sue
-
Posts
5,122 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Recent Profile Visitors
8,974 profile views
.thumb.jpeg.c0fe8bb082b32458211b06f6e551d62a.jpeg)
.JPG.5b63b0c56a137d0823c08d47ecf43536.thumb.JPG.02198db96770830bbcc21b1ff15cdb9e.JPG)
sue's Achievements
Trident (5/10)
6k
Reputation
-
Umpiring plumbing new depths
-
The 15 metres standard must be made of rubber. Same umpire 2 successive kicks. First one "not 15 play on", the shorter kick "mark"
-
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.
-
That's unfair. They are perfectly happy repeating the same ones for as many minutes as are available.
-
As a paying customer I want more for my money, not less. 😀
-
New definition of front on contact
-
I detected a whiff of irony in that short list.
-
copy has arrived. Looks good.
-
Whenever they say "you heard the umpire" I always ask "why the bloody hell can't we hear them all the time instead of you cretins?"
-
But it remains a mystery why he can't do that for set shots.
-
This analysis overlooks the 'assist' of a forward player #1 doing a good kick to another forward who marks inside 50 who then misses the goal. Hardly the fault of player #1.
-
Who writes these rules? When does a player ever 'elect to incorrectly dispose of the ball'? Perhaps when they deliberately throw it, but a fist missing an attempt to handpass is hardly 'electing'. But what about a player who had prior opportunity who is then tackled and genuinely ATTEMPTS to kick the ball but misses it. No free kick according to that. Any guide to the perplexed?
-
Why isn't there an option on here to give multiple likes to a post?
-
I'm driven crazy by commentators giving a lecture on what players need to do, either during the play and then again immediately afterwards as if that somehow proves the wisdom of the original comment. But why do I say 'original' - usually the comment isn't original at all. It's stating the bleeding obvious. As if they are lecturing to 6 year olds or people who have never seen AFL before.
-
Because we hadn’t lost to the giants yet
