I watched about half the Geelong v GWS semi last night and could not believe the number of blatant throws that were not called

In fact this season overall the blatant throws seem to have become common in almost every game I've watched 

The AFL seem hell bent on making the game as fast as humanly possible and minimize stoppages - I do wonder if the umpires are actually turning a blind eye to some of these throws because last night there were a series of absolute howlers that were so obvious - play on nothing to see here !

  

My favourite one was when Dangerfield threw it out of the back of the pack and James Brayshaw called it a party trick.

 

Edited September 4, 20214 yr by george_on_the_outer

Life imitates sport.  My cat just threw up a furball.

Yeah has to be either blatant of most blatant throws or right in the umps face or they aren't called.

1 hour ago, Sydee said:

The AFL seem hell bent on making the game as fast as humanly possible and minimize stoppages - I do wonder if the umpires are actually turning a blind eye to some of these throws because last night there were a series of absolute howlers that were so obvious - play on nothing to see here !

Yep, it's taken one of the great skills out of the game.

Once they allowed just a flick of the other hand to constitute a correct handball that was the end of it.

Teddy Whitten was ahead of his time with the flick pass...which was outlawed by the way. Now we see much worse.

58 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

My favourite one was when Dangerfield threw it out of the back of the pack and James Brayshaw called it a party trick.

 

Sure is...

...and Taylor is beyond that.

Edited September 4, 20214 yr by george_on_the_outer

When did the definition of handball change? Closed fist hitting the ball from a stationary palm

 

They must see, I think they just can't be bothered enforcing it. Undermines the game.

5 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

When did the definition of handball change? Closed fist hitting the ball from a stationary palm

 

Stationary palm thing disappeared decades ago.

Just now, Fork 'em said:

Stationary palm thing disappeared decades ago.

The closest I can recall is when the Crows entered the comp and screams of "crow throw" resonated around the comp. It seemed to explode after that but to my reckoning there was no official rule change?

1.1 DEFINITIONS

Handball: the act of holding the football in one hand and disposing of it by hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand.

And now the umps allow a scooping motion which more clearly resembles a throw than hitting or tapping. That's crept in this season for no good reason.

They're happy to read players' minds when it comes to whether they meant to keep the ball in play or not.  But they're too timid to call something which is obvious and is not clearly "hitting it with the clenched fist of the other hand"

Oh, for the day when we get an umpires' director who understands that we want a sport that is played and adjudicated fairly, not a reality TV show, with celebrity judges, that is manipulated for ratings.

LAWS OF THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL GAME OF FOOTBALL
Issued by the Victorian National League
1944

PART I.
INTERPRETATIONS AND DEFINITIONS.
1. In these Laws, unless inconsistent with the context or some ether meaning: is clearly intended:
...
Handball.
(6) Handball is where the ball is clearly held in one hand and knocked with the other hand.

12 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

When did the definition of handball change? Closed fist hitting the ball from a stationary palm

 

i don't think it was ever stationary palm for the ball hand

it just had to be clearly hit off the palm by the other hand with a closed fist

Not throwing the ball but lets see how the AFL looks at it.  https://twitter.com/CraigAbercromb1/status/1433799719369670662?s=20

3 minutes ago, Mr Steve said:

Not throwing the ball but lets see how the AFL looks at it.  https://twitter.com/CraigAbercromb1/status/1433799719369670662?s=20

Let's see ... intentional, high contact, low impact. That's 3 points, which means mentions of "captain courageous", "warrior", "good bloke" and "he wouldn't mean to do something like that" in the media this week.

4 minutes ago, Mr Steve said:

Not throwing the ball but lets see how the AFL looks at it.  https://twitter.com/CraigAbercromb1/status/1433799719369670662?s=20

Best was he argued the free as well, which the Cats do nearly every time there is a rare free against them.

1 minute ago, Redleg said:

Best was he argued the free as well, which the Cats do nearly every time there is a rare free against them.

"CAN'T YOU SEE THE NUMBER 14 ON MY BACK!?!?"

At least the (banned) old flick pass did involve giving the ball momentum by hitting it. Now most of the momentum comes from a throwing action. What about bringing back the flick pass (which is fast and allows hitting from another angle to the fist)  but banning the endless throws we see these days.

Just now, Mazer Rackham said:

"CAN'T YOU SEE THE NUMBER 14 ON MY BACK!?!?"

For such a great player,  he is also a very easily disliked one as well.

I would be interested in a stat of our penalties for throwing and deliberate, compared to the rest of the competition, if it was available. Might be MFCSS, but I feel we have been harshly treated by these types of penalties.

9 minutes ago, Mr Steve said:

Not throwing the ball but lets see how the AFL looks at it.  https://twitter.com/CraigAbercromb1/status/1433799719369670662?s=20

If you showed this to an impartial observer and asked them to evaluate it they would say they are the exact same act. 

Dangerfield went to hospital in the Green incident, but has a very long history of overreacting to injuries - so much so that he was called out about it by his teammates in Adelaide. He played the next week and was fine. If Kelly is tougher, and plays on, how should that help Selwood?

if you break Gawn or May’s nose they aren’t going to take their bag and go home in a final. So then the action isn’t as bad because the player plays on? Strange way to evaluate incidents.

1 hour ago, dazzledavey36 said:

My favourite one was when Dangerfield threw it out of the back of the pack and James Brayshaw called it a party

Then you have the greased lightning ones where they purposely throw in packs because they know they mostly will not be seen.

On another tac, 50 mtr penalties might stop this time enduring art.

1 hour ago, The heart beats true said:

If you showed this to an impartial observer and asked them to evaluate it they would say they are the exact same act. 

Dangerfield went to hospital in the Green incident, but has a very long history of overreacting to injuries - so much so that he was called out about it by his teammates in Adelaide. He played the next week and was fine. If Kelly is tougher, and plays on, how should that help Selwood?

if you break Gawn or May’s nose they aren’t going to take their bag and go home in a final. So then the action isn’t as bad because the player plays on? Strange way to evaluate incidents.

And one should never forget the first ever suspension for a dangerous tackle when Trengove tackled Dangerfield.  
3 weeks if I recall for concussing Dangerfield who was BIG the following week.  

Umpire Clarification should be demanded here. 
Jeelong and Footscray grt an armchair ride

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

And one should never forget the first ever suspension for a dangerous tackle when Trengove tackled Dangerfield.  
3 weeks if I recall for concussing Dangerfield who was BIG the following week.  

The Cats just seem to collect these unpleasant fellows, or maybe it's just that their worst nature is brought out in that environment. Who in the Geelong FC could possibly be encouraging sooking, whingeing, appealing to umps, "unsociable football", etc?

22 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

The Cats just seem to collect these unpleasant fellows, or maybe it's just that their worst nature is brought out in that environment. Who in the Geelong FC could possibly be encouraging sooking, whingeing, appealing to umps, "unsociable football", etc?

They might start out nice guys, but playing under Scott would do that to even mother Theresa.