i personally have no issue with players who lower their centre of gravity in order to 'earn' a free kick for getting caught high; i think it's an accepted part of the game now and a genuine tactic - spargo is a master at it and salem cops his fair few high hits as a result of his low to the ground game too

throws are a different issue altogether and we're as guilty as any club; the funny thing is that that the few times that the likes of oliver have been pinged for it, on slo-mo it actually shows that he HAS handballed it; his hands are just THAT quick

the thing that annoys me the most about the standard of umpiring is the sheer inconsistency; not just game to game but within games

i think part of the problem is three maggots of various hue on field at all times; i'd prefer just two - make them professional and train them properly to sustain fitness required and quality of decision-making

5 hours ago, faultydet said:

I would detest Spargo if he played for another side.  He throws his head back every time he is tackled.

Only consolation would be Spargs receiving a free kick to win a grand final fŕom staging against Hunter or the faux tough guy from Brisbane who can't kick.

These head thrower-backerers and knee benderers really get my goat. Except Spargo. (Apart from the times he throws his head back. That really annoys me)

Spargo is often down over the ball and then turns his shoulder, raises his arm to lower the shoulder further and stays low to draw contact. It’s not great but to some extent it is part of the game, especially for a little guy who’s going to get and stay low. 

Im not sure I’ve seen him blatantly duck once he’s won the ball and come back up.

If I were coaching Spargo my advice would be don’t over do it and save it for when it’s really needed!

Not sure why anyone's surprised about their disposal. This is on their website.

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Fork 'em said:

I'd like the umpires to call frees that have always been in the game and be consistent with those.
You shouldn't be able to throw it.
Kicks need to travel more than 15m.
Push in the back needs to be paid.
Holding the man while h'es leading the race for the ball should be called.
A tackled player shouldn't be able to be spun 405deg before being called for holding the ball.
Blokes diving into tackles for head high contact should get told to play on.
A player shouldn't be able to waltz around the man on the mark who is being to "STAND" etc, etc.
 

Now you're being unrealistic and unreasonable. 

(sarcasm meter just blew up)

Edited July 12, 20214 yr by RigidMiddleDigit

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

professional enough

They’ll never be that until they’re fully professional. Improve the pool from which umpires are selected, make them full time and better paid. The way it is now is unsustainable. Too many games are adversely influenced because of umpiring inconsistency or unconscious bias. At worst, they destroy great games of footy. I would make it priority one for the future of the AFL. 

Mustn't replace a handball with a throw in the rules. The handball is a unique feature of our great game.

56 minutes ago, FireInTheBennelly said:

Not sure why anyone's surprised about their disposal. This is on their website.

 

 

 

You might run into trouble with 'calling' Muralitharan: he was cleared by the ICC because 'Due to an unusual hyperextension of his congenitally bent arm during delivery, his bowling action was called into question on a number of occasions by umpires and sections of the cricket community.^[7] After biomechanical analysis under simulated playing conditions, Muralitharan's action was cleared by the International Cricket Council, first in 1996 and again in 1999.^[4]

^{Brett Lee threw more balls than Muri.}

Edited July 12, 20214 yr by dieter

Tmac rarely gets a free kick cause he whinges for 10 minutes to the umpires after a non decision. Needs to change his ways. 

The reason they let the throws go is cause the AFL want to keep the ball moving.
They hate the congestion and if they have to let the odd throw out into space to allow that to happen .... So be it.

Similar to the old days when there were a series of ball ups and nothing moving.
The umps would pull a free kick out've their backsides to get the ball moving.

This thread wasn’t meant to be about throwing.

It’s about trying to work out how the Bulldogs get such favourable treatment from the umpires. Many posters seem to agree that they do ( and have done for many years).

I don’t think our players whinge about decisions more than anyone else( or that Footscray whinge less)( as suggested in Mazer Rackham and Dee Spencer’s posts)

I agree  that there are a lot of good, likeable guys there......but there are at all clubs. And that shouldn’t matter!

