One last gripe!!!

[originalswan]

It's really annoying how the Melbourne media highlight the so called "soft" 50 metre free kick to Schneider.

It is further annoying that they ignore the blatant tripping of McVeigh as he was running into goal. They also missed the kick Crouch should have received when he was tackled without the ball. I won't even talk about Hall's missed free (what else is new?)

[Nico]

Re: One last gripe!!!

Originally posted by originalswan
It's really annoying how the Melbourne media highlight the so called "soft" 50 metre free kick to Schneider.

It is further annoying that they ignore the blatant tripping of McVeigh as he was running into goal. They also missed the kick Crouch should have received when he was tackled without the ball. I won't even talk about Hall's missed free (what else is new?)

One missed free to Barry Hall. Is that all. Was that the one in the 3rd Q near the goals when 2 players put him out of the contest and it was called a point?

[Snowy]

Re: One last gripe!!!

Originally posted by originalswan
It's really annoying how the Melbourne media highlight the so called "soft" 50 metre free kick to Schneider.

It is further annoying that they ignore the blatant tripping of McVeigh as he was running into goal. They also missed the kick Crouch should have received when he was tackled without the ball. I won't even talk about Hall's missed free (what else is new?)

In the Melbourne Age the McVeigh missed trip was noted.

[originalswan]

Did they have a picture of it like the Herald Sun had of the Schneider free?

[ROK Lobster]

The Schneider free and resulting 50 was bollocks. If that decision had been made against Sydney there would be a thread on here with 650 replies by now.

[originalswan]

"The Schneider free and resulting 50 was bollocks" Perhaps it was but the umpires panel adjudged it to have been valid and fairly given. Still Scneider could have made a better attempt.

[cruiser]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
The Schneider free and resulting 50 was bollocks. If that decision had been made against Sydney there would be a thread on here with 650 replies by now.

Maybe so but no worse than a number of appaling decisions that have gone against Sydney so far this year, especially against Esendon, that for some reason werent as newsworthy as this one.

[ROK Lobster]

Originally posted by cruiser
Maybe so but no worse than a number of appaling decisions that have gone against Sydney so far this year, especially against Esendon, that for some reason werent as newsworthy as this one.

Fair enough.

The umpiring really is very inconsistent. I don't think having 3 on the field helps very much in this regard. Perhaps they need to look at grouping umpires together with similar views on the interpretation of the rules, particulalry the more discretional ones.

[anne]

Originally posted by ROK Lobster
Fair enough.

The umpiring really is very inconsistent. I don't think having 3 on the field helps very much in this regard. Perhaps they need to look at grouping umpires together with similar views on the interpretation of the rules, particulalry the more discretional ones.

No thanks. Three umpires, who all hate Sydney, umpiring together would be too much!

[Glenn]

So how is that different to now?

[CureTheSane]

The angle I saw it on TV made it hard to see how far away from Schneider the ball was thrown.

If it was just over his arm then no free as he coule have merely outstretched his arm.

But the ball may have been well past Schneider by the time his arm was in the air, and given the close proximity from where the ball was passed, then I see no problems with the free being awarded.

Seen a lot worse......

[LittleSchneider]

I thought the free kick was definately there - it was a great tackle, rivers made no attempt to get rid of the ball, he had prior opportunity = to me thats holding the ball!

[goswannie14]

Originally posted by originalswan
"The Schneider free and resulting 50 was bollocks" Perhaps it was but the umpires panel adjudged it to have been valid and fairly given. Still Scneider could have made a better attempt.

At that distance Schneider should not have had to reach for the ball at all. I think that fact was probably why it was given. I mean, if you can't throw a ball to an opponent 2 metres away from you you deserve to be penalised.

[ScottH]

We are the most penalised team so far this year, according to the commentary, so we'll take what ever we can get.

[Thunder Shaker]

If Leo Barry could be penalised for pushing an opponent in the back in a marking contest while both players were two metres outside the field of play with the ball heading out on the full, then I have no problem with the 50 metre penalty to Schneider. After a few of the shockers we've seen in the last few weeks, it's nice to benefit from dubious decisions from time to time.