AFL Autopsy 5 pt loss v Swans

[ChampTurboBucko]

I don't agree. If you read the game day thread there was a lot of dissatisfaction about the form of the team. If we won, free kick or not, people weren't happy with how we won. I don't think that anyone who saw that game thought we deserved to win or would watch it again because it was good football. We don't have to lose to effect change. We just need to change.

In Bruno's world everyone else is a Kool Aid guzzling dribbler who still thinks we're amazing and he's one of the few enlightened ones, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

 

[CBombers17]

I can't take the AFL as a serious competition with the AFL and Gillon ticking off a decision that clearly breaches the rule because of "the impact", "practical umpiring" and "feel for the game".

Whether Myers got close to kicking the goal or not does not matter. The rule says:



No free kick is paid if the player scores a goal. A free kick is paid on the goal line if the player does not score a goal. No debate about that at all.

So what does 17.11.1 state?


The goal post 100% shook. No doubt about that. What should be asked is, was it intentional contact with the goal post that caused it to shake? Answer is 100% yes. Therefore, this clause does apply to the situation that unfolded.

Gillon going on about practical umpiring and feel for the game is complete BS when it contradicts those clauses.

The rule applies at the time the above clauses are in effect. Otherwise, there is no point having a rule book in place if it isn't used to adjudicate.

They tick off mind boggling non-calls in the ANZAC game. However, that didn't directly cost us the game because it is entirely hypothetical.

This however directly costs a team 4 points and isn't open to interpretation such as prior opportunity, but they tick off on it for "practical" reasons? Practical umpiring because they don't have the courage to call it? Practical because they feel like it?

Joke of an organisation. Scrap the rule book and use feelings to adjudicate.

It's just like Polo by golly, all you need is 20 good pony's and a bloody good feel for it.

 

[Duckworth]

It's just like Polo by golly, all you need is 20 good pony's and a bloody good feel for it.

There is only one thing Gill has a good feel of, and he needs to get his hand off it.

 

[sameolds33]

I can't take the AFL as a serious competition with the AFL and Gillon ticking off a decision that clearly breaches the rule because of "the impact", "practical umpiring" and "feel for the game".

Whether Myers got close to kicking the goal or not does not matter. The rule says:



No free kick is paid if the player scores a goal. A free kick is paid on the goal line if the player does not score a goal. No debate about that at all.

So what does 17.11.1 state?


The goal post 100% shook. No doubt about that. What should be asked is, was it intentional contact with the goal post that caused it to shake? Answer is 100% yes. Therefore, this clause does apply to the situation that unfolded.

Gillon going on about practical umpiring and feel for the game is complete BS when it contradicts those clauses.

The rule applies at the time the above clauses are in effect. Otherwise, there is no point having a rule book in place if it isn't used to adjudicate.

They tick off mind boggling non-calls in the ANZAC game. However, that didn't directly cost us the game because it is entirely hypothetical.

This however directly costs a team 4 points and isn't open to interpretation such as prior opportunity, but they tick off on it for "practical" reasons? Practical umpiring because they don't have the courage to call it? Practical because they feel like it?

Joke of an organisation. Scrap the rule book and use feelings to adjudicate.

So a player given a 50 metre penalty runs into another player who then gives away another 50 m penalty for obstruction, resulting in a goal. But that's strictly interpreted, no "practical umpiring" there.

It is not the umpire's role to judge whether Myers' kick had a 10%, 100% or 1% chance of going through (which is why the free was not given). It is the umpire's job to apply the rules regardless of the outcome.

 

[carloss]

Gillon McLachlan tells 3AW it was "pretty practical umpiring" around Dane Rampe decision. "It's about having a feel for the game- that's what good umpiring is."

So it's about the feel for the game and not the rules hey?

Kinda reminds me of this

 

[coastalpipeline]

I don't agree. If you read the game day thread there was a lot of dissatisfaction about the form of the team. If we won, free kick or not, people weren't happy with how we won. I don't think that anyone who saw that game thought we deserved to win or would watch it again because it was good football. We don't have to lose to effect change. We just need to change.

New training drill?

 

[citizen-erased]

You know what I find amazing?

Probably none of the vitriol I've just read through gets posted if we get that dumb free kick. It would have been replaced with laughing at Sydney getting what "it deserved" (for being good and embarrassing us for the 15 years we have been a dogs breakfast).

