| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Oops. Too much data. |
|
|
|
 |
duke750
Joined: 11 Nov 2005
Location: Buderim QLD
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You can't control the maggots in yellow, but you can control your own abysmal turnovers. Despite the inconsistent interpretations we still could easily have won that game with a bit of composure and marking up forward.
_________________
Magpies forever.
First Colligwood game: Western Oval 1960 |
|
|
|
|
Bucks5 
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I have also noticed that the umps have a sneaky way of evening up the stats by waiting for the outcome of a Collingwood tackle, and when the ball spills to our advantage they will call it as a free kick (for holding the ball) and advantage. If our opposition keeps possession then no free is called and a ball up will occur.
_________________
How would Siri know when to answer "Hey Siri" unless it is listening in to everything you say? |
|
|
|
|
WhyPhilWhy?
WhyPhilWhy?
Joined: 09 Oct 2001
Location: Location: Location:
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Certainly 4 umpires did nothing to make them more consistent. |
|
|
|
|
Lone Ranger
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Location: Macedon Ranges
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Skids wrote: | | The holding the ball against Greenwood in the last was the worst for mine. |
Sorry but that the rule brought in several years ago. If you drag the ball in (which he did) you MUST get it out. It doesnt matter whether you are holding it in or the oposition (clearly Melbourne was holding it to Greenwood).
Correct decision that I would want paid if it was vice versa. |
|
|
|
|
GoWoodsmen
Joined: 18 Apr 2005
Location: Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Lone Ranger wrote: | | Skids wrote: | | The holding the ball against Greenwood in the last was the worst for mine. |
Sorry but that the rule brought in several years ago. If you drag the ball in (which he did) you MUST get it out. It doesnt matter whether you are holding it in or the oposition (clearly Melbourne was holding it to Greenwood).
Correct decision that I would want paid if it was vice versa. |
I need to re-watch it but I have a few massive issues with the Greenwood one. Here is my recollection - A) the ball bounced up to him. B) He was immediately tackled forcing him forward. C) In the tackle the Melbourne player actually dislodged the ball from Greenwood totally. D) Greenwood never regained possession of the ball because he had no clue where it was until Hunt was holding it to him.
My boy was torturing me this morning by re-watching the game. Still getting my blood boiling. I thought it was only in the last quarter where the umpires screwed us over but I was wrong - really wrong.
Case in point... 20 metres out from our goal, directly in front, Melbourne player clearly throws the ball - no free kick. Goes down the other end a minute or so later and Maynard gets pinged for throwing it - even though the Melbourne player clearly had a hand involved and dislodged the ball. I think they missed their shot on goal but the missed free directly in front could have changed the result. Sure as hell would have halted their momentum which may have been enough on it's own.
Also cannot believe how many times Melbourne players dropped the ball cold - with the stupid prior opportunity rule applied - and still nothing. Just infuriating.
Don't get me wrong we have ourselves the blame for some of those horrid turnovers (much the same as Melbourne do for their turnovers that allowed us to get on top in the 2nd quarter).... but ffs..... and that Hunt one with about 1:20 to go on the clock in the last. Same thing happened against the Hawks I think. Clear prior, clear dropping the ball.... but no, it's in the Collingwood forward line so you can go and get f....... ok I need to stop, my blood is boiling again.
_________________
Side By Side Forever |
|
|
|
|
Lone Ranger
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Location: Macedon Ranges
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Ive watched the Green wood one a few times ... the only debate is whether he dragged it in. I think he did but its not 100%. Not a "shocking" decision though.
The worst decision of the day was the advantage call to Hunt. He gets a free and everyone stop. He jogs 15 metres in front of the mark to pick up the ball ... he picks it up and start running and ump calls advantage!
You cant do that. He must come back behind the mark.
And the clear throw early that Tim Watson saw the reply of and thought it was a handball. What are you looking at Tim? |
|
|
|
|
Raw Hammer
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Location: The Gutter
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Greenwood made hay maker attempts to get rid of it. All you have to do is 'attempt', which he did. It was a farcical decision.
_________________
Est. 2002 |
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Lone Ranger wrote: | Ive watched the Green wood one a few times ... the only debate is whether he dragged it in. I think he did but its not 100%. Not a "shocking" decision though.
