Autopsy AFL 2024 Round 11 - Walyalup (Freo) v Pies Fri May 24th 6:10pm WST/8:10pm AEST (OS)

[Nicco_jj]

I am watching Armchair Experts. Even the former Freo player Sheridan agrees that it was touched.

Amazing how little Luke Hodge mentioned it live... He saw it and moved on quick smart. He was still seething that Josh Daicos didn't get called for deliberate earlier.

Pies fans, can you imagine the front page Ness it would be if a Collingwood goal was touched in a win or draw?

 

[Elixuh]

The Sullivan free wasn’t contentious. Clear free. The contentious one was not calling back the clear touched quaynor ball. I think they just let it play because the pies were up by so much.

 

[Toomuchtime]

That's what the Foxtel boys club said, but what other choice did he have? You could only just get on with it and get your bone head team mates to do the same. Anything else is futile.

Incredible what players are labelled admirable for these days.

You could always do what Freo did and give away another free kick on top for pushing the issue.

 

[Nicco_jj]

Isn't this what the stupid goal review system is designed for ??

Yeah exactly.

My issue isn't that it was touched and not called (it happens - and the ump couldn't have seen it). My issue is that it actually was briefly reviewed and was STILL called a goal.

If we have the tech, the tech shows its touched, and it's still called a goal... Why bother having the tech?

 

[Nicco_jj]

The Sullivan free wasn’t contentious. Clear free. The contentious one was not calling back the clear touched quaynor ball. I think they just let it play because the pies were up by so much.

I agree with this even though I hate the Sullivan call. If it's in the book we can't complain.

The Qaynor non call got no airtime.

 

[WindyHillZephyr]

That’s not correct. 18.13(b) is referring to general play where you can’t hand the ball to a team mate - which is akin to throwing the ball to a teammate.

On second thought, I am happy to stand corrected. The rule should be better written.

 

[cactuscall]

You could always do what Freo did and give away another free kick on top for pushing the issue.

Haha I like that. Must've blocked it from my memory

 

[beerbandit]

There’s no getting that dust off bro.
View attachment 1999543

Rent free

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Yeah, 18.13(b) is obviously talking about one teammate in general play just handing the ball to another teammate. Ie akin to a throw.

So as others have said, it’s more a general time wasting free. Which is not what Nicholls was saying - Nicholls said that it was a free to hand the ball to a teammate rather than straight back to the umpire - which is not true.

I think Nicholls got confused with 18.10 (c) which is only for out of bounds. Just a mistake in the end.

 

[WilloTree]

18.13(b) does not apply.

If it were to apply, then 18.13(a) would apply as well any time a player throws a ball at the umpire. It’s just s**t umpiring by a s**t umpire. Simple as that.

Jon Ralph explained after the game that cleared this up a bit for me.

"In 2022 the AFL said that they were worried that their Game Analysis Team were seeing too many players who were wasting time, so they had to crack-down. They said, in that crack-down we will be less lenient towards players who delay the play. So, clearly it is a rule that you should hand the ball back at a stoppage. Here's the problem; it's not consistently applied"

 

[eddiesmith]

I think Nicholls got confused with 18.10 (c) which is only for out of bounds. Just a mistake in the end.
View attachment 1999569

C could be paid a dozen times a game as well, players never give it back to the boundary.

 

[domus]

It's in the rules. No time wasting.

How was time wasted? They stop the clock for a ball up. How would time wasting have benefited Collingwood in that situation? And if the time lost in that one action was more than half a second I'd be stunned. Time wasting?

 

[WilloTree]

That's what the Foxtel boys club said, but what other choice did he have? You could only just get on with it and get your bone head team mates to do the same. Anything else is futile.

Incredible what players are labelled admirable for these days.

I suppose he could have sworn at himself..

 

[BigTacoBandit]

C could be paid a dozen times a game as well, players never give it back to the boundary.

C specifically says they can drop it on the ground instead.

 

[domus]

Second time in the last three games where a side has played to ice it and in the process blew the door open for their opponent to snatch it.

Hard to criticise a side that have done it superbly so often but that was one we blew.