On 7/12/2021 at 5:50 PM, dieter said:

You might run into trouble with 'calling' Muralitharan: he was cleared by the ICC because 'Due to an unusual hyperextension of his congenitally bent arm during delivery, his bowling action was called into question on a number of occasions by umpires and sections of the cricket community.^[7] After biomechanical analysis under simulated playing conditions, Muralitharan's action was cleared by the International Cricket Council, first in 1996 and again in 1999.^[4]

^{Brett Lee threw more balls than Muri.}

Murali was the most blatent chucker in the history of cricket and was only "exonerated" because the ICC changed the rules to accommodate his cheating because of the bleating from the Sri Lankan officials. And of course, the inevitable cries of racism that accompanied their whining.

Darrell Hair was right for calling a cheat a cheat.

On 7/12/2021 at 3:52 PM, SPC said:

Tmac rarely gets a free kick cause he whinges for 10 minutes to the umpires after a non decision. Needs to change his ways. 

Not a big free kick winner but doesn’t give many away either. 186 games, 124 frees for and 134 against. 

18 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Murali was the most blatent chucker in the history of cricket and was only "exonerated" because the ICC changed the rules to accommodate his cheating because of the bleating from the Sri Lankan officials. And of course, the inevitable cries of racism that accompanied their whining.

Darrell Hair was right for calling a cheat a cheat.

Darrell Hair was a racist copper. Say no more. How you can call someone from the umpire's end, how you can call a leg break - which is virtually impossible to 'chuck '  - without an 'agenda' simply proves my point.

Edited July 13, 20214 yr by dieter

9 minutes ago, dieter said:

Darrell Hair was a racist copper. Say no more.

Was convicted of embezzlement in 2017

Edited July 13, 20214 yr by John Crow Batty

19 minutes ago, dieter said:

Darrell Hair was a racist copper. Say no more. How you can call someone from the umpire's end, how you can call a leg break - which is virtually impossible to 'chuck '  - without an 'agenda' simply proves my point.

Christ almighty. You are actually serious, aren't you?

 

Get your facts right mate.

Murali was an OFF BREAK bowler, who turned the ball the "wrong way" which is impossible to do without chucking it.

Edited July 13, 20214 yr by faultydet

I remember the Sri Lankan fans saying that Murali had had a "bad Hair day".

I also recall the crowd at Bellerive singing to him:

"Throw, throw the ball, gently down the pitch.  Murali, Murali, Murali, isn't life a b*itch".

I'm with faulty on this one and have no doubt at all that Murali was a deadset chucker for whom the rules were changed to accommodate his cheating.  Neither Hair's occupation nor his crime are of any relevance.

32 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Christ almighty. You are actually serious, aren't you?

 

Get your facts right mate.

Murali was an OFF BREAK bowler, who turned the ball the "wrong way" which is impossible to do without chucking it.

You have bad memory, Mister F. Hair kept calling him from the bowler's end. Murali resorted to bowling Leggies. Hair still called him...

22 minutes ago, demonstone said:

I remember the Sri Lankan fans saying that Murali had had a "bad Hair day".

I also recall the crowd at Bellerive singing to him:

"Throw, throw the ball, gently down the pitch.  Murali, Murali, Murali, isn't life a b*itch".

I'm with faulty on this one and have no doubt at all that Murali was a deadset chucker for whom the rules were changed to accommodate his cheating.  Neither Hair's occupation nor his crime are of any relevance.

Except for his 'ability' to call a 'chucker' from the bowler's end. Usually that's the Square leg umpire's' call. Also in question is his determination to call him even when he was bowling leggies so he could finish the over. Hair was an obsessed over-zealous zealot. He never, for the record, called Brett Lee...

5 minutes ago, dieter said:

You have bad memory, Mister F. Hair kept calling him from the bowler's end. Murali resorted to bowling Leggies. Hair still called him...

