the fact that it grazed spargos arm doesn't mean it was the right decision. 

18 minutes ago, Billy said:

Spot on, l don’t care if we played ordinary & didn’t deserve to win, the fact of the matter is that the umpire was to weak to make a result changing decision in the last 30 seconds of the match

Exactly. Minor microscopic touch of Spargo makes no difference.  Murray punches it to the boundary line. 

Jon Ralph reporting that the AFL will admit the deliberate was the wrong decision tomorrow.

Only fair that they give us 2 points too (kidding).

Spargo touched it so it should not have been deliberate? Please.

The fact that was apparently not evident to a single person watching the game last night shows how ridiculous that is.

Besides I doubt that does in fact mean a deliberate cant be paid. I mean he deliberately tried to handball it over the boundary. And succeeded. And obviously showed no intent to keep it in sy, let alone insufficient intent. What does an imperceptible deflection change?

Edited May 23, 20213 yr by binman

1 hour ago, deespicable me said:

Yeah sure Macca, we have had a good run with umpiring in many of our early wins. Yeah the decision to Petracca was soft. My view on any deliberate OOB's is always the same. It's a raffle.

I'm worried your aligning yourself with coaches though. We are on a fan forum, you're not a coach any more than anyone here, so no need to try and take the "high" ground. 

I'm not actually talking about last night. Last night is just another example of my life long frustration with umpiring and I'd like to see it improve. This thread allows me an opportunity to put forward my opinion.

My opinion of the game was it was a great game. Tex Walker was fantastic. Doedee's smother in the last qtr was fantastic. I don't think Oliver has played a better game. He was sensational. It was exciting and the crows supporters should be very happy today.

Even neutral supporters would have enjoyed it because we've all known the pain of being robbed by the umpires and would have thought it great to see the undefeated Demons go down in such a way.

But I'm not walking away from the fact that the umpiring affected the result and I think we should try to improve that coz who wants a contest decided by officialdom rather than the contestants?

I see your point with the high ground re seeing myself as a would-be coach

That certainly doesn't mean that I'd be any good at it! (although I have coached)

It's the only way I can view footy (or any sport for that matter) ... I feel like I see a very complicated sport more clearly when eliminating passion. 

There are plenty of others here who post in the same way ... rjay, rpfc, Dee Spencer and numerous others

Everyone's different,  ds

As for the deciding of last night's game,  we made those decisions throughout the game and we made poor decisions (as a collective)

I could understand the angst if we'd played really well and then lost the game to a few questionable decisions

But we didn't play well and the new vision posted up by Mel Bourne changes things somewhat.  A Spargo hand in there?

Have you viewed the new vision and if so, what is your opinion now?

Edited May 23, 20213 yr by Macca

5 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

This.

I'll add Steven May to that list who was absolutely lazy with his defensive efforts yesterday. Gave a rookie no respect and was more interested in spraying other blokes rather then lock down and get the game on our terms.

Lever was worse. Sprinted away from McAdam for no reason that made May roll up and leave Rivers on Tex early. Panicked with the ball all night - conceded 2 goals from dodgy handballs, went sprinting off Fogarty to concede the second to last goal. Failed to tackle Tex on a clearly play on ball inside 50. Tex and the crowd were in his head all night and that’s a huge mental issue for Lever.

Overall our defenders were too keen on guarding space or generating extra numbers and not consistently on their men. That’s the game plan but they have to adapt to the opposition and the way the game is being played.

They have to trust each other to stick on their men and then peel off when needed. May in particular gets nervous if he’s not the deepest defender. He gets caught on the back foot rather than staying up on his guy. 

I’d rather Petty have 5 kicked on him and May and Lever stick to their guys than each of them getting beaten by being neither here nor there.

Petty is going to have goals kicked on him over the next 2 weeks. May and Lever have to trust him to halve some contests and fight through it. 

Either the umps should publish a consistent report of performance which includes a break down of multiple free kicks or they should stay quiet.

Press conferences post game aren’t required.

Leak to the media that it was an error and move on. 

