The funniest bit about that scan of the fans, is the one fan that seemed to take most dislike to him and his celebration was wearing a North shirt haha
-
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.
WEEK 2 FINALS 2021
- Thread starter RoarEmotion
- Start date
The funniest bit about that scan of the fans, is the one fan that seemed to take most dislike to him and his celebration was wearing a North shirt haha
What was funny when you heard the audio "you can see the ball deviate" really? i couldn't. Do I think it was touched I would say more yes than no, was it conclusive no way, so the goal should've stood.
Same opinion as I have. Was most likely touched, but did the ball deviate in those grainy images? Not from my eye either. I would have been livid if that had been overturned against the Tiges, as bad a call as the one against Shai against the Giants a few years ago which would have won us the game.
Was that the one in 2017? Barely touched the Giants player’s fingernail? That would have been Shai’s first goal, too.
We did. Shai’s goal would have given us an unassailable lead with the time remaining. We beat them in the next game at the G, though. That was the game where Astbury threatened to break Toby Greene in half after his cheap shot on Rance.
"Mamma mia, here we go again, just another failure".... I wonder if Zorko's got a nice bum.Did you see him after the game being interviewed. He was clearly pissed off that that was paid against him.
His foot WAS NOT pointing towards the boundary when he went to kick it. In fact his foot wasn't pointing at the boundary even when he kicked it, it skewed off the side of his boot. The bump from Cameron from behind I'm pretty sure was the biggest impact of what caused it.
Leppa called it a skill error on the call.
The stunned looks on the faces of Daniher and Cameron after the siren were gold.
Razor said that they're instructed to determine whether players demonstrated intent to keep the ball in play.
Daniel didn't look towards the boundary or kick the ball towards the boundary, but the umpires reckons he didn't show enough intent to keep the ball in play.
Chamberlain explained how umpires have been told to officiate the rule and how it goes beyond deliberately attempting to get the ball out of bounds.
“So, the guidelines that we’re given now is that the player with the football, or who’s handballing the football, knocking the football, kicking the football, they have to demonstrate a sufficient intent to keep the ball in play,” he said.
“The guts of it is if they’re looking to kill the ball, they put themselves in a position where they could incur a free kick."
www.sen.com.au
Daniel didn't look towards the boundary or kick the ball towards the boundary, but the umpires reckons he didn't show enough intent to keep the ball in play.
Chamberlain explained how umpires have been told to officiate the rule and how it goes beyond deliberately attempting to get the ball out of bounds.
“So, the guidelines that we’re given now is that the player with the football, or who’s handballing the football, knocking the football, kicking the football, they have to demonstrate a sufficient intent to keep the ball in play,” he said.
“The guts of it is if they’re looking to kill the ball, they put themselves in a position where they could incur a free kick."
Chamberlain explains what umpires look for with deliberate out of bounds
Ray Chamberlain believes the naming of the rule may just be wrong.
www.sen.com.au
I don't spend as much time on here as I used to so just wondering - why all the hate for Fagan?
P.S. Lions' flog players/team I completely understand. Round 10 is burnt into my memory. I was barracking for the Dogs like crazy, and the Barometer wasn't even out there.
P.S. Lions' flog players/team I completely understand. Round 10 is burnt into my memory. I was barracking for the Dogs like crazy, and the Barometer wasn't even out there.
Ah - my beloved father (2 years gone, just after 2019 Cup) used to call him “Bompatelli”.
For some reason, he always called Jack “Reiwoldts” as if we had two of him.
But his best Dad-name was for that atrocious Hawthorn player, “VickeryYouClot”.
Think we can criticise Fagan fairly without the ageism.
Last edited:
It’s actually “Hear Hear” - it means “Listen to him!” or “Hey, everyone should hear this!”
Don’t normally correct people (though every “your” instead of “you’re” or that Americanism “lay” instead of “lie” annoys me) - but this common error really aggravates my goat
Last edited:
Granted on the football knowledge part.
If it's about the action or outcome, they should take the word "intent" out of the rule, and stop screaming "insufficient intent" at the players during the game.
Sounds to me like the umpire is judging intent to keep the ball in . . . oh, wait a minute, that's what you just said. Your argument that the free kick is reasonable is specifically based on the umpire assessing intent.
The issue with the commentators is they keep claiming the umpires are judging whether the player was deliberately trying to get the ball out of bounds, which is why they keep talking about deliberate out of bounds, but the umpires' job is to judge intent to keep the ball in. We can argue until the cows come home but intent is what the rule says and that is what I expect the umpires to adjudicate.
As a fan and a paid up member of one of the clubs, I see no reason why I can't comment on the game. Don't agree at all on the claimed knowledge part. Are we all supposed to refrain from any comments/discussions/arguments on any topic we have no specific expertise in?
DS
