Page 28 of 35 FirstFirst ... 18242526272829303132 ... LastLast
Results 325 to 336 of 413

Thread: Match Day Rnd 14 Sydney V Essendon. SCG 19.50 pm.

  1. #325
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,330
    Quote Originally Posted by 707 View Post
    Been some shockers on the weekend, North had a few paid against them and look who benefitted - Dogs of course who get up by a point!

    Lets hope we get better umpiring this week.
    Yes, it seems that the AFL's rule of the week, is probably shepherding in the marking contest. North copped it with the Brown non-goal. While we had a really soft one paid against Naismith, where he positioned himself to take the mark, Bellchambers jumped into his back and he got penalized for shepherding.

  2. #326
    Goodesgoodesgoodesgoodes! Industrial Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Doughnuts don't wear alligator shoes
    Posts
    3,266
    Quote Originally Posted by sprite View Post
    The third picture is the proof, look at where Towers is in relation to Hurley.

    He is clearly in the protected area. He isn't following a player nor is he moving away as per the rules.

    Decision seems correct to me, a lack of awareness proves costly in this case.
    he's not inside 5m of the mark?

    And if we are paying that for every contest we'd have 20+ 50m penalties per game. It's an odd time to enforce it with no precedent in the game.

    The one against Naismith was rubbish too. He stopped because the ball was going overhead. I understand that players often block to allow an easy uncontested mark but that should have been a push if anything but really should have been play on imo.

  3. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by sprite View Post
    The third picture is the proof, look at where Towers is in relation to Hurley.

    He is clearly in the protected area. He isn't following a player nor is he moving away as per the rules.

    Decision seems correct to me, a lack of awareness proves costly in this case.
    Isn't it a 5m zone? He was within the zone just after he took the mark but he clearly moves out of it.

  4. #328
    Regular in the Side
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    The Glorious Peoples Republic of Hookturnistan
    Posts
    813
    Quote Originally Posted by Industrial Fan View Post
    he's not inside 5m of the mark?

    And if we are paying that for every contest we'd have 20+ 50m penalties per game. It's an odd time to enforce it with no precedent in the game.

    The one against Naismith was rubbish too. He stopped because the ball was going overhead. I understand that players often block to allow an easy uncontested mark but that should have been a push if anything but really should have been play on imo.
    Naismith was following flight of the ball, took his eyes off the ball by looking to see where Bellchambers was. If he had kept watching the ball he may well have got the free.
    sprite

  5. #329
    Regular in the Side crackedactor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
    Anyone still wondering why that 50 was paid, the one in the fourth quarter, that allowed Hurley to have a shot and put the Bombers 19 in front? Well, if it was against Rohan, it was totally imaginary. But I suspect that it was against Towers, and if we didn't end up staging a miraculous comeback, then it probably would've been hugely controversial.

    The first bit of action that I managed to freeze, shows Hurley taking the mark and Rohan moving in to stand the mark. Take note of the position of Towers.
    Attachment 1925

    The second picture shows Rohan taking the correct position and Towers swinging out.
    Attachment 1926

    The third picture shows Rohan totally static on the mark, while Towers attention is momentarily attracted by Hurley looking to play on.
    Attachment 1927

    The final one shows Rohan still correctly on the mark, Towers still continuing in his path away from Hurley and the umpire blowing 50.
    Attachment 1928

    And that my friends, was the decision that could have easily cost us the game and possibly the season.
    Absolutely disgraceful decision again!! becoming tired of this, reminds me Of the Kieran Jack 50m penalty against HAWTHORN LAST YEAR. Heard on the Footy show the Bulldogs have a 140 plus free kick ratio, the same as last year, Also revealed that Sydney , North Melbourne and Hawthorn wHY?) are questioning the free kick differences constantly with the AFL.

  6. #330
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,330
    Quote Originally Posted by sprite View Post
    Naismith was following flight of the ball, took his eyes off the ball by looking to see where Bellchambers was. If he had kept watching the ball he may well have got the free.
    Errr, since when has it been a punishable offence to know where your opponent is? I don't think that it's written anywhere in the rulebook, that hearing them coming is okay, but using your eyes to get a better idea of where they are is verboten. I suspect that sort of misinterpretation of the rules, has been popularised by commentators of the quality of Brian Taylor, Luke Darcy, etc.

  7. #331
    Veteran Site Admin
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    16,394
    Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
    Errr, since when has it been a punishable offence to know where your opponent is? I don't think that it's written anywhere in the rulebook, that hearing them coming is okay, but using your eyes to get a better idea of where they are is verboten. I suspect that sort of misinterpretation of the rules, has been popularised by commentators of the quality of of Brian Taylor, Luke Darcy, etc.
    I don't much like that interpretation but it is consistently paid as a shepherding free.

  8. #332
    Veterans List dejavoodoo44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    7,330
    Quote Originally Posted by liz View Post
    I don't much like that interpretation but it is consistently paid as a shepherding free.
    Yes, but Naismith was going for the mark himself. Can you actually shepherd for yourself?

  9. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by sprite View Post
    The third picture is the proof, look at where Towers is in relation to Hurley.

    He is clearly in the protected area. He isn't following a player nor is he moving away as per the rules.

    Decision seems correct to me, a lack of awareness proves costly in this case.
    You seem a bit too eager to crucify towers

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by crackedactor View Post
    Absolutely disgraceful decision again!! becoming tired of this.
    It can't be against towers but did Rohan creep up on the mark or something?

  10. #334
    Goodesgoodesgoodesgoodes! Industrial Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Doughnuts don't wear alligator shoes
    Posts
    3,266
    Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
    Yes, but Naismith was going for the mark himself. Can you actually shepherd for yourself?
    His other choice was to keep running under the ball. If he stopped his opponent getting to the contest then fine, but he didn't block him. If anything he was pushed away from the drop.

    Happy with a play on call, but it wasn't a shepard.

  11. #335
    Senior Player
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by sprite View Post
    The third picture is the proof, look at where Towers is in relation to Hurley.

    He is clearly in the protected area. He isn't following a player nor is he moving away as per the rules.

    Decision seems correct to me, a lack of awareness proves costly in this case.
    I caught up with the video. At all times Towers was moving out of the protected area . He did slow down to look around, but kept moving out of the area the whole time.That was an umpire created 50m penalty! Becoming far too regular an accurrence for my liking.

    Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
    We have them where we want them, everything is going according to plan!

  12. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by Scottee View Post
    I caught up with the video. At all times Towers was moving out of the protected area . He did slow down to look around, but kept moving out of the area the whole time.That was an umpire created 50m penalty! Becoming far too regular an accurrence for my liking.

    Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk
    That 50m call was very puzzling. I thought it must be an off-the-ball incident (or perhaps abuse). Commentators didn't seem any the wiser either.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO