-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Round 1 (2022) - other games
- Thread starter TigerForce
- Start date
He even kicked it with this right foot inwards to the ground but trickled the other way to go OOB. Just amateur, arrogant umpiring at it's best. A typical brain fade we see often from these so called abused ones.It does not go directly from his boot to the line. There are 6 players converging on the area, 3 of each. He is looking inboard, his kicking leg tees off inboard, before he's pushed off it but its still inboard even after that.
The umps do care if you make a skill error, umps make that call all the time on DOOB. Intent is a thing, you are wrong on that. ever heard the phrase 'insufficient intent' as Ant pointed out? Its clear that he has total intent, ie ample sufficient, to keep it in.
Umps only care what you do? How about touched off the boot 'marks' downfield? If that was the case it would be HTB every time, but the umps allow for every player, except Bachar, being deaf, so what they actually do is excused and they aren't penalised.
Have you seen it?
St Kilda’s Jack Steele penalised for ‘worst deliberate call’ in loss to Collingwood
‘It’s wrong’: Fans, commentators up in arms over ‘worst deliberate call’www.foxsports.com.au
I’m not fazed about the insufficient intent rule, but a I do find it amusing that a rule has been introduced where an umpire is supposed to be judging the intent of a player to keep the ball in play by foot, in a game where players repeatedly and freely smash the ball over the boundary line deliberately by hand.
If they’re that worried about players using the boundary line as a form of sanctuary (by foot at least), why wouldn’t they just mandate that if the ball crosses the boundary line by foot (on the full or not) that the opposition player then gets the ball? Clean, no fuss, and actually genuinely easy to adjudicate whilst being free of any of the ‘intent’ nonsense that gets people so riled up. Or would that be ‘too simple’?
If they’re that worried about players using the boundary line as a form of sanctuary (by foot at least), why wouldn’t they just mandate that if the ball crosses the boundary line by foot (on the full or not) that the opposition player then gets the ball? Clean, no fuss, and actually genuinely easy to adjudicate whilst being free of any of the ‘intent’ nonsense that gets people so riled up. Or would that be ‘too simple’?
Pussies v Bummers now on a warm day at the G.
I hope they both lose....
What's with those stencil numbers on Pussies jumper??
I hope they both lose....
What's with those stencil numbers on Pussies jumper??
Rhys Stanley has dinner plates for hands. Two easy dropped marks in defence.
So applying this to Thursdays game, there was a Blues player who 'intended' to kick to the lead of McKay but the ball went out of bounds and it was a ball in. Applying this logic, shouldn't it be a free kick against as the kickers intent wasn't enough to keep the ball in play?
It's tiring timmy. Always 100% sure we're the ones who cop this rubbish. Really is tiring. The sequel of the Stand rule - only against Richmond.
Parish, Caldwell, Shiel, Smith , a small midfield brigade, getting monstered by the cats bigger-bodied mids
Last edited:
Geelong dominating clearances and kicking to a wide open forward line.
Footy doesn't have to be complicated
Footy doesn't have to be complicated
That's true TF, and may it long continue but they at least give themselves a shot at the title.
Agree, as much as we make fun of them, they give their fans something to hope for every season. Just heard yesterday on SEN that Brian Cook is the master of making teams great, and it now looks like the start of Cartoon becoming good again.
