I watched the replay again last night and while it was hilarious, the victim mentality was so far beyond a joke it was embarrassing. Their players falling into it and starting to focus on the umpires rather than the game made it even better, as did the fella having a crack at the umps as they walked off the ground with the female cop having to stand in between. Petracca's wave to the sooky fan after he kocked his 1st goal also a highlight.

3 hours ago, Dee Zephyr said:

Had to laugh when Tim Watson on 7 news last night said Essendon have resisted the urge to send a please explain to the AFL after Melbourne’s controversial win last Saturday night. Still struggling to see the controversy.

Wise decision. What good would it do? After all, the AFL are the ones in cahoots with the umps in this nightmare. Only people who refuse to wake up can't see that. If it wasn't for the umps -- obviously jealous that they were never good enough to play for the mighty Bombers -- pulling strings behind the scenes, the noble pure and strong Essendon Bombers would have won this year's flag already. And the AFL clearly are okay with this!

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I watched the replay again last night and while it was hilarious, the victim mentality was so far beyond a joke it was embarrassing. Their players falling into it and starting to focus on the umpires rather than the game made it even better, as did the fella having a crack at the umps as they walked off the ground with the female cop having to stand in between. Petracca's wave to the sooky fan after he kocked his 1st goal also a highlight.

The bomber fans were pumped up on Saturday. The match was going to be their coming out party for entering the 8. It was to be the confirmation of their charge to the flag by destroying the pretender Demons and extinguish the affront of us topping the ladder.  One can’t blame them entirely though, the media propaganda pumping up their vital juices has been relentless for the past couple of weeks. They couldn’t handle the game not going to script.

Edited July 1, 20214 yr by John Crow Batty

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I watched the replay again last night and while it was hilarious, the victim mentality was so far beyond a joke it was embarrassing. Their players falling into it and starting to focus on the umpires rather than the game made it even better, as did the fella having a crack at the umps as they walked off the ground with the female cop having to stand in between. Petracca's wave to the sooky fan after he kocked his 1st goal also a highlight.

I hear that spectator was arrested for abusive language and  fined ten thousand dollars. His Club was fined and his EFC Membership has been rescinded.

Then when i woke up i found i was dreaming, and realized that was just what should have happened.

16 hours ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

Got the vision??

https://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/967798/jones-receives-goty-nominations

4 minutes ago, Fork 'em said:

https://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/967798/jones-receives-goty-nominations

I always thought the ball had to clearly have left the boot before the boot crosses the goal line.

10 minutes ago, loges said:

I always thought the ball had to clearly have left the boot before the boot crosses the goal line.

That's how it has ALWAYS been adjudicated.

That goal annoyed me no end.

8 minutes ago, loges said:

I always thought the ball had to clearly have left the boot before the boot crosses the goal line.

i would have said the kick starts at the time the foot makes contact

and any part of the ball is not past the line

in this case the slomo video shown at the time was too fuzzy and lacking in fps. Since then i haven't seen any other slomo video released to the public

16 minutes ago, loges said:

I always thought the ball had to clearly have left the boot before the boot crosses the goal line.

Several people have posted this, but I don't see how this interpretation was even possible before high speed video was available.

As I posted earlier, the rules are silent on this matter since they don't define what a kick is (beyond being below the knee).  There is nothing there about a kick being complete when the ball leaves the boot. Nor do the rules say anything about  a kick having to be complete before the ball passes the goal line.

18 minutes ago, sue said:

Several people have posted this, but I don't see how this interpretation was even possible before high speed video was available.

As I posted earlier, the rules are silent on this matter since they don't define what a kick is (beyond being below the knee).  There is nothing there about a kick being complete when the ball leaves the boot. Nor do the rules say anything about  a kick having to be complete before the ball passes the goal line.

I recall many players poking the ball with their foot and withdrawing it before it crosses the line. It was always adjudicated that way when I grew up playing football. It doesn't appear to be in the rules now and I don't know when it was removed (or of indeed it was ever there) but I clearly remember that's how it was umpired.

Your foot was not allowed to be connected to the ball when it crossed the line.

Edited July 1, 20214 yr by jnrmac

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I recall many players poking the ball with their foot and withdrawing it before it crosses the line. It was always adjudicated that way when I grew up playing football. It doesn't appear to be in the rules now and I don't know when it was removed (or of indeed it was ever there) but I clearly remember that's how it was umpired.

Your foot was not allowed to be connected to the ball when it crossed the line.

That’s true. There was an interesting example in the same game. Tmac gathered the ball and was facing the goals but too close to the goal line and deliberately turned away from the goal face to give his leg clearance away from the goal line and pop the ball over his head. He knew if tried to kick it when he first gathered the ball his foot would have crossed the line with the ball. 

26 minutes ago, sue said:

Several people have posted this, but I don't see how this interpretation was even possible before high speed video was available.

As I posted earlier, the rules are silent on this matter since they don't define what a kick is (beyond being below the knee).  There is nothing there about a kick being complete when the ball leaves the boot. Nor do the rules say anything about  a kick having to be complete before the ball passes the goal line.