37 minutes ago, gregdemon said:

Goodwin will hopefully have roasted the players after the game and I'm damned sure he wouldn't have even mentioned the questionable calls at the end (or at any part of the game for that matter)

 

More like " do not worry boys we are on a journey"     I like Goody but I cannot imagine him roasting anyone  maybe I am wrong

 

Most coaches have got a bit of a short fuse when it suits.  Goodwin would be no different behind closed doors (in my view)

Remembering he was coached by Blight who could fly off the handle.  Blight was coached by RDB

I wouldn't be taking any notice of any of Goodwin's pressers.  To me he looks like he is at great pains to not say anything of any substance (the Bill Belichick school)

The players will have been told where they went wrong (in no uncertain terms)

1 hour ago, Mel Bourne said:

New vision has emerged which sees the ball deflecting off Spargo’s hand. 
 

This is why he didn’t complain. 
 

case closed. 
 

 

No no no the ball passes underneath Spargo's hand.

Just watched the last few minutes on AFL web site they do not include the main cheat bit, but they did include the holding the ball and the mark by Tex from the back of the stand..

2 hours ago, Mel Bourne said:

New vision has emerged which sees the ball deflecting off Spargo’s hand. 
 

This is why he didn’t complain. 
 

case closed. 
 

 

Nah, you don’t understand the interpretation of the rule. You often hear the umpire state ‘insufficient intent’. That means the player wasn’t doing enough to keep the ball in play. Spargo’s hand (which I don’t think makes any contact in that video anyways) doesn’t matter if the player is hand balling purely to the boundary line.

If anything that video proves there’s nobody there for him to handball too. Deliberate.

Slow it down Spargo hand did not touch the ball

Also in the last couple of minutes Max was ping for holding it when he had no prior and did attempt to dispose.

 

Meanwhile .. watching the Pies v Power game ... umpiring is diabolical. Really horrible.

1 hour ago, binman said:

Spargo touched it so it should not have been deliberate? Please.

The fact that was apparently not evident to a single person watching the game last night shows how ridiculous that is.

Besides I doubt that does in fact mean a deliberate cant be paid. I mean he deliberately tried to handball it over the boundary. And succeeded. And obviously showed no intent to keep it in sy, let alone insufficient intent. What does an imperceptible deflection change?

Hang on Bin. Your first sentence was pretty emphatic, but by the third paragraph you were saying “I doubt”. Which kind of implies that it’s a bit of a grey area, no?

Look I thought the call was bovine excrement too, and nine times out of ten it would be called deliberate without anywhere near the scrutiny it’s copped. It’s interesting to note that a lot of “neutrals” commenting on that thread I posted from are saying that without Spargo’s deflection it might have found it’s way to the running Ingerson, which is unlikely but not impossible (as for whether he did in fact touch it is also debatable, but I’ve watched it a few (too many) times now and the ball does seem to deviate immediately after release, but I wouldn’t be confident making a decisive call. 
 

But the main reason I said “case closed” is because I think it’s in all our best interests to put a full-stop behind it either way. 

Edited May 23, 20213 yr by Mel Bourne

14 minutes ago, deebug said:

Slow it down Spargo hand did not touch the ball

I’ve watched it slowed-down and the footage is well and truly “inconclusive”. Not sure how you can be that confident. 

Last time I looked this is a fan site where you can blow off steam and express a view. I am not the least interested in being told get over it. The whole point of fan sites is to expunge yourself from disgraceful decisions such as last night. This wasn’t just a bad decision it was a disgraceful one made by a squib. There I feel better already

17 minutes ago, Mel Bourne said:

Hang on Bin. Your first sentence was pretty emphatic, but by the third paragraph you were saying “I doubt”. Which kind of implies that it’s a bit of a grey area, no?

Look I thought the call was bovine excrement too, and nine times out of ten it would be called deliberate without anywhere near the scrutiny it’s copped. It’s interesting to note that a lot of “neutrals” commenting on that thread I posted from are saying that without Spargo’s deflection it might have found it’s way to the running Ingerson, which is unlikely but not impossible (as for whether he did in fact touch it is also debatable, but I’ve watched it a few (too many) times now and the ball does seem to deviate immediately after release, but I wouldn’t be confident making a decisive call. 
 

But the main reason I said “case closed” is because I think it’s in all our best interests to put a full-stop behind it either way. 

I meant that I doubt the rule us if an opposition plsyer touches it voids a deliberate call.

For clarity sake I AM IN ZERO DOUBT THST WAS DELIBERATE OUT OF BOUNDS.

The rule was brought in exactly for that scenario. As was rhe insufficient attempt change.

And i don't understand the need to conflate the loss and the free. It is possible to discuss them separately.

