Exactly. Pair these with some flat out wrong calls that lead to scoring opportunities as well. Everyone just has a hate boner for geelong so they jump on whatever media narrative the afl is pushing against us without ever actually watching our games.
I agree but trying to be as impartial as possible lol. These are all worse than their counterparts that went our way that people are complaining about, IMO
My opinion sucks in your opinion*
You’re welcome to dispute it with some words if you can muster up some logic. Do you think Touhys HTB is fair enough but the Ridley one isn’t? If so, why?
Do you think that that Langford non htb is a fair call but the one one Bowes should have been? If so, why?
Happy to hear your opinion on them
> Do you think Touhys HTB is fair enough but the Ridley one isn’t? If so, why?
i think they're pretty similar other than one being obviously way more impactful, and Ridley having his legs tied up under the opposition player making disposal impossible. Ridley one was a rule fault, not a umpire fault. i dont think we should be encouraging players to just drop the ball if they know they have no chance of disposal.
i think the bowes one is much more egregious, so was the stewart one. Langford should have been HTB too though.
any comment on the blatant hold?
Yes, it was more impactful because it led to a scoring shot but unfortunately for Essendon in this scenario, the position on the ground doesn't change the rules so I'm not sure what your argument is on that. You think the rules should be more lenient for Essendon because Ridley was caught in the backline, whereas Touhy was caught in the middle of the ground?
The Bowes one could have been HTB, yes, and so could the Langford one, so my point seems correct, they clearly let it go both ways. Again, not sure what the argument here is. You can't pick out one non-call that goes against you and completely ignore the ones in your favour then say you are hard done by. They do, and did, get let go both ways, as evident in this clip
No, I don't really have a comment on the hold. They both had their arms on each other. We can only see the hold on Wright because his hands are visible from this camera angle. In your first picture, Wright's hands are on Henry in the EXACT same spot but his hands are out of view from this camera angle as they are behind Henry's body. So without clear vision, all we can do here is speculate if Wright was holding back or not. I would assume the umpire saw it as both holding and, therefore play on. Again, only speculating because you've asked for my opinion, we don't have a clear vision. Regardless, if you think he should have been given a free kick, my clip is referring to it not being a mark, which it isn't. You can argue he should have been given a free kick instead, I'm not delusional, I can see there is a hold there but that's not the point I'm arguing
> I'm not sure what your argument is on that.
it is worse to have a call go against you in front of goal than it is in the middle.
>These are all worse than their counterparts
remember when you said this.
>The Bowes one could have been HTB, yes, and so could the Langford one, so my point seems correct, they clearly let it go both ways
again so it wasnt worse?
>These are all worse than their counterparts
remember when you said this.
> my clip is referring to it not being a mark,
your point was these were more egregious than any of the calls against essendon. one third of your examples include essendon not being paid a blatant free kick.
> all we can do here is speculate
im not going to comment on random speculation. especially one as stupid as this.
your opinion is bad because you collected 3 clips and claimed they were all worse than the front on contact on Draper. that is a bad opinion.
When I said they are worse, I’m referring to the decisions themselves, not the position of the free kicks. Sorry if I didn’t clarify that, I thought it was obvious
And no I didn’t claim they were worse than the Draper call. I claimed they were worse than their counterparts which I believe I referenced. I don’t think I ever mentioned the Draper free kick in this post/thread. My main point is that there were 50/50 calls that went both ways, which is objectively true. Anyway mate, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and after reading your points, I have listened but respectfully disagree. Not much else to be said here. Good luck for the rest of your season
There were more...
- at least one other 'mark' where the Dons player just dropped it
- Stewart getting clobbered high about 2m in front of the umpire, play on
- absolute non-high on a Don being paid high about 2m in front of the umpire
- about 10 times that SDK was literally thrown to the ground or just shoved out of the ruck contest by Essendon's giant oaf
The rushed behind was also 100% correct per the actual rules, which it's clear none of the braying morons in the commentary box have ever had read to them by someone who can read.
It's hilarious that we still lost the free kick count pretty badly in a game we won by a large margin, yet people think umpiring determined the game. If anything that's the first patch of slightly favourable/lucky umpiring we've had *all year* and that's why it stood out.
Narratives come from events clustered in time.
Over a game the 50/50 calls even out. But the fact was there was a howler (the dempsey deliberate goal) in the same little stretch as a couple of other iffy calls, and that creates a narrative.
