This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Use this forum for non-Collingwood related footy topics that don't relate specifically to any of the other forums. For non-footy sporting topics please use Nick's Sports Bar and for non-sporting topics please use the Victoria Park Tavern.
Pies4shaw wrote:I can't believe that sensible people think it was OK for Salem to take out his rage at being pantsed in the contest by throwing the ball at Ginnivan and then shoving him over. There's no call for it - pathetic little worm.
Pies4shaw wrote:I can't believe that sensible people think it was OK for Salem to take out his rage at being pantsed in the contest by throwing the ball at Ginnivan and then shoving him over. There's no call for it - pathetic little worm.
100% i cant believe people think its ok either, its not kinder, loose the temper tantrums!he had to pot shots! god knows how many ginnie has copped lately, and its got to stop, he has been singled out, players know they will get away with it,
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Lol Ginnivan did not dive, he was shoved to the ground and wasn’t expecting the contact because the ball was out of bounds. Free kick. Thank god my kids aren’t being umpired by eddiesmith in the little league
Mr Miyagi wrote:Lol Ginnivan did not dive, he was shoved to the ground and wasn’t expecting the contact because the ball was out of bounds. Free kick. Thank god my kids aren’t being umpired by eddiesmith in the little league
I’d be worried what you’re teaching your kids if they went to ground with that little contact as it wouldn’t have knocked over an Auskicker
I thought the Ginnivan one probably was major and obvious, and such off the ball contact is usually paid, but overall, I thought we probably got the rub of the umpiring green yesterday. The Howe 50 was there (as was the one that should have been paid to Elliott) but several of the frees paid to Jamie’s for HTB were hair-trigger, especially given the proximity to goal.
eddiesmith wrote: It depends on how many free kicks you want paid a game? The general rule is the major and obvious, not every single technical free kick. Yesterdays tally is about what you’d expect in a final, 50-60 free kicks a game is too many generally.
The funny thing is people like to scream about this missed free kick and that missed free kick and 99% of them like Ginny’s dive are not what you want paid.
I had a game this year where my colleagues paid way too many free kicks and guess what? They were rightly criticised for it because no one really wants that.
Next game with the same team they were high praise for our umpiring when I was with 2 better umpires who also only paid the major and obvious, because that’s really what you want to see.
I think you have purposely or inadvertently misinterpreted what I said. I would absolutely hate every minute free paid but I wrote “genuine frees” on purpose dude. In just about every game, they miss major frees for both sides. With 3 Martians running the show, this is not acceptable in my view.
I term the current Collingwood attack based strategy “Unceasing Waves” like on a stormy and windy day with rough seas. A Perfect Storm
He needs to start playing football, he didn’t play for any frees last night which is a step in the right direction, he needs to contribute next week or he won’t be playing finals IMO.
Meredith1965 wrote:I thought the Ginnivan one probably was major and obvious, and such off the ball contact is usually paid, but overall, I thought we probably got the rub of the umpiring green yesterday. The Howe 50 was there (as was the one that should have been paid to Elliott) but several of the frees paid to Jamie’s for HTB were hair-trigger, especially given the proximity to goal.
The Elliott free’s were 50/50 IMO, I’d be pissed if they were paid against us, which they normally are.
Marvelos wrote:
The Elliott free’s were 50/50 IMO, I’d be pissed if they were paid against us, which they normally are.
Yeah, agree. The first one was there, because the defender shaped to handball and then chose not to, but the last two seemed too hot to me. The bloke playing the ball deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Marvelos wrote:
The Elliott free’s were 50/50 IMO, I’d be pissed if they were paid against us, which they normally are.
Yeah, agree. The first one was there, because the defender shaped to handball and then chose not to, but the last two seemed too hot to me. The bloke playing the ball deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Watch it again with your eyes open. HTB/incorrect disposal any day of the week. Billy deserved both free kicks.,
By the way, it’s a violation of forum rules to reply to yourself, Marvelos Meredith
