Autopsy AFL 2020 Round 12 - Dockers v Blues Sat August 15th 8:10pm AEST (Optus) Match Highlights in OP

Who will win and by how much?

  • Freo by a goal or less

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Blues by a goal or less

    Votes: 2 4.9%
  • Freo by 7 - 20

    Votes: 22 53.7%
  • Blues by 7 - 20

    Votes: 9 22.0%
  • Freo by a lot

    Votes: 5 12.2%
  • Blues by a lot

    Votes: 3 7.3%
  • Draw

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

Regarding down field free kicks...

"The free kick is awarded at the spot where the kick or handpass lands or is first possessed, to the nearest player to the spot (unless the disposal is backwards, or the ball lands out of bounds or through for a behind, in which case the free kick is awarded to the infringed player at the spot of the infringement"

Uh oh.
Holy cow!

Massive blue by that ump.

Pardon the pun.
 
So why was Carlton's free kick given downfield but both Freo's kicks were brought back 50 metres. The kick should have been brought back.

Blatant cheating
The free kicks you are referring to where paid for push in the back as the players kicked the ball, not after they disposed of the ball. So they correctly brought the ball back.
The last 2 free kicks paid to Carlton were absolute stinkers though.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Regarding down field free kicks...

"The free kick is awarded at the spot where the kick or handpass lands or is first possessed, to the nearest player to the spot (unless the disposal is backwards, or the ball lands out of bounds or through for a behind, in which case the free kick is awarded to the infringed player at the spot of the infringement"

Uh oh.

That is a fairly big mistake!
 
Regarding down field free kicks...

"The free kick is awarded at the spot where the kick or handpass lands or is first possessed, to the nearest player to the spot (unless the disposal is backwards, or the ball lands out of bounds or through for a behind, in which case the free kick is awarded to the infringed player at the spot of the infringement"

Uh oh.

If that's the other way round the VFL media call for all sorts of bans on Optus games for the future.

Absolutely rorted the purples
 
I love having a laugh at Freo as much as the next West Coast supporter (probably moreso), but that was just wrong. If that call was made against my team I would crack the sh*ts hard.

I agree the decision was wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right, but imo it evens out an early shocking decision leading to a Freo goal. So neither call was right but in a way you could argue it's sort of fair. If that dodgy htb wasn't paid I'd feel for Freo more.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

There's plenty of horrible decisions in every game that can happen at anytime. Just because this resulted in a shot at goal after the siren why is it any worse than any other terrible decision and deserve more scrutiny?

Thats easy to answer. Freo had two similar free kicks in the last quarter and neither were paid downfield. They were brought back to where the infringement took place. Carlton's was paid down field when the rules required it to be returned to where the infringement occurred because he kicked it out bounds.

The maggots didn't even attempt to hide their bias. They should be sacked but they'll be rewarded for that effort.
 
Well if you take out the two shockers in the first quarter paid to Freo directly in front of goal, then the one Newnes kicks after the siren... we still win. Take the good with the bad with umpires Blues supporters have been told :)
Accept the gift, acknowledge the robbery, take the 4 points and run. The wrong team won because of the umps.
 
Free shouldn't have been downfield, according to the rules.

Edit: They must've changed the rules since I last looked. Free can be paid closest to where it went out of bounds if it doesn't disadvantage the team which has the free.
 
Last edited:
How stupid by Taberner to paddle the ball deliberately out of bounds?

Players need to learn the umpire is always going to pay that deliberate.
except for 3.5 quarters of the game the umps let that sort of shit go and focus on punishing kicks that go 40 m down the ground before going out
 
Momentum doesn’t matter when you collect someone high or in the back, so why would it matter in a late hit? Free kick was 100% there. Literally don’t hit someone after they’ve kicked the ball, it’s not that hard.
People are more referring to the "deliberate out of bounds" adjudication. If you paddle the ball in front of you, such that it is parallel with the boundary line, I'm not sure you're attempting to deliberately tap the ball out of bounds. Couple that with the bounce of a Sherrin being pretty damn unpredictable at the best of times, and you have a farcical decision.
 
There's plenty of horrible decisions in every game that can happen at anytime. Just because this resulted in a shot at goal after the siren why is it any worse than any other terrible decision and deserve more scrutiny?
Mate, check my posting history. I’ve been complaining about the umpiring long before this.

It just hopefully brings more attention to it, because it quite literally ended up directly costing a team 4 premiership points.

The umpiring is obviously appalling across the board, but this is just the pinnacle of it, and exemplifies/emphasises WHY it needs to be fixed instantly. Umpiring incompetence simply cannot be a factor in close games. And this shows why.
 
Momentum doesn’t matter when you collect someone high or in the back, so why would it matter in a late hit? Free kick was 100% there. Literally don’t hit someone after they’ve kicked the ball, it’s not that hard.
Applying your logic, every attempted smother that is not successful and contacts the kicker After the ball moves forward is a free kick. It’s never been interpreted that way.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

Autopsy AFL 2020 Round 12 - Dockers v Blues Sat August 15th 8:10pm AEST (Optus) Match Highlights in OP

Back
Top