I saw the dumbest 50m I’ve ever seen today in the Casey game.

Marty Hore had a mark( ? Free), and took a step forward, standing on Toby Bedford’s  foot.  Toby jumped in pain. …………...50 m for not “ standing” on the mark!

50 minutes ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I saw the dumbest 50m I’ve ever seen today in the Casey game.

Marty Hore had a mark( ? Free), and took a step forward, standing on Toby Bedford’s  foot.  Toby jumped in pain. …………...50 m for not “ standing” on the mark!

Agree. It was a joke. Sums up this stupid “stand” rule. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Demonland said:

Wonder how the Eagles free kick differential at home games looks? Much better methinks. 
Edit = +6 

Edited May 15, 20223 yr by Webber

3 minutes ago, Webber said:

Wonder how the Eagles free kick differential at home games looks? Much better methinks. 
Edit = +6 

It would normally be a larger differential for home games but Dean Margetts has retired. 

1 hour ago, Jumping Jack Clennett said:

I saw the dumbest 50m I’ve ever seen today in the Casey game.

Marty Hore had a mark( ? Free), and took a step forward, standing on Toby Bedford’s  foot.  Toby jumped in pain. …………...50 m for not “ standing” on the mark!

Agree Jack. It was just pathetic.

NARRM is doing good.!!!

I see Bevo is having a whinge about Naughton being blocked off his run for marks. If they start paying those as frees Max will get 5 more free kicks a game.

I hope this whole thing back fires and it shows everyone how to beat Naughton, and finally allows the media to talk about #freekickbulldogs

Finally getting the top team free kicks we used to get against us all those years.

43 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

I see Bevo is having a whinge about Naughton being blocked off his run for marks. If they start paying those as frees Max will get 5 more free kicks a game.

I hope this whole thing back fires and it shows everyone how to beat Naughton, and finally allows the media to talk about #freekickbulldogs

How rich from the umpires’ pet team. 

I thought this weekend we got a pretty good run with the umpires. Was nice to be on the positive end of this for once, but I still don't like it. There shouldn't be the gaps in interpretation and consistency that there are. 

I know many won't agree, but it questions the games integrity.  

Keep up the good work AFL. 

1 hour ago, COVID Dan said:

I thought this weekend we got a pretty good run with the umpires. Was nice to be on the positive end of this for once, but I still don't like it. There shouldn't be the gaps in interpretation and consistency that there are. 

I know many won't agree, but it questions the games integrity.  

Keep up the good work AFL. 

I'm still not sure how the Langdon tackle was called a free. If a player is outstretched, there's nothing wrong with trying to break his ribs in a bone crunching tackle. There was not sling, there was no 2 motions. a horrific decision that resulted in a goal for us.

56 minutes ago, Deedubs said:

I'm still not sure how the Langdon tackle was called a free. If a player is outstretched, there's nothing wrong with trying to break his ribs in a bone crunching tackle. There was not sling, there was no 2 motions. a horrific decision that resulted in a goal for us.

Is a "dangerous tackle" a category of free kick or just something that we all seem to think exists? If so, is that what was paid? And if it was what was paid, should it have been?

Edited May 23, 20223 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia
clarifying language

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is a "dangerous tackle" a category of free kick or just something that we all seem to think exists? If so, is that what was paid? And if it was what was paid, should it have been?

Yeah I believe the decision was 'dangerous tackle'. But usually that's got to be like a 2 motion dump or sling. 

20 minutes ago, Deedubs said:

Yeah I believe the decision was 'dangerous tackle'. But usually that's got to be like a 2 motion dump or sling.
 
Thomas drove Langdon (who was off his feet) with deliberate, unnecessary force into the ground. No question that it was dangerous, as the outcome proved. And yes, I’ve reversed the teams in my head…same decision. Duty of care meant he would have slowed/pulled his force before the ground contact. 

22 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is a "dangerous tackle" a category of free kick or just something that we all seem to think exists? If so, is that what was paid? And if it was what was paid, should it have been?

