Ahhh, was that the common sense rule coming into play.I can see how they miss the daicos dropping ball - mm in it
But the two collingwood player rushed 10m over the mark for the non 50
How do you get that so wrong?
Ahhh, was that the common sense rule coming into play.I can see how they miss the daicos dropping ball - mm in it
But the two collingwood player rushed 10m over the mark for the non 50
How do you get that so wrong?
That was incredible, even by afl terrible umpiring standards. It wasn't a soft 50, it was a blatant 50.Over the mark??View attachment 23143
Apprantly they are saying he wouldve paid 50 but he played onEvery North player with their arms out clearly aware of the rule…….the ump, not so much.
This will be another sheepish apology from the pricks saying they made a mistake. They don't care.Apprantly they are saying he wouldve paid 50 but he played on
Absolute bullshiit
Total opposite of what actually happened. They ran over the mark anticipating he would play on, but he hadn't and the ump hasn't called play on. Thats why the rule is there! Truly amazingApprantly they are saying he wouldve paid 50 but he played on
Absolute bullshiit
Yep. Don’t think the ump had called play on/or signalled with his arms so still should have been 50.Apprantly they are saying he wouldve paid 50 but he played on
Absolute bullshiit
1st pickPhillips blanketed Nick Daicos for 3 quarters but Clarke subbed him off at 3/4 time. Daicos went berserk in last quarter while Phillips sat on the bench. They said on telecast he wasn’t injured.
Any of the journos ask supercoach Clarko why he made that move?
They know better than to **** with city hallI guess I’m naive but I’m amazed there’s no uproar from all the clubs about the standard of umpiring and how ridiculous the different interpretations are from one game to the next. Everyone is on the receiving end of this rough pineapple at some stage. They ought to be united on this.
Only people that choked harder than North in that last quarter were the Umpires.
No 50 in that marking contest was disgraceful, but wait for it.... will be ticked off by Laura.
A myriad of reasons.Why, though?
Said it once and I'll say it again - how the hell can the umpires of the peak tier of competition for a sporting code only be part-time employees? It's farcical.I guess I’m naive but I’m amazed there’s no uproar from all the clubs about the standard of umpiring and how ridiculous the different interpretations are from one game to the next. Everyone is on the receiving end of this rough pineapple at some stage. They ought to be united on this.
Agree. Did a Dimma backing the flogs and how hard their work is. He was right in saying it was their own fault choking but still a lost opportunity in the last seconds should be questioned. Maybe he knows you can't win.If I was a North fan, Clarkson's presser would've made me want to vomit.
Had a real 'who cares' vibe to it, with pats on the back for a good effort.
AFL will tick it off as usual.Total opposite of what actually happened. They ran over the mark anticipating he would play on, but he hadn't and the ump hasn't called play on. Thats why the rule is there! Truly amazing
Clarkson had money on CollingwobblesAgree. Did a Dimma backing the flogs and how hard their work is. He was right in saying it was their own fault choking but still a lost opportunity in the last seconds should be questioned. Maybe he knows you can't win.
It stinks. But thanks, good answer.A myriad of reasons.
Some clubs still live off the AFL’s teat so would have no interest in biting the hand that feeds them.
Others will have executive level staff that don’t want to have doors firmly shut for sideways or upward cushy career moves into the AFL *smile* house.
Having the AFL’s ‘accredited propagandists’ write stories about how certain coaches or officials are whingers for having the temerity to speak frankly about obviously incompetent decisions would stop some in their tracks.
Or just knowing that all they’ll get in return is a statement the equivalent of ‘these are not the droids you’re looking for’ would create a certain level of ambivalence you would think.