Collingwood must request a "please explain Geish"

[Member 7167]

Nothing new in the way our forwards are being treated by the maggots. All you have to do is look back at the Lynch / Rocca era.

Taz was raped every week and the same is happening to Cloke and Dawes.

[MattyD]

sam newman went berzerk on the footy show about faz's 50 metre penalty.

What a tosser.

How about taking a look at all the free kicks that should have been paid to collingwood and haven't in everyone one of our games!

[AN_Inkling]

I was watching some Fox Sports footy show, and they were showing behind the scenes footage of an umpire review. Rohan Sawyers was going through various decisions and discussing them with a couple of umpires. One of the decisions that was highlighted, was a free kick for holding that should have gone to Dawes against Lake. It looked pretty much like every contest Cloke and Dawes are involved in, but at least it shows that even the umpires are starting to realise our tall forwards are getting a raw deal.

[Raw Hammer]

Yep. Sam's a d!ck. For 100+ years and the rule has remained the same...you have not played on until you have deviated off your line (motions to handpass are not deemed play-on). The opnly difference is that for teh past 5 years, you can't impede in any way after a mark (not like the good old days). Hence: 50m penalty. Even Joel Sellwood conceded it was 100% correct.

On another note, did anyone see during Goldsack's 60m bomb in the first quarter, he was called to play on when he kicked for goal on a less than "Buddy arc" arc? Freakin' joke. One rule for Buddy, another for the rest.

[arb]

Yep. Sam's a d!ck. For 100+ years and the rule has remained the same...you have not played on until you have deviated off your line (motions to handpass are not deemed play-on).

Well, technically it is only play on when the umpire calls play on. If the umpire doesn't call play on, you can't touch the player. Regardless of that, Faz's feet hadn't moved and the ball was still in his hands, so how can anyone claim he had played on?

[Breadcrawl]

Slightly off topic, slightly not...

Micheal Vozzo (remember him?) spoke at the assembly at my school on Thursday. He was promoting umpiring as a career.

He plainly stated that the only reason he got into umpiring was for the money. He got $11 boundary umpiring junior games when he was 13, moved to field umpiring because he'd get $18, moved up to seniors to get $50 a game, and got paid $120 a minute to umpire the 2008 Grand Final. He said umpiring provided him with a life changing experience when he umpired the match that was held in Dubai. It was life changing because he encountered a man who was so wealthy he had his very own camel racing stadium. That's why it was life changing.

He came across as a man who'd be very hard to buy. A man whose moral fibre would make him difficult to influence with cash.

Not.