It was an appalling error. And its not good enough

4 minutes ago, Deesprate said:

Last time I looked this is a fan site where you can blow off steam and express a view. I am not the least interested in being told get over it. The whole point of fan sites is to expunge yourself from disgraceful decisions such as last night. This wasn’t just a bad decision it was a disgraceful one made by a squib. There I feel better already

This is why I made my moratorium comment last night in the post the post game thread. I knew people were going to come in commenting on the negativity despite being 9-1 and all that kind of poetic nonsense. I just wanted 1 hr before coming back to reality! Haha

43 minutes ago, deebug said:

Slow it down Spargo hand did not touch the ball

Watched it several, times that was my opinion

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

Lever was worse. Sprinted away from McAdam for no reason that made May roll up and leave Rivers on Tex early. Panicked with the ball all night - conceded 2 goals from dodgy handballs, went sprinting off Fogarty to concede the second to last goal. Failed to tackle Tex on a clearly play on ball inside 50. Tex and the crowd were in his head all night and that’s a huge mental issue for Lever.

Overall our defenders were too keen on guarding space or generating extra numbers and not consistently on their men. That’s the game plan but they have to adapt to the opposition and the way the game is being played.

They have to trust each other to stick on their men and then peel off when needed. May in particular gets nervous if he’s not the deepest defender. He gets caught on the back foot rather than staying up on his guy. 

I’d rather Petty have 5 kicked on him and May and Lever stick to their guys than each of them getting beaten by being neither here nor there.

Petty is going to have goals kicked on him over the next 2 weeks. May and Lever have to trust him to halve some contests and fight through it. 

You have discussed the key backs now let's discuss the smaller ones and then the forwards. How were Hunt, Hibberd and Jetta's games yesterday?

Now the forwards, how do we assess the games of Weid, ANB, Spargo, Pickett and then Tom and Melk after quarter time.

Oh I forgot the mids. What do we think of the games of Jordon, Harmes and Brayshaw?  While I am at it, how about the Captain dropping about 4 marks and then tapping it straight to Rowe for a soft goal.

Aside from Clarry, who some idiots on here even suggested trading previously, which Demon didn't fumble the ball at all during the game.

I think I know why we really lost.  

8 minutes ago, binman said:

I meant that I doubt the rule us if an opposition plsyer touches it voids a deliberate call.

I know that’s what you meant. And I’m saying that because you “doubt” the rule is that, means it’s a grey area and perhaps not something that can be so emphatically shut-down. 
 

Logic says to me that a player in Spargo’s position touching the ball would immediately make it a “dead ball”. I’m willing to be educated here, but I’m yet to see anybody properly explain the minutiae of the deliberate rule in this particular scenario. 
 

I realise we’re into semantics here, but let’s face it, it all is unfortunately. 

18.10 OUT OF BOUNDS
18.10.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.
18.10.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:
(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds On the Full;
(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or
(c) fails to immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop the football directly to the ground once the football is Out of Bounds.

 

Nothing about the ball being touched or deflected. Either it was deflected and is still deliberate OOB, or it was deflected which can't be deliberate because Spargo had no intent. Except that's not in the rules. "Interpretation", I suppose.

2 hours ago, Mel Bourne said:

If the ball makes contact with an opp player it can’t be deliberate. 

Is that right?  

I doubt it, but you seem definitive so i guess you are correct. So it wasn't an error by the umpire after all

8 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

18.10 OUT OF BOUNDS
18.10.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.
18.10.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:
(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds On the Full;
(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or
(c) fails to immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop the football directly to the ground once the football is Out of Bounds.

 

Nothing about the ball being touched or deflected. Either it was deflected and is still deliberate OOB, or it was deflected which can't be deliberate because Spargo had no intent. Except that's not in the rules. "Interpretation", I suppose.

Great post blows the Spargo nonsense out of the water

8 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

18.10 OUT OF BOUNDS
18.10.1 Spirit and Intention
Players shall be encouraged to keep the football in play.
18.10.2 Free Kicks - Out of Bounds
A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who:
(a) Kicks the football Out of Bounds On the Full;
(b) Kicks, Handballs or forces the football over the Boundary Line and does not demonstrate sufficient intent to keep the football in play; or
(c) fails to immediately hand the football to the boundary Umpire or drop the football directly to the ground once the football is Out of Bounds.

Nothing about the ball being touched or deflected. 

Ta.

 Mel Bourne, perhaps you have a different rule book?