The worst decision of the day was the advantage call to Hunt. He gets a free and everyone stop. He jogs 15 metres in front of the mark to pick up the ball ... he picks it up and start running and ump calls advantage!
You cant do that. He must come back behind the mark.
And the clear throw early that Tim Watson saw the reply of and thought it was a handball. What are you looking at Tim? |
Yes, that was just laughable. You described it perfectly, everyone had stopped. The ball HAD to come back behind the mark in that situation.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Lone Ranger wrote: | | Skids wrote: | | The holding the ball against Greenwood in the last was the worst for mine. |
Sorry but that the rule brought in several years ago. If you drag the ball in (which he did) you MUST get it out. It doesnt matter whether you are holding it in or the oposition (clearly Melbourne was holding it to Greenwood).
Correct decision that I would want paid if it was vice versa. |
i would argue that the rule was brought in to stop players bringing the ball under them and keeping it in.
While Greenwood grabbed the ball while on the ground, at the time he was pinged for holding the ball he was on his knee in the upright position (meaning the ball was no longer trapped). His hands were also above his head so he was not stopping the ball from being taken away.
No way that was a proper interpretation of the rule.
I guess if someone has prior opportunity and i rip the ball out of his hands and drop it, then i get a free kick?
c'mon, its nonsense.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Skids wrote: | | Lone Ranger wrote: | Ive watched the Green wood one a few times ... the only debate is whether he dragged it in. I think he did but its not 100%. Not a "shocking" decision though.
The worst decision of the day was the advantage call to Hunt. He gets a free and everyone stop. He jogs 15 metres in front of the mark to pick up the ball ... he picks it up and start running and ump calls advantage!
You cant do that. He must come back behind the mark.
And the clear throw early that Tim Watson saw the reply of and thought it was a handball. What are you looking at Tim? |
Yes, that was just laughable. You described it perfectly, everyone had stopped. The ball HAD to come back behind the mark in that situation. |
imagine the other way this plays out. Collingwood player picks up the ball or tackles him or knocks it away from him. Likely thats a 50 meter penalty in that case.
total bullshit.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
Bob Sugar
Joined: 11 Feb 2010
Location: Benalla
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Every team thinks they get a raw deal from the maggots, fact is they're just incompetent, and they're getting worse.
_________________
Defender...........
On the day before the first, Daicos created God.
You like this. |
|
|
|
|
Raw Hammer
Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Location: The Gutter
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Skids wrote: | | Lone Ranger wrote: | Ive watched the Green wood one a few times ... the only debate is whether he dragged it in. I think he did but its not 100%. Not a "shocking" decision though.
The worst decision of the day was the advantage call to Hunt. He gets a free and everyone stop. He jogs 15 metres in front of the mark to pick up the ball ... he picks it up and start running and ump calls advantage!
You cant do that. He must come back behind the mark.
And the clear throw early that Tim Watson saw the reply of and thought it was a handball. What are you looking at Tim? |
Yes, that was just laughable. You described it perfectly, everyone had stopped. The ball HAD to come back behind the mark in that situation. |
That was just a "Wow, WTF, did that really just happen?" moment. Doesn't go on the frees for/against stat sheet. Just another way for the scumps to give the opposition a leg up. I was watching with a CARLTON supporter and he was in disbelief how badly we were getting reamed, especially from that No.12 cheat who looked like he was 16 years old.
_________________
Est. 2002 |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Bob Sugar wrote: | | Every team thinks they get a raw deal from the maggots, fact is they're just incompetent, and they're getting worse. |
I agree 100%
It's a full time job for them now, they should be better
But I'm not sure the AFL aren't pulling their strings either
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Lone Ranger
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Location: Macedon Ranges
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Raw Hammer wrote: | | Greenwood made hay maker attempts to get rid of it. All you have to do is 'attempt', which he did. It was a farcical decision. |
If you havent had prior opportunity, you must make an attempt to dispose of the ball. Thats all, a realistic attempt.
However, if you have had prior opportunity (or dived on the ball, or dragged the ball in whilst on the ground, or took it out of the ruck) then you MUST legitimately dispose of the ball. An attempt is not good enough in those circumstances.
Just saw it again on Foxtel ... he definitely dragged it in whilst on the ground so he was in trouble. However, he then very briefly sort of got to his feet. If you drag in it but then get to your feet they often let that go (even though the rules/interpretations dont allow for "getting to your feet"). |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
