps as well, multiple ridiculous calls went against us, none moreso than the 50 against Melksham and the non holding the ball call in our goal square.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,785]

Everything was rolling their way, even a kick out of their 50 into the centre of the ground went over Greenwoods head and he was surrounded by 3 Melbourne players. If he drops it we are off but he pulls in a one hander!

The holding the ball against Weideman also extremely stiff.