7 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.

Stick to darts, faulty, you might know what you're talking about. Wark Waugh, Bill Lawry, Ian Botham, Tony Greig, Michael Slater and many, many others might just be a wee bit more qualified than you and Daryl and Emerson to know about such matters.

42 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; 

 

Steve Dunne the other umpire refused to no ball  Muralli when he started  bowling from his end. He said it was too difficult and unfair to call in real time and best left to the cricket authorities and video technology to judge.

Edited July 13, 20214 yr by John Crow Batty

My sincere apologies to all

43 minutes ago, faultydet said:

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.

 

 

 

On 7/12/2021 at 3:49 PM, Rocky said:

its shaky ground for us dees supporters to call out other teams for throws and ducks when we have oliver, harmes, ANB (throws) & kozzy & spargo (ducks).. like others have said, its unfortunatley 'part of the game' now and everyone seems to be doing it. for what its worth, i'd rather lose a game than win that way.

The ducking is now a big problem because the AFL didn't have the balls to stamp it out when Selwood started it years ago. Because he got away with it others have now started doing it as a tactic eg Hubter, McLean, Mathieson, Grimes, Spargo. It's not a good look and it's completely the AFL's fault for refusing to knock it on the head in the first place.

On 7/12/2021 at 4:23 PM, DeeSpencer said:

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!

He throws his head back though, that's the problem.

13 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He throws his head back though, that's the problem.

I don't mind that, he's been taken high, may as well let the umps see it. It's the engineering of the high contact which is his problem. 

Same with when guys have been genuinely pushed in the back, I don't mind them making sure the umps see it, because it's hard to know how much they are even accentuating the contact because been pushed in the back is really a nasty feeling at times. 

41 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I don't mind that, he's been taken high, may as well let the umps see it. It's the engineering of the high contact which is his problem. 

Same with when guys have been genuinely pushed in the back, I don't mind them making sure the umps see it, because it's hard to know how much they are even accentuating the contact because been pushed in the back is really a nasty feeling at times. 

It is remarkable how infrequently back players fall forward when pushed in the back compared to forwards.    The reason why is obvious.  You'd hope umpires would judge whether a forward deserves a free by the push necessary to move a backman.

So predictable…   11 frees to 25…… though we had more disposals!

What’s the answer against Footscray? Play behind, and don’t go in for the ball!?

Perhaps we should wait back till they’ve picked it up, then jump on them.

iIt seems to work for them… has done for decades, but the best example was the GF against the Swans.

Is it ridiculous to suggest that the free kick discrepancy was significant in the outcome of tonight’s match?

Goody needs to come and talk about how the doggies get favorable treatment from the umps. Someone hasn't to start calling this out. If i was him i'd fume about it in the post match presser.

2 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Is it ridiculous to suggest that the free kick discrepancy was significant in the outcome of tonight’s match?

No, as it was.

100% and 100%. Won them the 2016 GF and has won them games this year. I said before the game that to win, we would need to beat the umpires by getting within a 10 free kick differential between the weekly umpire darlings. Shame we couldn't do quite do that!

Dogs still have Dunkley, Stef Martin, Treloar & Easton wood to come back. Who have we got

When we play them in finals, let’s beat them at their own game and try throwing instead of hand balling!

22 minutes ago, Northern Summer said:

100% and 100%. Won them the 2016 GF and has won them games this year. I said before the game that to win, we would need to beat the umpires by getting within a 10 free kick differential between the weekly umpire darlings. Shame we couldn't do quite do that!

As I"ve said in other threads been going on for years, called it before the game.

15 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Dogs still have Dunkley, Stef Martin, Treloar & Easton wood to come back. Who have we got

Yeah, but if Umpire 22 goes down with a hammy their season is in serious jeopardy. He’s their second most influential contributor after Bont.

I admit, I would love some player somewhere to respond to the 'Do you think the free kick count affected the result?' question with a simple, "The fact is, if we are going to beat the Bulldogs in finals then we have to plan for that."

The Dogs get 4 free kicks to every 3 for their opponents, regardless of opponent, and they are the only club with a discrepancy like that.

Have the doggies ever lost a free kick count this year? How far in the positive are they now?

How's this for an outlier. And look at the discrepancy between them and the next "best ranked" team.

10 hours ago, Nascent said:

How's this for an outlier. And look at the discrepancy between them and the next "best ranked" team.

Sorry if I’m being daft, is that saying that they are +79 for the year? I’m a bit confused with the “FF” & “FA” part of the column. 

My brother and I were discussing the biggest issue of the free’s discrepancy. It’s the fact the almost every 50/50 decision, whether it’s a prior opportunity or an incorrect disposal or a block off the ball ALMOST ALWAYS goes their way. There’s zero consistency, case in point Hannan’s first goal we got a dogs player cold for HTB/incorrect disposal but it was called play on and then in the following stoppage Brayshaw gets done for HTB with little to no prior opportunity. English’s fluke of a goal came off the bulldogs player just dropping the ball. Lever, Gawn, May, and Hibberd were blocked from contests ALL NIGHT but we barely got a sniff at it, while the bulldogs got soft ones all through the night. 

If there had been fans at the ground the Dees faithful would have been frothing at the mouth. 

Edited July 25, 20214 yr by Pates

On 7/24/2021 at 10:54 PM, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

Is it ridiculous to suggest that the free kick discrepancy was significant in the outcome of tonight’s match?

I would like someone to explain what happens between the 2 half's. If I have this correct:

First Qtr  frees;  4 to 14,  Second Qtr  frees;  4 to 7.

Entire 2nd half frees; 3 to 4.

I suppose I should be grateful that the first half trend didn't continue but what changed and is this the norm? How do you go from 29 frees payed in the first half to just 7 in the second? Did Melbourne suddenly become more skillful? I would think that fatigue might cause more frees in the second half but that obviously wasn't the case.

To answer your question; in the first half the dogs got an additional 13 free possessions and it was like having an extra player out there. Those extra possessions resulted directly in a number of clearances and forward entries and at least 3 goals. I'm stunned we only went down by 20pts and managed to get it back to 4 at one stage in the last.

Can anyone recall if we got crucified in the round 11 game against them?

The free kick count of 16-15 would suggest not.