Sydney vs Collingwood Match Thread

[dejavoodoo44]

Ridiculous. It was a free kick, not bad behaviour and certainly not worthy of continued booing.

A portion of our crowd has fallen for the media (and AFL) generated storm around Ginnivan and it’s just silly.

Garbage, he has a well earned reputation for staging. It is not a figment of the fevered imagination of opposition fans. And if you're going to talk about media generated storms, the attention being given to his booing on Sunday, seems a bit over the top. The booing that he got when sitting on the bench was only really occurring late, when 7 were repeatedly showing shots of him for some reason. And the noise level suggested that it was only a very small minority of the crowd, possibly about 5% of the volume of the noise of disapproval, that is generated every time a free is given against West Coast in Perth? Actually, when he got his free, the booing was probably less, than the booing that a home Collingwood crowd, greet any free that's given against them. So, why the focus on the Swans crowd?

[liz]

I don't think it's ridiculous. Before the umpires were instructed to adapt the interpretation it would've been a free kick. He clearly raises his arm and lowers the body which has been instructed not to be paid, and it hasn't been, until this particular instance. Errol has changed his technique accordingly so I can't see why Ginnivan can't do the same.

I don't know that Errol has changed his technique so much as it was just not as ingrained into his game as it has become for Ginnivan and a few others. He always used it sparingly, and hasn't for a few weeks, but that's not to say he won't ever do it again. He also doesn't spend his time parked in the forward line, so he's involved in a wider range of plays than Ginnivan.

I suspect its currently a bit of a reflex action for Ginnivan and something that won't be easy for him to immediately stop.

We also have an AFL-led situation where fans have been decrying the Selwood-shrug for a decade or more, and the AFL ticked off on it, indicating it was a legitimate move worthy of being rewarded with a free kick. Even now the industry (fans, the media, coaches) seem split on whether deliberately playing for a few kick is smart or cheating. Furthermore, I reckon every single player who's played more than a handful of games would have "accentuated contact" on occasion to try and win a free kick. A sizeable number have done worse (eg thrown their head back in a contest even with no high contact, thrown their body forward in a marking contest).

I've never liked booing in any context at footy games, and don't partake. But I feel especially uncomfortable about one (or a couple) of players being singled out by crowds for something not that different to what most players have done at some stage of their career. Particularly while the industry is still working out whether it views this as legitimate or not.

For the record, I don't think frees should be paid to players who essentially cause the high contact to themselves, for safety reasons as much as any other. But I also think the AFL should do more to call out players who exaggerate contact to win illegitimate frees. It's a tough enough game for the umpires to umpire as it is.

[Maltopia]

I don't think it's ridiculous. Before the umpires were instructed to adapt the interpretation it would've been a free kick. He clearly raises his arm and lowers the body which has been instructed not to be paid, and it hasn't been, until this particular instance. Errol has changed his technique accordingly so I can't see why Ginnivan can't do the same.

Look at the photo from the Horse article.

Paddy has grabbed Ginnivan on top of his shoulder right next to his neck when Ginnivan is in a higher position (so Paddy is reaching up) before he raised his arm.

So any subsequent ducking and the raising of the arm had no impact on whether it was a free kick or not, Paddy had made contact to near the neck region already. The raising of the arm slightly in this instance certainly did not accentuate the contact to the neck.

This was a clear free kick.

[dejavoodoo44]

You’re correct. The underlying reasons for the booing are vastly different. But i don’t think that is the comparison being made here.

It’s more a generic observation on singling out players as villains & the potential for psychological impact.

I don’t like it & won’t do it - regardless of the reason.

Hmm, even though it may appear otherwise, I'm actually not much of a booer myself. And I'd certainly hate it if the Sydney crowd, became like the West Coast crowd and loudly and self-righteously booed every decision that went against them. It's more that I think that the controversy has largely been generated by his own actions, and that he can easily protect himself from any psychological harm, by no longer staging for frees. I mean, at a very basic level, the human brain is much like a thermostat, that receives both positive and negative feedback, and it then tends to adjust behaviour accordingly.

[dejavoodoo44]

Look at the photo from the Horse article.

Paddy has grabbed Ginnivan on top of his shoulder right next to his neck when Ginnivan is in a higher position (so Paddy is reaching up) before he raised his arm.

So any subsequent ducking and the raising of the arm had no impact on whether it was a free kick or not, Paddy had made contact to near the neck region already. The raising of the arm slightly in this instance certainly did not accentuate the contact to the neck.

This was a clear free kick.

Or possibly that contact was largely caused by prior lowering of his body by Ginnivan?

[Maltopia]

Or possibly that contact was largely caused by prior lowering of his body by Ginnivan?

I think you may be doubling down here.

