When the siren sounds the umpire blows the whistle and raises his arms. He could hardly blow it twice then award a free kick.Originally Posted by greeng
When the siren sounds the umpire blows the whistle and raises his arms. He could hardly blow it twice then award a free kick.
This is really nice!
The 10 month wait to see their son play live - YouTube
Post edit: Geez Deja, you beat me by a couple of hours. Nice work!
Last edited by stevoswan; 4th May 2021 at 12:34 AM.
Wow, I'd forgotten about that. Didn't start it but yeah, that's my hysterical comment!
Well, that makes at least 3 goals I count now that Geelong should not have got. Yeah, I reckon that easily evens it up.
Ok, this makes it pretty clear.
https://twitter.com/FOXFOOTY/status/...936097800?s=19
Yep and the free against Lloyd for an arm chop with 7 to go in the third which resulted in a goal to Close was another. The replay clearly showed Lloyd doesn't make contact.Well, that makes at least 3 goals I count now that Geelong should not have got. Yeah, I reckon that easily evens it up.
Thanks for posting this Matt. It is very clear and puts to rest the alternative being put forward that the ump called ‘touched’ rather than ‘not 15’.
The umps would be damned one way or the other. Whateley criticises the ump for making the call early: he wants them to wait until the player catches the ball and then decide if it was 15. Sounds sensible but in a situation where it is indeed not 15 it would disadvantage the player with the ball.
Cameron fell to the ground as he marked (which very often occurs when a player has flown for the ball). Had the ump then called ‘not 15’ Cameron would have had no chance of playing on before being jumped on by several Swans players.
This is what happened to Hayward when he hadn’t heard a ‘touched’ call. And then he was penalised for HTB.
So the solution is not as straightforward as Whateley suggests.
I maintain there was no touched call for Hayward. The umpire called his fumble when he stood up as trying to play on. It was only play on from that point - and the field mic picks up the umpire saying you elected to play on.
He ate more cheese, than time allowed
Ok. My point still applies: whatever the reason for the Hayward incident it is illustrative of what can happen when a play-on call is made only at the point at which the player has the ball - as Whateley wants to happen with ‘not 15’ decisions.
Does anyone have audio of the "touched" call. ?
I must have biaised ears as I was one of those who were certain they could make out touched/play on call watching the replay. Last night's AFL360 evidence makes it clear there was only the Play On call.
However I'm annoyed at the media inference that Cameron would've certainly goaled, considering he would've most likely taken the shot post siren on acute angle where he wouldn't be allowed to run around off the mark.
Which is why I was peed off when Whateley suggested it would be fair if the Swans lose a game against Brisbane as a result of late umpring error to even things up, but was disappointed that we're not fixtured to play them again.
All of this "the Swans were lucky" stuff is based on the ridiculous assumption by media personalities that the Cameron decision was the only umpiring mistake made in the game. From what media pundits are saying, you'd think that up until the last 10 seconds, every free kick the umpires paid was correct and that every time they didn't make a call, they got that right too! Geelong's first goal came from a mark paid from a kick that was nowhere near 15 metres. The free kick paid against Lloyd that led to a goal was a shocking decision as well! No mention of any of these instances in the media!
To change the subject, I've watched highlights of the game numerous times and the crowd was just magnificent! The reactions to the Papley goal and the final siren were reminiscent of the Nick Davis final! Fantastic stuff!
Go Bloods!
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks