Jaded No More

Well we will know more in 3 weeks when we play the Saints

Big difference is they are going at 100% to bank these ugly wins and today was no doubt a good effort without a ruckman. We are banking wins going at 70% and playing one great quarter.

St Kilda are not a top 4 quality side.

Other than Ward they are all a bunch of selfish overpaid hacks. They can stay the hell away from my side.

St Kilda aren’t even winning this. GWS are losing it. Such a dumb lazy selfish nothing club.

Himmelberg calling for it, missing and then smiling about it is everything that is wrong with GWS

This is why I’m so angry at GWS As if I care about them ever winning except for when it helps us

Someone needs to end this orange farce

Remember when someone paid Whitfield a million dollars a season?

Whereas if you don’t win all 3 of your supporters just go home and ask “what is this AFL game?”

GWS have no game plan

They care about winning as much as I care about bin night

What is more puzzling? How bad GWS is with their list or how St Kilda are top 4?

Greene playing like crap is very enjoyable

Very busy counting his paycheck

Someone has to

So if he asked “didn’t that hit the ground first” it would be ok?

GWS have to be the worst team of the best players going around

Wrong thread

So you think that every umpire pays that as a 50m penalty? Maybe I missed it but I never heard the AFL say that players can’t question decisions. They said players can’t be demonstrative or abusive and it’s about respect. But respect to some is disrespect to others. You can love and respect someone and still disagree with them. Expressing disappointment or disagreement in my opinion is not disrespectful, but in your opinion it is. Hence the core problem with this rule. Which is why we will either watch this rule slowly die or we will just get to a point where we encourage players not to talk to umpires at all.

I actually have no issues with the reasoning behind the rule. My only issue is how grey the interpretation is. If a player is saying “it hit the ground it hit the ground” one umpire will think “fair enough maybe it did bad luck” and one umpire will think “he’s questioning my ability to umpire it’s a 50m penalty”. That one comment would be interpreted differently by every single umpire, because as humans we all have varying responses to things being said to us. I don’t care if the rule was actually as black and white as, nobody speaks to an umpire unless it’s a captain and it’s at a break. The only thing you can say to an umpire is “where is my mark” if you’re standing on the mark or “who has the free” if you’re handing the ball back. That is an easy rule to umpire and an easy rule to follow.

But that was not how the rule was explained by Scott this week. So are the rules changing on the fly? The rule was brought in to reduce umpire abuse and disrespect. Why not just say the rule is don’t talk to the umpire? Because that is a very simple rule to follow. I don’t see what he did as complaining. You do. This is where the rule is too grey and personal and can’t be consistently umpired. Edit: do you think that players should be penalized if they ask the umpire for a holding the ball or a deliberate out of bounds free? Because often players put their arms out/up and question if there is a free to be paid. Is that dissent if the umpire chooses not to pay it?

How was what he did dissent tho? He wasn’t rude. He wasn’t demonstrative. He wasn’t argumentative. He stated a fact and he was correct. The rule is now “don’t talk to umpires”? If it is fine, but last week it was don’t put arms out, and I’ve seen 3 already go unpunished. The dissent rule is impossible to umpire consistently.

He said it hit the ground and he was correct. So now you can’t even say something which happened? FMD

Dissent. 50 meters.