Paddy is what, 6’4”? and he tackled Ginnivan from behind. He is always at risk of tackling too high when lunging at a much shorter player with his own arms raised above his own shoulder height.

The photo shows Ginnivan is near upright at the point of contact, and they replayed the free kick on slow motion and there did not appear to be lowering before contact.

[111431]

I think you may be doubling down here.

Paddy is what, 6’4”? and he tackled Ginnivan from behind. He is always at risk of tackling too high when lunging at a much shorter player with his own arms raised above his own shoulder height.

The photo shows Ginnivan is near upright at the point of contact, and they replayed the free kick on slow motion and there did not appear to be lowering before contact.

Paddy was at fault. Ginnivan did nothing wrong- let’s all move on

[snajik]

Yeah it was very poor from our supporters and quite frankly embarrassing . How quickly we forget when Goodes was being booed constantly .
The poor guy had just done a hamstring I thought our supporter base was above that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

+1. It was pissweak.

[stevoswan]

And during our game BT claimed the umpires were "three of the best in the business". I mean, are there any umpires the commentators
think aren't "the best in the business"? I've become a bit concerned this "best in the business" thing has become very diluted. To the
point now that it essentially means "pretty ****ing average".

+1

[stevoswan]

But nothing. Irrespective of “Vic journo’s” it’s fairly pathetic from our offending supporter group. As a supporter group, our complaints against other Goodsey booing supporters will now inevitably be viewed as hypocritical.

And as for Pies fans and players having short memories, we would have better moral high ground if our fans didn’t commit a similar offences. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Our fans will never be as bad as the a-holes who incessantly booed Goodsey....and it is disingenuous to hint at that. A bit too much is being made of a few boos. Booing IS part of footy, we just don't want to see it aimed at one person week in, week out. Besides, in this case, "we boo him because he stages" would actually be true. That's the difference here. Goodsey never staged to the extent young Jack does despite the BS claims of some racist fans looking for an excuse to boo him, never shhhh'd the crowd, never smiled like a smartarse and never dyed his hair blond to 'stand out'. We all know what the motivation of the Goodes haters was. There's so many differences in these two cases. Our fans are allowed to boo just as much as any fan base.

However, if we continue to boo him next time we play Collingwood, then I would be concerned. This, hopefully and likely, was a one off.

[stevoswan]

Well, no. While it was probably unnecessary to boo Ginnivan after he was taken off, I have no sympathy for the booing that he cops, because he's entirely brought it on himself. Once he stops flagrantly staging for free kicks, he'll find that the booing will stop. And it's no use people claiming that he doesn't stage, because the AFL have actually given a directive to the umpires, to be less inclined to pay high contact frees, because it was obvious to pretty well everyone that he was relentlessly play acting. So, do you really think that fans won't give him the negative feedback that he so richly deserves? Are opposition supposed to happily accept charity goals given against their team?

And any comparison to the Goodes situation is very much false equivalence. Goodes did not have any sort of history of flagrantly staging for frees. Sometimes he put his hands in the air and appealed when being held without the ball, like about 90% of the players in the competition. The myth that Goodes staged, was largely put out there by racist trolls, to deflect from the fact that he was the victim of an ugly media campaign, by some high profile, far right commentators: Bolt, Jones, Devine, etc. Adam was attacked by those people, because he was a high profile indigenous athlete, who made some mild comments about indigenous disadvantage, which disagreed with their propaganda that there was no such thing.

+1000

[dejavoodoo44]

I think you may be doubling down here.

Paddy is what, 6’4”? and he tackled Ginnivan from behind. He is always at risk of tackling too high when lunging at a much shorter player with his own arms raised above his own shoulder height.

The photo shows Ginnivan is near upright at the point of contact, and they replayed the free kick on slow motion and there did not appear to be lowering before contact.

Not sure about doubling down, but I'm probably spending too much time on the issue. Especially as I was quite impressed by seeing acclaimed author, Johann Hari, on breakfast TV this morning, giving an impassioned plea about how we shouldn't be so distracted by our phones.

Anyway, having seen that photo, I went back to have a look at the footage. That still shot appears to quite late in the piece. When contact is first made, Paddy is at about a 45° angle to the ground, due to him lunging over another Collingwood player, while Ginnivan is about 60°. The initial contact appears to be forearm, for the hand that later rises up to his neck. Ginnivan then rapidly heads both towards the ground and towards Paddy. And one wonders what causes him to fall in that direction, as any contact should have seen him bounce in the other direction. He also raises his arm, which when combined with the lowering of his body, causes Paddy's arm to rise to where it was captured in that photo. So, I'm not entirely pleased by the choice of photo on the AFL site, as I suspect they could have just as easily chosen a shot, where Paddy was making contact with the forearm, or one that captured Ginnivan raising his arm. But that possibly doesn't fit in with general narrative of the article?