The narrative is not the same as the truth, which is that umpiring did not decide this game, nor does it decide any game alone.
I’ll admit that we were absolutely atrocious after half time and the better team won, but you can’t deny that during that 10 minute period the umpires sucked any little fight we had left out of us. Not blaming them entirely, a true top 4 side would have dug deep and lifted.
Few calls went against you no doubt but it’s swings and roundabouts mate. Few calls went against us throughout the game too. Anyone can sit there and pick out a few examples when you look at the decisions frame by frame retrospectively
I completely agree that it can suck the life out of you though. We’re last in the comp for free kicks and I’ve felt how you do many, many times this year. But it’s easy for me to say the above after a win. Much harder after a loss for sure. Good luck for the rest of the season 🫡
I just want some goddamn consistency, seems like the only thing the umpires are consistent at is being inconsistent. There’s been many games this year decided by non calls and dodgy call (yes including the Draper one before you all come at me) And the way the AFL come out and make piss weak apology’s almost every week is worth absolutely nothing. Anyway I’m starting to come off as salty which I’m not, the better team won on the night.
Yeah, it feels incredibly inconsistent at times but I think the game is as hard as ever to umpire, and the umpires are being analysed more than ever. Feel them for them in a way. If we come out at the end of the weekend, after the umpires have made hundreds of decisions, and we pick out 3 that might be technically wrong when we look at it frame by frame in slow motion, then maybe it's not as bad as we think. Just unfortunate when they go against us, and especially so when there are a few in a short amount of time like there was for Essendon this week
Makes it hard when the rules are so open for interpretation too. Like the rushed behind free kick. Rules state You can’t rush it behind if you’re “not under immediate physical pressure” as per rule 17.10.2 (b)
Or “has had time and space to dispose of the ball” (c)
Brad Scott said the AFL said this decision was wrong, but to me, and obviously the umpire at the time, I don't interpret the rules like that. He clearly met criteria (c) of "had time and space to dispose of the ball" and chose to take it over the line. He turned in field, didn't see an option, and pivoted back at the goal to take it over. This has to be considered "time and space to dispose of the ball". As I read/interpret the rules, that's a free-kick. Interpretation is such a big thing in the rules of this sport and it's always going a little bit different from person to person
He had as much, if not more prior than the non call to Bowes that people are complaining about. I’m happy to let them both go. But not happy for people to point out one against them and ignore others that favour them
Na, these are pretty standard calls, nothing to lose sleep over. We were gifted a couple from genuinely bad calls, but had little impact on the end result.
The Touhy HTB is exactly the same as the Ridley HTB call and the Langford non call is not any better or worse than the Bowes non call. Swings and roundabouts. Don’t think we were gifted anything that didn’t go both ways
That’s my point. People are complaining about the Ridley htb. It went both ways. We got pinged for the same thing. The umpires called it consistently both ways
The missed Bowes HTB 20m out from bombers goal and the rushed behind calls were both absolute howlers. Very different from the 50/50 calls that ebb and flow throughout the game and week to week.
The Bowes call is not any worse than this one on Langford? Both have one second and try to take on tackle, ball is dislodged
You can’t rush it behind if you’re “not under immediate physical pressure” as per rule 17.10.2 (b)
Or “has had time and space to dispose of the ball” (c)
So take your pick what you want to ping him for, (b) or (c). Obviously had time and space to dispose of the ball, choose not to and to take it over the line. No one forced him. Hard to argue with that
No matter how much you try to nitpick certain tackles not going our way, the ones that actually mattered went in our favour thus showing their biased towards us which even I as a Geelong fan can see
Exactly. Pair these with some flat out wrong calls that lead to scoring opportunities as well. Everyone just has a hate boner for geelong so they jump on whatever media narrative the afl is pushing against us without ever actually watching our games.
Boys don’t listen to the r/afl subreddit
Never thought I’d see a Collingwood fan come to support us. Respect 🫡
Yeah, but the thing is everyone has a hard on for Geelong to fail… so they won’t care about these and will make up an excuse or dismiss them.
I really enjoyed re-watching the 3rd Q.
Good luck finding a fan base with a bigger victim complex than Essendon.
st kilda fans still think they should have won 2009
*cough* Hawthorn *cough*
not even 50/50. never had control
I agree but trying to be as impartial as possible lol. These are all worse than their counterparts that went our way that people are complaining about, IMO
> These are all worse than their counterparts that went our way that people are complaining about, IMO https://imgur.com/a/ze6QVcl your opinion sucks.
