Match Day Rnd 14 Sydney V Essendon. SCG 19.50 pm.

[dejavoodoo44]

Anyone still wondering why that 50 was paid, the one in the fourth quarter, that allowed Hurley to have a shot and put the Bombers 19 in front? Well, if it was against Rohan, it was totally imaginary. But I suspect that it was against Towers, and if we didn't end up staging a miraculous comeback, then it probably would've been hugely controversial.

The first bit of action that I managed to freeze, shows Hurley taking the mark and Rohan moving in to stand the mark. Take note of the position of Towers.
50 1.jpg

The second picture shows Rohan taking the correct position and Towers swinging out.
50 2.jpg

The third picture shows Rohan totally static on the mark, while Towers attention is momentarily attracted by Hurley looking to play on.
50 3.jpg

The final one shows Rohan still correctly on the mark, Towers still continuing in his path away from Hurley and the umpire blowing 50.
50 4.jpg

And that my friends, was the decision that could have easily cost us the game and possibly the season.

[Velour&Ruffles]

Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
BT saying something stupid?? That can't be right: he's the suppository of all wisdom.

"A suppository is a solid dosage form that is inserted into the rectum (rectal suppository), vagina (vaginal suppository) or urethra (urethral suppository), where it dissolves or melts and exerts local or systemic effects. Suppositories are used to deliver both systemically and locally acting medications."

091, I think Dejavoodoo44 may have said this ironically. The anus of proof lies with you to prove that it was a genuine mistake.

[Scottee]

Anyone still wondering why that 50 was paid, the one in the fourth quarter, that allowed Hurley to have a shot and put the Bombers 19 in front? Well, if it was against Rohan, it was totally imaginary. But I suspect that it was against Towers, and if we didn't end up staging a miraculous comeback, then it probably would've been hugely controversial.

The first bit of action that I managed to freeze, shows Hurley taking the mark and Rohan moving in to stand the mark. Take note of the position of Towers.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1925[/ATTACH]

The second picture shows Rohan taking the correct position and Towers swinging out.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1926[/ATTACH]

The third picture shows Rohan totally static on the mark, while Towers attention is momentarily attracted by Hurley looking to play on.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1927[/ATTACH]

The final one shows Rohan still correctly on the mark, Towers still continuing in his path away from Hurley and the umpire blowing 50.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1928[/ATTACH]

And that my friends, was the decision that could have easily cost us the game and possibly the season.

Well done devavoodoo. Very clearly, the game didn't go according to the AFL script.

Sent from my SM-T805Y using Tapatalk

[707]

Been some shockers on the weekend, North had a few paid against them and look who benefitted - Dogs of course who get up by a point!

Lets hope we get better umpiring this week.

[dimelb]

Anyone still wondering why that 50 was paid, the one in the fourth quarter, that allowed Hurley to have a shot and put the Bombers 19 in front? Well, if it was against Rohan, it was totally imaginary. But I suspect that it was against Towers, and if we didn't end up staging a miraculous comeback, then it probably would've been hugely controversial.

The first bit of action that I managed to freeze, shows Hurley taking the mark and Rohan moving in to stand the mark. Take note of the position of Towers.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1925[/ATTACH]

The second picture shows Rohan taking the correct position and Towers swinging out.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1926[/ATTACH]

The third picture shows Rohan totally static on the mark, while Towers attention is momentarily attracted by Hurley looking to play on.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1927[/ATTACH]

The final one shows Rohan still correctly on the mark, Towers still continuing in his path away from Hurley and the umpire blowing 50.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1928[/ATTACH]

And that my friends, was the decision that could have easily cost us the game and possibly the season.

Thanks dejavoodoo, I was one of the wonderers, and the decision is still as clear as mud, or simply wrong.

[sprite]

The third picture is the proof, look at where Towers is in relation to Hurley.

He is clearly in the protected area. He isn't following a player nor is he moving away as per the rules.

Decision seems correct to me, a lack of awareness proves costly in this case.

[Blue Sun]

Been some shockers on the weekend, North had a few paid against them and look who benefitted - Dogs of course who get up by a point!

Lets hope we get better umpiring this week.

Just had a read of the BigFooty North forum, they are not happy about the umpires (and rightfully so, 26-13). Some interesting comments regarding the last game of 2016 as well... #freekickbulldogs

[dejavoodoo44]

The third picture is the proof, look at where Towers is in relation to Hurley.