Because he was racist? Is that your concern?.

And it was quite easy to call him for throwing from the bowlers end, because it was so blatant. He was a chucker who straightened his arm during delivery.

Edited July 13, 20214 yr by faultydet

2 minutes ago, dieter said:

Except for his 'ability' to call a 'chucker' from the bowler's end. Usually that's the Square leg umpire's' call. Also in question is his determination to call him even when he was bowling leggies so he could finish the over. Hair was an obsessed over-zealous zealot. He never, for the record, called Brett Lee...

Lees' arm bent during delivery as a type of hyperextension, Murali bent his arm like he was having a beer with his mates, then straightened it in order to bowl a leggie with an off break action.

The law was meant to stop cheats, not to police hyperextensions.

You talk like it was a racist conspiracy and that is just embarrassing.

24 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Because he was racist? Is that your concern?.

And it was quite easy to call him for throwing from the bowlers end, because it was so blatant. He was a chucker who straightened his arm during delivery.

You can watch the over in question on You Tube. Hair CANNOT have, I repeat, CANNOT  watch a bowler's delivery from such close quarters. You have also ignored the evidence from the expensive tests to which he was subjected. Oh, yes, he was 'cleared' because of Sri lankas's influence.

For the record, Mr F, I played Sub District cricket in Melbourne from the age of 14, I opened the bowling and the batting. I know a little about what "i'm talking about.

Mark Waugh also doesn't agree with you; 

Also, it wasn't Hair who called the leg break, it was the other di..khead, Emerson. Listen to Mark Waugh....

Edited July 13, 20214 yr by dieter

13 minutes ago, dieter said:

You can watch the over in question on You Tube. Hair CANNOT have, I repeat, CANNOT  watch a bowler's delivery from such close quarters. You have also ignored the evidence from the expensive tests to which he was subjected. Oh, yes, he was 'cleared' because of Sri lankas's influence.

For the record, Mr F, I played Sub District cricket in Melbourne from the age of 14, I opened the bowling and the batting. I know a little about what "i'm talking about.

Mark Waugh also doesn't agree with you; 

Also, it wasn't Hair who called the leg break, it was the other di..khead, Emerson. Listen to Mark Waugh....

Hey Mr i KnOW WhAT i'M taLkIng aBouT

That is Steve Waugh.

 

And you CAN call a straightening arm from the bowlers end. It just means you are not looking at front foot call or the LBW line. Hair realised he was a cheat and decided he would call him for throwing.

No conspiracy, just a blatant thrower.

I also played darts once. I know what a throw is.

 

 

17 minutes ago, dieter said:

You can watch the over in question on You Tube. Hair CANNOT have, I repeat, CANNOT  watch a bowler's delivery from such close quarters. You have also ignored the evidence from the expensive tests to which he was subjected. Oh, yes, he was 'cleared' because of Sri lankas's influence.

For the record, Mr F, I played Sub District cricket in Melbourne from the age of 14, I opened the bowling and the batting. I know a little about what "i'm talking about.

Mark Waugh also doesn't agree with you; 

Also, it wasn't Hair who called the leg break, it was the other di..khead, Emerson. Listen to Mark Waugh....

Even Bill Lawry and Tony Greig were shocked at the calls. And that’s saying something coz Bill Lawry was sooooo biased for the Aussies. Second only to Chapelli IMO. 

Just now, WalkingCivilWar said:

Even Bill Lawry and Tony Greig were shocked at the calls. And that’s saying something coz Bill Lawry was sooooo biased for the Aussies. Second only to Chapelli IMO. 

Of course the were "shocked" A bowler was called for throwing.

He was labelled as a cheat. That is shocking to some.

3 minutes ago, faultydet said:

Of course the were "shocked" A bowler was called for throwing.

He was labelled as a cheat. That is shocking to some.

They were shocked not because they thought he was throwing, but because he was not throwing and yet was being called for it. Listen to it again. They are not in agreement with Hair’s calls.