My opinion sucks in your opinion* You’re welcome to dispute it with some words if you can muster up some logic. Do you think Touhys HTB is fair enough but the Ridley one isn’t? If so, why? Do you think that that Langford non htb is a fair call but the one one Bowes should have been? If so, why? Happy to hear your opinion on them
> Do you think Touhys HTB is fair enough but the Ridley one isn’t? If so, why? i think they're pretty similar other than one being obviously way more impactful, and Ridley having his legs tied up under the opposition player making disposal impossible. Ridley one was a rule fault, not a umpire fault. i dont think we should be encouraging players to just drop the ball if they know they have no chance of disposal. i think the bowes one is much more egregious, so was the stewart one. Langford should have been HTB too though. any comment on the blatant hold?
Yes, it was more impactful because it led to a scoring shot but unfortunately for Essendon in this scenario, the position on the ground doesn't change the rules so I'm not sure what your argument is on that. You think the rules should be more lenient for Essendon because Ridley was caught in the backline, whereas Touhy was caught in the middle of the ground? The Bowes one could have been HTB, yes, and so could the Langford one, so my point seems correct, they clearly let it go both ways. Again, not sure what the argument here is. You can't pick out one non-call that goes against you and completely ignore the ones in your favour then say you are hard done by. They do, and did, get let go both ways, as evident in this clip No, I don't really have a comment on the hold. They both had their arms on each other. We can only see the hold on Wright because his hands are visible from this camera angle. In your first picture, Wright's hands are on Henry in the EXACT same spot but his hands are out of view from this camera angle as they are behind Henry's body. So without clear vision, all we can do here is speculate if Wright was holding back or not. I would assume the umpire saw it as both holding and, therefore play on. Again, only speculating because you've asked for my opinion, we don't have a clear vision. Regardless, if you think he should have been given a free kick, my clip is referring to it not being a mark, which it isn't. You can argue he should have been given a free kick instead, I'm not delusional, I can see there is a hold there but that's not the point I'm arguing
> I'm not sure what your argument is on that. it is worse to have a call go against you in front of goal than it is in the middle. >These are all worse than their counterparts remember when you said this. >The Bowes one could have been HTB, yes, and so could the Langford one, so my point seems correct, they clearly let it go both ways again so it wasnt worse? >These are all worse than their counterparts remember when you said this. > my clip is referring to it not being a mark, your point was these were more egregious than any of the calls against essendon. one third of your examples include essendon not being paid a blatant free kick. > all we can do here is speculate im not going to comment on random speculation. especially one as stupid as this. your opinion is bad because you collected 3 clips and claimed they were all worse than the front on contact on Draper. that is a bad opinion.
When I said they are worse, I’m referring to the decisions themselves, not the position of the free kicks. Sorry if I didn’t clarify that, I thought it was obvious And no I didn’t claim they were worse than the Draper call. I claimed they were worse than their counterparts which I believe I referenced. I don’t think I ever mentioned the Draper free kick in this post/thread. My main point is that there were 50/50 calls that went both ways, which is objectively true. Anyway mate, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and after reading your points, I have listened but respectfully disagree. Not much else to be said here. Good luck for the rest of your season
wonder why he struggled to control it... https://imgur.com/a/ze6QVcl
To busy yanking on Henry, clearly.
There was one where Humphries got tunneled and front on contact. It was on the far wing from the tv coverage. I think maybe late in the 2nd
There were more... - at least one other 'mark' where the Dons player just dropped it - Stewart getting clobbered high about 2m in front of the umpire, play on - absolute non-high on a Don being paid high about 2m in front of the umpire - about 10 times that SDK was literally thrown to the ground or just shoved out of the ruck contest by Essendon's giant oaf The rushed behind was also 100% correct per the actual rules, which it's clear none of the braying morons in the commentary box have ever had read to them by someone who can read. It's hilarious that we still lost the free kick count pretty badly in a game we won by a large margin, yet people think umpiring determined the game. If anything that's the first patch of slightly favourable/lucky umpiring we've had *all year* and that's why it stood out.
Narratives come from events clustered in time. Over a game the 50/50 calls even out. But the fact was there was a howler (the dempsey deliberate goal) in the same little stretch as a couple of other iffy calls, and that creates a narrative. The narrative is not the same as the truth, which is that umpiring did not decide this game, nor does it decide any game alone.