He is clearly in the protected area. He isn't following a player nor is he moving away as per the rules.

Decision seems correct to me, a lack of awareness proves costly in this case.

I would say that he started in the protected area and that his path out of the protected area, was following the Essendon player a few metres in front of him.

[dejavoodoo44]

Quote Originally Posted by dejavoodoo44 View Post
BT saying something stupid?? That can't be right: he's the suppository of all wisdom.



091, I think Dejavoodoo44 may have said this ironically. The anus of proof lies with you to prove that it was a genuine mistake.

Ahh, the anus of proof.
"Your honour, I move that the testimony be struck off the record".
"Oh, and why is that?"
"Well, the witness is obviously an arsehole."

[dejavoodoo44]

Been some shockers on the weekend, North had a few paid against them and look who benefitted - Dogs of course who get up by a point!

Lets hope we get better umpiring this week.

Yes, it seems that the AFL's rule of the week, is probably shepherding in the marking contest. North copped it with the Brown non-goal. While we had a really soft one paid against Naismith, where he positioned himself to take the mark, Bellchambers jumped into his back and he got penalized for shepherding.

[Industrial Fan]

The third picture is the proof, look at where Towers is in relation to Hurley.

He is clearly in the protected area. He isn't following a player nor is he moving away as per the rules.

Decision seems correct to me, a lack of awareness proves costly in this case.

he's not inside 5m of the mark?

And if we are paying that for every contest we'd have 20+ 50m penalties per game. It's an odd time to enforce it with no precedent in the game.

The one against Naismith was rubbish too. He stopped because the ball was going overhead. I understand that players often block to allow an easy uncontested mark but that should have been a push if anything but really should have been play on imo.

[S.S. Bleeder]

The third picture is the proof, look at where Towers is in relation to Hurley.

He is clearly in the protected area. He isn't following a player nor is he moving away as per the rules.

Decision seems correct to me, a lack of awareness proves costly in this case.

Isn't it a 5m zone? He was within the zone just after he took the mark but he clearly moves out of it.

[sprite]

he's not inside 5m of the mark?

And if we are paying that for every contest we'd have 20+ 50m penalties per game. It's an odd time to enforce it with no precedent in the game.

The one against Naismith was rubbish too. He stopped because the ball was going overhead. I understand that players often block to allow an easy uncontested mark but that should have been a push if anything but really should have been play on imo.

Naismith was following flight of the ball, took his eyes off the ball by looking to see where Bellchambers was. If he had kept watching the ball he may well have got the free.

[crackedactor]

Anyone still wondering why that 50 was paid, the one in the fourth quarter, that allowed Hurley to have a shot and put the Bombers 19 in front? Well, if it was against Rohan, it was totally imaginary. But I suspect that it was against Towers, and if we didn't end up staging a miraculous comeback, then it probably would've been hugely controversial.

The first bit of action that I managed to freeze, shows Hurley taking the mark and Rohan moving in to stand the mark. Take note of the position of Towers.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1925[/ATTACH]

The second picture shows Rohan taking the correct position and Towers swinging out.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1926[/ATTACH]

The third picture shows Rohan totally static on the mark, while Towers attention is momentarily attracted by Hurley looking to play on.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1927[/ATTACH]

The final one shows Rohan still correctly on the mark, Towers still continuing in his path away from Hurley and the umpire blowing 50.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1928[/ATTACH]

And that my friends, was the decision that could have easily cost us the game and possibly the season.

Absolutely disgraceful decision again!! becoming tired of this, reminds me Of the Kieran Jack 50m penalty against HAWTHORN LAST YEAR. Heard on the Footy show the Bulldogs have a 140 plus free kick ratio, the same as last year, Also revealed that Sydney , North Melbourne and Hawthorn wHY?) are questioning the free kick differences constantly with the AFL.

[dejavoodoo44]

Naismith was following flight of the ball, took his eyes off the ball by looking to see where Bellchambers was. If he had kept watching the ball he may well have got the free.

Errr, since when has it been a punishable offence to know where your opponent is? I don't think that it's written anywhere in the rulebook, that hearing them coming is okay, but using your eyes to get a better idea of where they are is verboten. I suspect that sort of misinterpretation of the rules, has been popularised by commentators of the quality of Brian Taylor, Luke Darcy, etc.