1st QF Swans v Giants

**Maltopia** · 12th September 2016, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by kilroyII

I have never ever in my whole life of watching professional leagues around the world, including south american leagues (Argentina) seen as much bias and engineering like i have in this code. And the fact that they get away with it and the fans are OK with this, pisses me off even more.

In those leagues i have watched that have been rigged they eventually clean it up when something as obvious as what is seen in the AFL is called out. But nope our league has so many examples of massive bias or no integrity and they get away with it because the AFL media is @@@@ scared that it will loose their accreditation and fans have been manipulated into thinking a lack of supporter for their clubs will mean their team might die.

I mean what other league in the world allows a team to entertain the umpires like pay for a trip away with the team or pay for the accommodation of away games in return for favorable calls?

Maybe if we viewed the AFL like the wrestling, sports entertainment rather than true sport, we wouldn't get so angry about the shenanigans...

**aardvark** · 12th September 2016, 05:05 PM

Compliments of Sportsbet....

Capture.JPG

**kilroyII** · 12th September 2016, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Maltopia

Maybe if we viewed the AFL like the wrestling, sports entertainment rather than true sport, we wouldn't get so angry about the shenanigans...

Thats what i try and tell myself and i get even more pissed off haha.

**neilfws** · 12th September 2016, 05:12 PM

Guess this belongs in the match thread. Mumford cleared, Johnson offered 1 week:

AFL MRP & Tribunal on Twitter: "Steve Johnson has been offered a 1 match suspension.
Gary Rohan, Jordan Lewis, Luke Hodge, Steven Motlop, S Mumford cleared.
More to come."

**kilroyII** · 12th September 2016, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by Sandrevan

Welcome back Kilroy. Please stay this time. I think you add real value to this forum.

Cheers, i'll stay this time and play nice with @AnnieH as long as she plays nice!

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by neilfws

Guess this belongs in the match thread. Mumford cleared, Johnson offered 1 week:

AFL MRP & Tribunal on Twitter: "Steve Johnson has been offered a 1 match suspension.
Gary Rohan, Jordan Lewis, Luke Hodge, Steven Motlop, S Mumford cleared.
More to come."

So we lose a key player for the next game from a sling tackle and that thuggish oaf gets off? Even after declaring during the week he will go out and mame a few swans players?

Really?

And Johnson offered only a week for a thug act?

Remind me again why i bother to spend so much time with this code?

BTW I really dislike Mumford..I hope he gets snubbed by the players at the 2022 reunion.

**stellation** · 12th September 2016, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Meg

The Heeney one is there as well - it follows on from the Patton discussion.

and received a politician worthy response of not saying that it was a mark, but "look, if the umpire had paid that as a mark we would support it".

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Meg

Heeney non-Mark/non-free kick is discussed on Whistleblowers. Hayden Kennedy says decision not to award a free kick was correct - but he would not have disagreed if a mark had been awarded.

Which is a long way to say Heeney was dudded!

Mind you the impact is diluted by him also saying the decision to disallow a GWS goal (for illegal disposal/holding the ball) was incorrect. So others will tell us the two decisions (at least) cancel out.

Is blocking the mark allowed? - AFL.com.au

The Patton one was right in front of us and I did think it was a goal watching it live, and was surprised when it was called back.

**dimelb** · 12th September 2016, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by AnnieH

Attachment 1621
Roid Rage

Mad Dog Johnson.

**Meg** · 12th September 2016, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by stellation

The Patton one was right in front of us and I did think it was a goal watching it live, and was surprised when it was called back.

Watching the replay on Whistleblowers I agree it should have been allowed as a goal. Grundy needed to be able to stick the tackle for it to be illegal disposal - which he was unable to do. So we did get one for the Swans there.

**stellation** · 12th September 2016, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by Meg

Watching the replay on Whistleblowers I agree it should have been allowed as a goal. Grundy needed to be able to stick the tackle for it to be illegal disposal - which he was unable to do. So we did get one for the Swans there.

We assumed that it must have been for a high fend off at the ground and I didn't twig it was because of incorrect disposal until seeing the clip on Whistleblowers.

Whilst we're on things I missed- can anyone fill me in on the 50m penalty against Wilson that resulted in a Papley goal? It looked like he was shoved in the chest by a Swan, shoved him back and then the whistle was blown straight away? Did the commentary mention anything beyond that?

**Maltopia** · 12th September 2016, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Meg

Watching the replay on Whistleblowers I agree it should have been allowed as a goal. Grundy needed to be able to stick the tackle for it to be illegal disposal - which he was unable to do. So we did get one for the Swans there.

I am OK with it being a goal and GWS being unfairly done by. What galls me is they wouldn't fully admit they got the Heeney calls (mark, free kick) wrong, nor did they say why there was no free kick to Kennedy for being taken out in the head, nor why no free kick for dangerous tackle by Mummy.

Biased selection of decisions which favour GWS and defends the umpiring. So what if Patton should have gotten that goal? They won by 30+ anyway. But Kennedy taken out of play for 20 mins, and then being below his best, and the Heeney call when we were right in it? They wouldn't want to admit to how their umpiring had a major impact on the result of the game, would they?

**stellation** · 12th September 2016, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Maltopia

I am OK with it being a goal and GWS being unfairly done by. What galls me is they wouldn't fully admit they got the Heeney calls (mark, free kick) wrong, nor did they say why there was no free kick to Kennedy for being taken out in the head, nor why no free kick for dangerous tackle by Mummy.

Biased selection of decisions which favour GWS and defends the umpiring. So what if Patton should have gotten that goal? They won by 30+ anyway. But Kennedy taken out of play for 20 mins, and then being below his best, and the Heeney call when we were right in it? They wouldn't want to admit to how their umpiring had a major impact on the result of the game, would they?

It's obviously extremely frustrating, but with Joey in particular I can actually understand how the umpires may have missed the initial impact/high contact. I would have liked to have heard some discussion on whether they view the tackle on Kurt as a free or not, if they believe it was a dangerous tackle then I think it's a poor miss from the umpires.