How? There were moments where a hand on the pill would have halted their movement, or another step could have seen a smother. They played well and got a huge wave of momentum from a terrible umpiring call. Momentum shifts so quickly and is very hard to stop on a big wide ground and a huge hometown crowd roaring. I don't think we did too much wrong. There were a couple of great snaps and a great mark that set up the draw for them.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

How many times a week do you watch a match and a player with the ball runs out of bounds and then just drops the footy on the ground for the boundary umpire to throw in? Apparently all those were free kicks to the opposition.

Wrong. 18.10 (c) allows them to drop it on the ground.

 

[Demons09]

You're way past the point of anything you post actually being considered by other decent users or even respected by the worst. Most people like to engage in genuine discussion and opinion, but not you! Pathetic existence you must have to make these sorts of continuous posts. The question is, why bother?

On you go to the ignore list to make Bigfooty a better experience.

Theres a thread for flogs like this on the bay, it’s called Essendon supporters say the darndest things.

 

[Farang83150]

Freo are dead set so hard to watch, the massive overuse of HB gets so ridiculous at times.
Fyfe and Walters need to read the room.

 

[BigTacoBandit]

Problem with (d) is that the clock was stopped as soon as the whistle was blown. Paying a free kick for that when the clock is stopped is even more ridiculous.

Just out of curiosity - under what circumstances could a time wasting free kick be paid in the AFL then given that the clock stops?

Would it be OK at a ball up for a player to kick the ball into the stands instead of giving it to an umpire?

 

[Lach72]

You should be more concerned about your team and it’s cavalcade of mediocre turnips who consistently let you down with their pathetic attempts at hardness and ruthlessness at the ball.

You know who those players are..and if you don’t acknowledge them ..then you are completely delusional and living in Wonka land.

Get a load of this arrogant campaigner.

Hasn’t seen a finals win in twenty years, crapping on with some delusional superiors knowledge.

GFY

 

[The Blueseum]

If this was a Carlton game the whole media narrative would have been how a dominant team choked and gave up a late 25 point lead in the game and describing every single mistake in detail and how bad the players, coaching staff and fans are and why they should be ashamed.

But this is Collingwood and all we get is shrugs.

 

[doppleganger]

Jon Ralph explained after the game that cleared this up a bit for me.

"In 2022 the AFL said that they were worried that their Game Analysis Team were seeing too many players who were wasting time, so they had to crack-down. They said, in that crack-down we will be less lenient towards players who delay the play. So, clearly it is a rule that you should hand the ball back at a stoppage. Here's the problem; it's not consistently applied"

That wasn't paid for time wasting.

The is no clear rule that you have to hand the ball directly to an umpire at a stoppage.

Jon Ralph doesnt know what he is talking about.

 

[fnerd]

I mean, he looked at the umpire, turned around and gave Daicos the football. It was still a stupid free kick to pay, but if it's true that Nicholls did give them a warning earlier in the game, then fair enough.

Yep
Was contest in middle of the ground between serong and Sidebottom resulting in a ball up
Nicholls called for Sidebottom to give him the ball twice but he just left it on the ground and ran off .
Nicholls was shaking his head

Cleary he was pissed off about Collingwoods delay tactics.(all teams do it btw)

Also as you said , a lot of convenient missing of that important fact - Sullivan LOOKED at Nicholls , knowing full well he s to give him the ball but simply turned his back and gave the ball to daicos.
It was deliberate act

You could see the look on daicos face too after Sullivan gave it to him and then on handed it to Nicholls tentatively as , then when Nicholls blew his whistle he knew straight away why

 

[eddiesmith]

C specifically says they can drop it on the ground instead.

Yeah and plenty of times they don’t just drop it but throw it away, I’ve seen them hand it to the wrong umpire, technically that’s a free kick and Matty would love to pay it against Collingwood!!!

 

[cactuscall]

Maybe time to expand on the 'engage in time wasting' rule to include not handing the ball directly back to the umpire after a stoppage. Remove any confusion or argument.

Why you wouldn't anyway though, it's just asking for an inconsistent ruling to go against you considering wasting time exists already.

It may or may not have been an innocent action tonight but annoying delay tactics aren't a good aspect of the game. On the mark hovering over the player trying to get up, not giving it back quickly, playing dumb on who it should go to etc. Should just remove one easily identifiable tactic at least by making it clear cut to hand the ball directly to the umpire.