| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kymbo5@yahoo.com.au
Joined: 23 Mar 2014
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | No free should have been paid against Petrie earlier, though - that idiot ran front on at Petrie while he was trying to mark. I'm sorry he got hurt but I thought they were going to pay a free to West Coast for interference. |
Good point mate. I agree. It was more him making contact with Petrie than the other way around. And, combined with this, I thought the free should have been reversed once Petrie was knocked over - totally unnecessary contact.
Charlie Dixon should have nailed a shot late in the 2nd part of OT, was a shot similar to Shuey's. They had their chances.
I didn't care who won or lost , just how I saw it.
_________________
kymbo |
|
|
|
 |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| woodys_world69 wrote: | | Not a free kick. Lifting of the arm is specifically in the rule |
That's how I saw it, the Selwood slip
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
jatsad
Joined: 29 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
According to the rules, definitely NOT a free kick.
If the player contributes to the interference, by ducking, dropping the knees or raising an arm to push the tackle higher, it is deemed play on.
That is exactly what happened.
The interesting one though is the Eric McKenzie save on the goal line. If he had simply punched the ball away from the behind area to save the score and it went out of bounds, would that have been deemed deliberate?
I would hope not as he's trying to save the match, but would like to have an official response from the umpires.
_________________
Jatsad - That is all |
|
|
|
|
Woods Of Ypres
Joined: 27 May 2003
Location: Yugoslavia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Shuey has a long history of drawing head-high frees, can't believe the umpires fell for it again |
|
|
|
|
WarrenerraW
Joined: 18 Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Was a cracker of a game but an awful way for it to end. The problem with these head high tackles is the interpretation of them. At the end of the day we have three umpires all with their own interpretation of the rule. |
|
|
|
|
glasseyevfx
Joined: 01 Jul 2017
Location: Gold Coast
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| WarrenerraW wrote: | | Was a cracker of a game but an awful way for it to end. The problem with these head high tackles is the interpretation of them. At the end of the day we have three umpires all with their own interpretation of the rule. |
Afl has got to be one of the hardest games to umpire - you could pick several frees in one contest in some cases, your right about the interpretation. Really disappointing from the AFL in confirming the free, they are rewarding the act - if you want to stop the practice you should give him a week.
_________________
We shall set our course by the stars and not ships that pass in the night |
|
|
|
|
Abdul The Bull
Joined: 02 Aug 2017
|
| Post subject: Too high? | |
|
I think the initial tackle was sound, and the fend off made it high, and on that basis it should have been called 'play on'. What killed it for Pollac was he continue to sling Shuey to the ground and that looked bad. For that, I believe the umpire had no other choice but to pay the free.
As tough as it must be for Port and their fans you shouldn't look at one incident in isolation when assessing the match. Port had plenty of opportunities to ice the game but failed.
_________________
There are 10 types of people in this world, those that understand binary and those that don't. |
|
|
|
|
ANNODAM 
Rebel Heart Tour - The Forum, Los Angeles 27/10/2015.
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Location: Eltham, VIC.
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ Very true but that's what make the Eagles victory all the sweeter...
_________________
WE WERE ROBBED, RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, RIGHT IN FRONT OF MEEE!
N.Y METS, N.Y GIANTS, PENRITH PANTHERS & HOBART HURRICANES FAN.
WE ALL LOOK GOOD AT TRAINING, IT'S THE MATCHES THAT COUNT! |
|
|
|
|
Geek
geek
Joined: 06 Apr 2006
Location: Jacana
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Woods Of Ypres wrote: | | Shuey has a long history of drawing head-high frees, can't believe the umpires fell for it again |
Yep. Selwood cops it pretty badly and rightly so but Shuey's right up there with him |
|
|
|
|
piedys 
Heeeeeeere's Dyso!!!
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Resident Forum Psychopath since 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pies4shaw wrote: | | No free should have been paid against Petrie earlier, though - that idiot ran front on at Petrie while he was trying to mark. I'm sorry he got hurt but I thought they were going to pay a free to West Coast for interference. |
That's exactly what I saw as well.
| BucksIsFutureCoach wrote: | I was watching it on Foxtel and Dermie insisted that the free kick wasn't there. Then Jordan Lewis agreed with Dermie saying that the umpires spoke to the players at the start of the season to say that if the tackle started below the shoulder it wouldn't be paid.
All I can say is that it was a free kick to me every day of the week (and I was barracking for Port to win). |
Yet in real time, it did look a high tackle. When replayed in slo-mo, it looked like it should have been called play-on.
Regardless, the maggots deserved that for bollocksing up the game for the previous four quarters in favour of Port.
Neither of those three imbeciles should see any more September action.
Justice for the WCE in this instance.
_________________
M I L L A N E 4 2 forever |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Location: Lexus Centre
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| If that's not a free kick then that might be about 50 less free kicks we will receive, Pendlebury is an expert at it as well |
|
|
|
|
Member 7167 
"What Good Fortune For Governments That The People Do Not Think" - Adolf Hitler.
Joined: 18 Dec 2008
Location: The Collibran Hideout
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I agree with Dermie on this one. When initial contact was made it was fair and was well away from the head. The actions of the individual being tackled by raising his arm resulted in contact above the shoulder. Head contacted resulted from the actions of the person being tacked. Why should the tackler be penalised in this instance.
_________________
Now Retired - Every Day Is A Saturday |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Member 7167 wrote: | | I agree with Dermie on this one. When initial contact was made it was fair and was well away from the head. The actions of the individual being tackled by raising his arm resulted in contact above the shoulder. Head contacted resulted from the actions of the person being tacked. Why should the tackler be penalised in this instance. |
Well Grundy got 2 weeks The whoile tackiling issue needs to be spelled out loud and clear. Because noone knows what is fair and what is not.
Geez I hope Danger gets most votes in the Brownlow. Makes the MRP look like the villians in the piece.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
AN_Inkling
Joined: 06 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Member 7167 wrote: | | I agree with Dermie on this one. When initial contact was made it was fair and was well away from the head. The actions of the individual being tackled by raising his arm resulted in contact above the shoulder. Head contacted resulted from the actions of the person being tacked. Why should the tackler be penalised in this instance. |
Agree. The defence from the AFL was interesting. Something like: the umpire saw that the tackle was high so the decision was correct. They didn't actually seem to base it on a review of the footage. This tells me that the decision was probably wrong but they didn't want to admit it for such a crucial moment.
_________________
Well done boys! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The past is history, the future a mystery. Today is a gift, that's why it is called "the present". |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