We would then spend all week arguing about about Ham's great running contribution and querying whether we can change a winning combination.

Literally nothing about the performance would have changed.

It's why we have to lose and why I watch games hoping the opposition wins.

The club will act if the fans vote with their feet. Last year we spent all year clinging to this idea that we found our "real selves" (funnily enough it is the real self we have never displayed naturally or instinctively) and we couldn't possibly learn anything about the kids on our list while finals were still a shot.

We reap what we sow and I genuinely believe it includes the injuries. It's like clockwork, the players we need always end up injured largely in circumstances where they didn't start out as injured but where they were never part of the original plan anyway. Edit: and then conveniently we are "hamstrung" by injury. The original planning speaks for itself, it always does.

tend to disagree. i was over us well and truly before the end of the game
And im glad they didnt pay it. And Myers didn't kick it. We did not deserve to win it. The Swans fought. Ran hard. Tackled. Marked the ball. If they hadn't kicked so poorly early we'd have been 4-5 goals down.

When the likes of St Kilda, Carlton and GCS go past us in the next 12-18 months, let's see how our membership base responds to the lack of professionalism this club has shown since 2000/2001.

Even if we win that, the form has been piss poor this year.
And it goes to the standards we set and how low the bar is at this club.

Ever since the 2017 EF final loss and the pat on the back we gave ourselves - we've been off the mark.

 

[ghostdog]

I have a question for the elders who reside here...

I was born in 78 so for all intents and purposes I was born into a successful era, my first memories are flags , finals and big club ethos.

Clearly 84 was our first flag since 65, 24 years in the football wilderness. I assume we were classed as a powerhouse in the 60s. So what transpired between 65 and 83... Is it similar to what has happened since 2000?

Moreover, Ive read that we were near basket case levels in the mid to late 70s, soft, no identity ect. (Sound familiar?)

It took a brash young go getter to come in , sweep the place clean, instill culture, a hard nosed list ect. And so the cycle continues.

Question being, do we need our young go getter to come in and do the Sheedy treatment from the ground up? Like right now? Or are they still attached to the idea we are in window?

A bloke like hodge reeks of potential sheedy, but I think the difference is Sheedy was an ess fan, I think it matters. I genuinely reckon the ess haw thing runs too deep for hodge to work.

Maybe a difference between Worsfold and Hodge I reckon is that although Worsfold was hard as a player and came through with a solid team, when it came to coaching he won a flag and lost a person. He will forever be asking himself if it was something in the way he reinforced the culture at WC that pushed Ben Cousins wayward. I wouldn't be surprised if the experience has softened Worsfold a bit, and he has inherited a group that was dragged through the saga. There's something fatherly in his continued faith in Myers, TBell etc. Hodge is a different beast born of a culture where no such incidences took effect. I look at what has transpired at Brisbane and I can forget Hodge was at Hawthorn. I'm confident he could bring something sustainable culturally, and if it's success and a winning culture, that goes far beyond the individual. Sam Mitchell can gag though.

 

[sameolds33]

tend to disagree. i was over us well and truly before the end of the game
And im glad they didnt pay it. And Myers didn't kick it. We did not deserve to win it. The Swans fought. Ran hard. Tackled. Marked the ball. If they hadn't kicked so poorly early we'd have been 4-5 goals down.

When the likes of St Kilda, Carlton and GCS go past us in the next 12-18 months, let's see how our membership base responds to the lack of professionalism this club has shown since 2000/2001.

Even if we win that, the form has been piss poor this year.
And it goes to the standards we set and how low the bar is at this club.

Ever since the 2017 EF final loss and the pat on the back we gave ourselves - we've been off the mark.

I made the same comment in the game day thread - that the Swans deserved to win.

 

[sameolds33]

Last night's decision not to give Myers a free reminded me of the prelim where Jimmy Stynes gave away a 15 metre penalty which gave Buckenara a shot on goal that got the Hawks through to the granny. Robbie Flowers' last game, I believe. Both dead now, having never played in a grand final. Too bad they didn't know about "practical umpiring" affecting the outcome of the game.

Also, to those complaining about Hep and Myers being happy after the game, It is possible that, in that moment, they believed that the rule would be applied and Myers would get a free and kick the goal and given Essendon the points. Because they knew the rule.

 

[Doss]

There is a disconnect between Sydney playing the better football and deserving to win based on that, and us being able to expect proper umpiring.

