1st QF Swans v Giants

[dejavoodoo44]

Tippett must just be inspecting the ANZ surface to see why the players are slipping over!

Worms: there's too many worms!

[Meg]

Tippett must just be inspecting the ANZ surface to see why the players are slipping over!

[stellation]

Bizarrely, the Match Review Panel statement claims that at no stage did Tippett's head hit the ground. Honestly, how stupid do they think people are? And what do they think caused the semi-consciousness? Sudden loss of altitude? A strong gust of wind? Low blood sugar? They also insinuate that it was okay, because Tippo's jaw was already broken.

Match Review Panel full statement: finals week one - AFL.com.au

Kurt Tippett left hurting after Mumford tackle - YouTube

his head does not hit the ground at any stage during the tackle.

Screen Shot 2016-09-12 at 5.39.39 pm.jpg

[stellation]

I did send in a tweet to Whistleblowers asking for a discussion on why there wasn't a free for Mumford tackle but as we saw it didn't get considered. They discussed one that was given some weeks ago - and agreed it was a correct decision - and it was a much milder tackle than Mumford's with the player who was put down bouncing straight up to take the free kick.

I can understand an umpire missing contact that is a bit abnormal, which I think was the case with Joey, and I wouldn't want them calling a whistle based on the result when they haven't seen the cause (if all officials could avoid doing that then our boy basketballers would have an Olympic medal!)- but I fail to see how 3 umpires can't see one really big guy sling another really big guy to the ground in a tackle, so I think that would have been an interesting one to understand if they viewed it as dangerous or not (because if it was dangerous then that's a pretty bad miss).

[kilroyII]

Bizarrely, the Match Review Panel statement claims that at no stage did Tippett's head hit the ground. Honestly, how stupid do they think people are? And what do they think caused the semi-consciousness? Sudden loss of altitude? A strong gust of wind? Low blood sugar? They also insinuate that it was okay, because Tippo's jaw was already broken.

Match Review Panel full statement: finals week one - AFL.com.au

Kurt Tippett left hurting after Mumford tackle - YouTube

Yep BUT remember a lot of AFL fans are, as the late great Gene Wilder put it:

[dejavoodoo44]

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."

Bizarrely, the Match Review Panel statement claims that at no stage did Tippett's head hit the ground. Honestly, how stupid do they think people are? And what do they think caused the semi-consciousness? Sudden loss of altitude? A strong gust of wind? Low blood sugar? They also insinuate that it was okay, because Tippo's jaw was already broken.

Match Review Panel full statement: finals week one - AFL.com.au

Kurt Tippett left hurting after Mumford tackle - YouTube

[Meg]

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.

I did send in a tweet to Whistleblowers asking for a discussion on why there wasn't a free for Mumford tackle but as we saw it didn't get considered. They discussed one that was given some weeks ago - and agreed it was a correct decision - and it was a much milder tackle than Mumford's with the player who was put down bouncing straight up to take the free kick.

[Sandrevan]

Mad Dog Johnson.

Please send this photo to Johnsons mum.

[dejavoodoo44]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1621[/ATTACH]
Roid Rage

Johnson reacting to the indignity of being suspended for the prelim.

images (1).jpg

[stellation]

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.

[Maltopia]

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]

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?

[Meg]

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.

[dimelb]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1621[/ATTACH]
Roid Rage

Mad Dog Johnson.

[stellation]

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 - - -

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.