AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Not quite. It's not like any other bad umpiring decision. The correct take would be to protest, not the goal umpire's decision itself, but the AFL and umpires failing to apply their own legislated procedures to instigate a goal review, which clearly would have avoided the problem. I would have thought that would be legally tenable.
I know for a fact ....ESS supporters & others are not enamoured with Tsatas .....makes Keays look like an elite kick
I'm not 100% sold on that concept TBH. I think the more accurate statement is "Oliver and the Demons is a cooked pairing now". Something in that relationship is now super toxic and bringing both parties down.
Geelong would one such club.
You'd imagine Lukosius want to compare PORT to the CROWS
"...it was vague just a watch this space type of thing." Pretty much sums up this thread
Yeah I think he might be a lost cause personally
Many thought Tsatas would play in the last round of the year .....he can improve to be an adequate kick over time, but here's another case of outside mids failing to justify top 10 Draft status
Some people are desperate to feel important.Can we please start banning some people in here that constantly say they have intel and are always wrong and have no idea. You know who you are…. Just making shite up, Adelaide are usually the most secretive clubs in trying to recruit. We’ve never had any inside knowledge in this group. The closest thing we ever had was some Redhorse who was wrong also
youre wrong it is different. that argument was planted by the afl to the vic media to stop us lodging a protest. we should have tested it - collingwood would have i assure you
Can we get the lawyers in ask about them signing Nicks back up?
That's a common misconception. The procedure is to review every goal, not every score. The kick was deemed a point and therefore not subject to review under procedures in place at that time.
Several field umpires should have been able to see that it was a goal and should have called for a review. Also.the two ARC angles were enough to clearly show was a goal, so the guy's mobile was not required.
To be fair, quality midfielders don't go to Victoria unless they have ties too, it works both ways.
also helps that Geelong don't appear to have to worry about a salary cap either
Who was the 'suitor' Berry had, and what is your source? You really think Collingwood put an offer in front of him?
I'm not disputing that, but there's a hell of a lot more quality midfielders that come from Victoria than SA.
You're missing the point (no pun intended). A review was not required under procedures at the time, because it wasn't called a goal.
The problem with front ending is that with 2 years to go suddenly your star interstate talent wants a better deal and asks to be traded, just when the investment is paying off.
How come then if the ball crosses over the point line but its touch and go as to whether its crossed over or remained in play, they can stop the play and use a video review to determine its a point. The umpire calls for that on field. There is no difference then if they can call for that as to why they could nto have called for a review on whether it was a point or a goal, or has that only happened this season where they review if the ball crossed the point (or goal) line. Different scenario but same situation.
The umpires can call for a review regardless of whether they think it's a point or a behind. However, only goals were reviewed by default. Mr Magoo had the option of asking for a review, but chose not to, and it wasn't automatically reviewed because it was (incorrectly) called as a behind.
You've said this before and its not true. Its quite clear on the replay that it doesn't hit the post.