Surely people's self-loathing streak when it comes to Essendon at the moment doesn't run so deep that we are genuinely okay with a perplexing bit of umpiring like that.

 

[Shanghaistu]

There is a disconnect between Sydney playing the better football and deserving to win based on that, and us being able to expect proper umpiring.

Surely people's self-loathing streak when it comes to Essendon at the moment doesn't run so deep that we are genuinely okay with a perplexing bit of umpiring like that.

Can we self-loathe AND be p*ssed at the umpires all at the same time? That would get the weekend off to a good start

 

[JayJ20]

There is a disconnect between Sydney playing the better football and deserving to win based on that, and us being able to expect proper umpiring.

Surely people's self-loathing streak when it comes to Essendon at the moment doesn't run so deep that we are genuinely okay with a perplexing bit of umpiring like that.

100% this.

Both Essendon and the AFL need to be held accountable. Essendon for continued mediocrity and the AFL for ticking off what is a blatant breach of the rule stated in black and white.

Essendon's form does not cancel the AFL's responsibility of ensuring that the umpires adjudicate according to the rules in effect at the time of the infringement.

When the CEO basically says that it can be interpreted according to the "feel of the game", then that opens up a can of worms.

 

[fanuch]

Dodgy decisions on Anzac day ticked off because they were technically correct.
Dodgy decision yesterday ticked off because it was in the spirit of the game and not technically correct.

I'm confused.

 

[Lore]

Dodgy decisions on Anzac day ticked off because they were technically correct.
Dodgy decision yesterday ticked off because it was in the spirit of the game and not technically correct.

I'm confused.

Pretty much sums it up for me too.

 

[BuffDog]

tbh If the roles were reversed in this little free kick saga, let’s say stringer did it, the commentary about it would be VERY different.

 

[sameolds33]

100% this.

Both Essendon and the AFL need to be held accountable. Essendon for continued mediocrity and the AFL for ticking off what is a blatant breach of the rule stated in black and white.

Essendon's form does not cancel the AFL's responsibility of ensuring that the umpires adjudicate according to the rules in effect at the time of the infringement.

When the CEO basically says that it can be interpreted according to the "feel of the game", then that opens up a can of worms.

The AFL should acknowledge that the umpires' failure to adjudicate according to the rules determined the result of the game and regard the game as a draw, with both teams getting two points. I do not think that Esssendon should be given 4 points because Myers was entitled to a free on the goal line, not a goal. Although he had a much better chance of kicking a goal from that position than in his original position, there is no certainty that he would have done so.

 

[Phone]

Gil always says stupid shit like this, I'm more interested in what Hocking says on the matter

 

[Beerfish]

Gil always says stupid **** like this, I'm more interested in what Hocking says on the matter

Won't he just say whatever Gil tells him to?

'Say whatever you have to but this should be your position.'

 

[Doss]

The 'feel for the game' angle is hilarious by the way. Where was this so-called feel for the game last week when, for example, Smith was penalised for the deliberate out of bounds after the ball almost certainly slewed off the side of his boot?

 

[KevDawg]

The post did shake though.

That’s the issue.

According to them it didn’t shake enough to affect Myer’s kick.

 

[Duckworth]

According to them it didn’t shake enough to affect Myer’s kick.

I had thought that you weren't allowed to climb the post to get up higher and try and block the ball either? You know, 'in the spirit' of cheating.

 

[pepsi]

I had thought that you weren't allowed to climb the post to get up higher and try and block the ball either? You know, 'in the spirit' of cheating.

It's ok as its part of the 'feel' of the game

 

[Phone]

Won't he just say whatever Gil tells him to?

'Say whatever you have to but this should be your position.'

they may, but if they (hocking and his team) disagree with the line I suspect you'll hear it through media leaks, similar to post ANZAC day in the Sam McClure article

 

[sameolds33]

I had thought that you weren't allowed to climb the post to get up higher and try and block the ball either? You know, 'in the spirit' of cheating.

The vision of Rampe climbing the post is terrible for the look of the game. Given Gil's preoccupation with "the optics" you'd think that he'd be in favour of the umpires enforcing the rules of the game, rather than endorsing a decision to go with "the vibe" and allow the unattractive spectacle of a player climbing the goal post, which is clearly not a part of the game, to go unsanctioned.

Separately, does anyone know if it was the same umpire that Rampe said sounded like a little girl who told him to get down from the post but refused to apply the rules?