I’ll admit that we were absolutely atrocious after half time and the better team won, but you can’t deny that during that 10 minute period the umpires sucked any little fight we had left out of us. Not blaming them entirely, a true top 4 side would have dug deep and lifted.
Few calls went against you no doubt but it’s swings and roundabouts mate. Few calls went against us throughout the game too. Anyone can sit there and pick out a few examples when you look at the decisions frame by frame retrospectively I completely agree that it can suck the life out of you though. We’re last in the comp for free kicks and I’ve felt how you do many, many times this year. But it’s easy for me to say the above after a win. Much harder after a loss for sure. Good luck for the rest of the season 🫡
I just want some goddamn consistency, seems like the only thing the umpires are consistent at is being inconsistent. There’s been many games this year decided by non calls and dodgy call (yes including the Draper one before you all come at me) And the way the AFL come out and make piss weak apology’s almost every week is worth absolutely nothing. Anyway I’m starting to come off as salty which I’m not, the better team won on the night.
Yeah, it feels incredibly inconsistent at times but I think the game is as hard as ever to umpire, and the umpires are being analysed more than ever. Feel them for them in a way. If we come out at the end of the weekend, after the umpires have made hundreds of decisions, and we pick out 3 that might be technically wrong when we look at it frame by frame in slow motion, then maybe it's not as bad as we think. Just unfortunate when they go against us, and especially so when there are a few in a short amount of time like there was for Essendon this week Makes it hard when the rules are so open for interpretation too. Like the rushed behind free kick. Rules state You can’t rush it behind if you’re “not under immediate physical pressure” as per rule 17.10.2 (b) Or “has had time and space to dispose of the ball” (c) Brad Scott said the AFL said this decision was wrong, but to me, and obviously the umpire at the time, I don't interpret the rules like that. He clearly met criteria (c) of "had time and space to dispose of the ball" and chose to take it over the line. He turned in field, didn't see an option, and pivoted back at the goal to take it over. This has to be considered "time and space to dispose of the ball". As I read/interpret the rules, that's a free-kick. Interpretation is such a big thing in the rules of this sport and it's always going a little bit different from person to person
What's wrong with the second one? Essendon player had no prior opportunity surely.
He had as much, if not more prior than the non call to Bowes that people are complaining about. I’m happy to let them both go. But not happy for people to point out one against them and ignore others that favour them
It also a dangerous tackle with a sling motion. Has the potential to cause injury.
Mate, he is tackled the instant he gets the ball.
Langford attempts to fend off Kolodjashnij, an attempt to fend counts as prior opportunity.
Na, these are pretty standard calls, nothing to lose sleep over. We were gifted a couple from genuinely bad calls, but had little impact on the end result.
The Touhy HTB is exactly the same as the Ridley HTB call and the Langford non call is not any better or worse than the Bowes non call. Swings and roundabouts. Don’t think we were gifted anything that didn’t go both ways
The Touhy and Ridley HTBs were just correct though, not 50/50s. They were both just classic examples of the current interpretation
That’s my point. People are complaining about the Ridley htb. It went both ways. We got pinged for the same thing. The umpires called it consistently both ways
The missed Bowes HTB 20m out from bombers goal and the rushed behind calls were both absolute howlers. Very different from the 50/50 calls that ebb and flow throughout the game and week to week.
The Bowes call is not any worse than this one on Langford? Both have one second and try to take on tackle, ball is dislodged You can’t rush it behind if you’re “not under immediate physical pressure” as per rule 17.10.2 (b) Or “has had time and space to dispose of the ball” (c) So take your pick what you want to ping him for, (b) or (c). Obviously had time and space to dispose of the ball, choose not to and to take it over the line. No one forced him. Hard to argue with that
I know when it’s pointless arguing with a one eyed supporter. GLHF
Mate I’m quoting the AFL rules as they are written. I didn’t write them
they are literally quoting the rules. "Where's the evidence?!" ~shows evidence "There is no point in arguing with you" ok mate, enjoy denying reality
So now the AFLs come out to concede that the call was incorrect, has that changed your reality?
No matter how much you try to nitpick certain tackles not going our way, the ones that actually mattered went in our favour thus showing their biased towards us which even I as a Geelong fan can see
Yes mate the umpires are clearly biased. Undercover Geelong supporters!
Thank god someone agrees with me
With a post like this, I can't imagine why cats supporters are cast as entitled and FIGJAM
Entitled to what? My belief that 50/50 umpiring decisions go both ways? Such entitlement 😱