But if the kick is not complete before the ball crosses the goal line surely it would be regarded as a touched ball, or maybe not it is certainly very vague

11 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

I recall many players poking the ball with their foot and withdrawing it before it crosses the line. It was always adjudicated that way when I grew up playing football. It doesn't appear to be in the rules now and I don't know when it was removed (or of indeed it was ever there) but I clearly remember that's how it was umpired.

Your foot was not allowed to be connected to the ball when it crossed the line.

100% correct

Gee Bummers fans are ferral.

So much hostility.

Perhaps they got used to winning but they are up there with crows and west coast supporters now.

 

12 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

That’s true. There was an interesting example in the same game. Tmac gathered the ball and was facing the goals but too close to the goal line and deliberately turned away from the goal face to give his leg clearance away from the goal line and pop the ball over his head. He knew if tried to kick it when he first gathered the ball his foot would have crossed the line with the ball. 

But isn't it just as likely that he was trying to ensure it did not cross the line as he prepared to kick it.

Anyway, whatever our memories of a golden age when the AFL rules were well written (like all golden ages, there's no such age I expect), the rules as currently written are silent on the question.  And if anything the simplest interpretation of them as written is that the boot can be in contact with the ball.

I can't see how an umpire lacking a high-speed camera could ever judge exactly when a ball leaves a boot, let alone doing that while noting the position of the ball.  By high-speed I mean something better than the AFL s currently using.

Even with a decent camera, the camera would have to be near boot level - unlikely.    It is so difficult to judge that they'd be better to make the rule state that as long as contact with the ball is made before the ball crosses the line, then it is a goal.  

 

2 minutes ago, sue said:

But isn't it just as likely that he was trying to ensure it did not cross the line as he prepared to kick it.

Anyway, whatever our memories of a golden age when the AFL rules were well written (like all golden ages, there's no such age I expect), the rules as currently written are silent on the question.  And if anything the simplest interpretation of them as written is that the boot can be in contact with the ball.

I can't see how an umpire lacking a high-speed camera could ever judge exactly when a ball leaves a boot, let alone doing that while noting the position of the ball.  By high-speed I mean something better than the AFL s currently using.

Even with a decent camera, the camera would have to be near boot level - unlikely.    It is so difficult to judge that they'd be better to make the rule state that as long as contact with the ball is made before the ball crosses the line, then it is a goal.  

 

yes, that's the only sensible way

still have a problem judging the close ones, but no more than judging a close touch on the line etc

the only hope for better judgement is better high speed, high resolution cameras in the appropriate positions

the nrl and cricket camera work is better than the afl's work

1 hour ago, jnrmac said:

I recall many players poking the ball with their foot and withdrawing it before it crosses the line. It was always adjudicated that way when I grew up playing football. It doesn't appear to be in the rules now and I don't know when it was removed (or of indeed it was ever there) but I clearly remember that's how it was umpired.

Your foot was not allowed to be connected to the ball when it crossed the line.

This is how I remember the rule playing footy in the 80s and 90s and I reckon all who played then will agree.

Maybe it was a case of Chinese whispers and it was never a written rule back then,  but this is how it was played. 

You can guarantee that if it had been one of our players who was awarded a goal like that, Essendon fans would still be whinging long and hard about it.

They still crying? 

4 hours ago, loges said:

I always thought the ball had to clearly have left the boot before the boot crosses the goal line.

That's exactly what I thought but if you read the AFL rules it is a grey area. The ball just has to be kicked before crossing the line withiut being touched by an opposition player so you could argue a "kick" is when the ball connects with the foot not when it disconnects from the foot.

3 hours ago, sue said:

But isn't it just as likely that he was trying to ensure it did not cross the line as he prepared to kick it.

Anyway, whatever our memories of a golden age when the AFL rules were well written (like all golden ages, there's no such age I expect), the rules as currently written are silent on the question.  And if anything the simplest interpretation of them as written is that the boot can be in contact with the ball.

I can't see how an umpire lacking a high-speed camera could ever judge exactly when a ball leaves a boot, let alone doing that while noting the position of the ball.  By high-speed I mean something better than the AFL s currently using.

Even with a decent camera, the camera would have to be near boot level - unlikely.    It is so difficult to judge that they'd be better to make the rule state that as long as contact with the ball is made before the ball crosses the line, then it is a goal.  

 

Same way they used to adjudicate whether a ball was touched before it crosses the goal line. They stood there, looked at it, and made a call.

1 hour ago, Jaded said:

They still crying? 

Yep but now it's about how unfair it is they have to go to Geelong tomorrow and how unfair it is none of their supporters can get in. If you didn't know any better you would assume Essendon had relocated to WA they whinge that much.

Perhaps they thought this was somehow going to be the Goal or (shucks) point that they would be able to show the world where they won the Game against the Top of the Ladder opponent.......alas

12 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Yep but now it's about how unfair it is they have to go to Geelong tomorrow and how unfair it is none of their supporters can get in. If you didn't know any better you would assume Essendon had relocated to WA they whinge that much.

OH MY GOD, they haven't played in Geelong in 25 years. Try being us and getting sent to that dump every. single. year.

Cry me an absolute river Essendon. Such entitled wankers. 

They should be asking why they have been over 4 to 1 odds two weeks in a row in a two horse race 

Maybe its because they aren't as good as they think ?