I didn't think it was a free kick watching it live first time, but after many replays it seems more like a dangerous tackle

Langdon was in air, and the tackle had a bit of rotate and dump to it, and his head lashed back and did hit ground, albeit not as hard as his back

Then again, everything looks worse in slowmo

24 minutes ago, Deedubs said:

Yeah I believe the decision was 'dangerous tackle'. But usually that's got to be like a 2 motion dump or sling. 

Thomas drove Langdon (who was off his feet) with deliberate, unnecessary force into the ground. No question that it was dangerous, as the outcome proved. And yes, I’ve reversed the teams in my head…same decision. Duty of care meant he would have slowed/pulled his force before the ground contact. 

1 hour ago, Deedubs said:

I'm still not sure how the Langdon tackle was called a free. If a player is outstretched, there's nothing wrong with trying to break his ribs in a bone crunching tackle. There was not sling, there was no 2 motions. a horrific decision that resulted in a goal for us.

Agree, Im all for keeping it clean, but the interpretation and consistency of what is dangerous is just more confusion.

I seriously could not explain to anyone anymore what holding the ball is now. I honestly don't blame the umpires, I blame the AFL for making it such a joke to umpire.

And on top of that, how do you justify such huge free kick counts and differentials. No wonder people are turning off.

Edited May 23, 20223 yr by COVID Dan
Apparently [censored] is a curse

35 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Is a "dangerous tackle" a category of free kick or just something that we all seem to think exists? If so, is that what was paid? And if it was what was paid, should it have been?

The funny thing about the inconsistency with the dangerous tackle is, the AFL can't even get the consistency with striking right.

But to answer your question La Dee - it is just more confusion on an already dubious set of ""standards" introduced at Boy Club central.

On a side note - it is a joke how Gil and the yes men at AFL house think there is no conflict in appointing Brad Scott as head of umpires or whatever made up role he does.

Its hard to find this sort of corruption outside of politics 

And i am sure if Gil was asked about it, Brad would have been the perfect yes man to take the position. How dare we question the leagues motives or integrity. 

Edited May 23, 20223 yr by COVID Dan

Of course it was a dangerous tackle. Ed was driven into the ground.

If he had hit his head it would have been at least 2 weeks c/f Kade Chandler's penalty for much the same action but different outcome.

Will the AFL ever realise that a dangerous tackle is always a dangerous tackle even when the head id not affected? I have serious doubts that they will.

18 minutes ago, tiers said:

Of course it was a dangerous tackle. Ed was driven into the ground.

If he had hit his head it would have been at least 2 weeks c/f Kade Chandler's penalty for much the same action but different outcome.

Will the AFL ever realise that a dangerous tackle is always a dangerous tackle even when the head id not affected? I have serious doubts that they will.

since when is 'driven into the ground' considered dangerous? Every tackle involves taking a player to the ground. It was a perfect tackle and yes he drove him into the ground. 

Kade Chandler's tackle was completely different. Chandler's tackle was a chase down tackle, he had both his arms pinned and didn't turn him over. Tarryn Thomas didn't even hit him at speed. It was off a few steps. You realise that whether a player hits his head or not is completely irrelevant. SO if the AFL isn't soft enough, now you want to outlaw fair tackles? It's already becoming a game of netball. 
 

39 minutes ago, COVID Dan said:

Agree, Im all for keeping it clean, but the interpretation and consistency of what is dangerous is just more confusion.

I seriously could not explain to anyone anymore what holding the ball is now. I honestly don't blame the umpires, I blame the AFL for making it such a joke to umpire.

And on top of that, how do you justify such huge free kick counts and differentials. No wonder people are turning off.

I agree. The whistle goes off every 30 seconds. 

1 hour ago, Deedubs said:

Every tackle involves taking a player to the ground

Nope. Not even close to the truth. As to the mechanism of the tackle, Langdon was planted flat on his back. No chance of self-protection, particularly as he was lifted, and thus at the complete mercy of the tackler. It was unnecessarily dangerous, childish ‘netball’ allusions or not.