Autopsy AFL 2024 Round 14 - Lions v Saints Fri June 14th 7:40pm AEST (Gabba)

[Holden Megroin]

What is so hard to understand that he ran in and wasn't anywhere near where the mark was.
He should have realised the mark was three or four metres behind were he stood and headed to it.

Needs to know where the mark is.

If the umpire can yell to Lohmans don’t kick it don’t kick it as he ran away with the ball after clear StKilda free.
I’m sure he can say back 2.

 

[zyzzbruh]

What is so hard to understand that he ran in and wasn't anywhere near where the mark was.
He should have realised the mark was three or four metres behind were he stood and headed to it.

I understand why it was paid. I just don't like the ruling that 'coming in' results in no warning. These situations are always so subtle, the guy just wanted to man the mark and probably stopped before reaching it because he was scared that he encroached the marking players space since he came from behind him. Hawkins got pinged last week for the same thing, and it was such an unnecessarily shit decision which resulted in a goal. It's a dumb rule that impacts the scoreboard wayyy to much.

 

[Tjblues]

Ye are you not getting it... I'm saying abolish the 'from the other side' rule... I'd rather him be afforded a warning to move back. You can't convince me the implications of that would be more significant than these constant 50m penalty goals.

There is no “from the other side” rule.

If a player comes from ANY direction to man the mark, and they are deemed to not be in the contest, they do not get a warning.

The implications of taking that rule away have been explained my multiple people, and it’s not a minor change.

Stop trying to change rules based on players making dumb mistakes. He stuffed up, he paid the price, close game or not

 

[Holden Megroin]

Goal square infringement free

Anyone ?

 

[zyzzbruh]

There is no “from the other side” rule.

If a player comes from ANY direction to man the mark, and they are deemed to not be in the contest, they do not get a warning.

The implications of taking that rule away have been explained my multiple people, and it’s not a minor change.

Stop trying to change rules based on players making dumb mistakes. He stuffed up, he paid the price, close game or not

Rightio, whatever the rule is. Idgaf about the intricacies of the rule I'm just telling you what I think of it. I don't like it lol, whether it's around the back or out the contest whatever it is, same shit. My point is going over your head.

The implications of the free kicks are worse than what it would be if it was abolished.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

There is no “from the other side” rule.

If a player comes from ANY direction to man the mark, and they are deemed to not be in the contest, they do not get a warning.

The implications of taking that rule away have been explained my multiple people, and it’s not a minor change.

Stop trying to change rules based on players making dumb mistakes. He stuffed up, he paid the price, close game or not

If that 50m wasn't given then the Saints could have snatched the win and 96%of the tipsters would have been wrong. But instead the umpires once again ruined a good game with their sanctimonious piosity.

 

[melvilledocker]

Why wouldn’t he just call him to the mark? Pays a 50 instead and kills all momentum. AFL is seriously shit

This. It’s happening every week. In fact it’s getting worse, the standard of umpiring. It’s pitiful and destroying the game.

 

[zyzzbruh]

This. It’s happening every week. In fact it’s getting worse, the standard of umpiring. It’s pitiful and destroying the game.

Unfortunately in this case it wasnt the officiating, it's the rule that's shit. Can't remember when the rule was brought it in but before it was, Hawks dynasty and prior, the quality of the game was fine and it was never an obvious thing that needed fixing.

 

[Mat Mann]

Marshall blocks constantly too. Last week Briggs ran straight into our ruckman and blocked every single time without ever being pinged.

Ruck rules have changed this year. Can do whatever you want now.

How was Dinaher launching into Marshall in the Center ruck without looking at the ball like he was a cannonball, never even tried to contest the ball, not pinged once

 

[chaddy22]

This. It’s happening every week. In fact it’s getting worse, the standard of umpiring. It’s pitiful and destroying the game.

it was the right decision. all we want is for umps to pay obvious free kicks and fifties.
I think there was one in the saints backline that could have been given to the saints and wasn't.
i think it is inconsistancy in the game or week to week that annoys me.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

22 free kicks to the Saints, 20 to the Lions.

Hmmmmmm that kinda screwed his story didn’t it.

 

[Holden Megroin]

Hmmmmmm that kinda screwed his story didn’t it.

Brisbane got a dream run

 

[jonnobackpocket]

Brisbane got a dream run

Got a feeling you more than hold your groin, anyway yeah 3 of St Kilda’s first 6 goals from free kicks and more free kicks for St Kilda - the only conclusion is Brisbane got a dream run.

 

[Holden Megroin]

Got a feeling you more than hold your groin, anyway yeah 3 of St Kilda’s first 6 goals from free kicks and more free kicks for St Kilda - the only conclusion is Brisbane got a dream run.

Not sure anyone has ever seen a

GOAL SQUARE INFRINGEMENT FREE

The 50 that sealed it.
The non 50 against Lohman.

Danihers apparent ruck work.

Brisbane dream run

 

[Zacs_Magic_Tooth]

Had the perfect view at the ground. He ran in about 3m inside where the mark was taken. 50 every day of the week. Not even slightly controversial

 

[domus]

Had the perfect view at the ground. He ran in about 3m inside where the mark was taken. 50 every day of the week. Not even slightly controversial

Correct decision? Who cares if it is technically correct? It is an absolute blight on the game to see the outcome decided by something which in no way affected the play. It is similar to the decision to penalize Sullivan a few weeks back in the Freo Collingwood game. Technically correct but an appalling fee kick which also affected the outcome of the clash when no time was wasted, and nobody was inconvenienced. Try and explain this shit to a visitor from overseas.

If you can tell me you have no problem with a grand final being decided with a free like that, I think we have a very different view of how our game should be adjudicated. The rule needs to be revisited. If a player cribs over the mark then pay fifty as he is genuinely affecting the options of the player with the pill. Backing away from the mark should never be a fifty.

 

[paulige]

Had the perfect view at the ground. He ran in about 3m inside where the mark was taken. 50 every day of the week. Not even slightly controversial

Yep. People genuinely do not understand the difference between:

- a player, who is in the contest, having momentum take them past the mark, and being told how far to come back

VS

- a player, who is not in the contest, choosing to stand well over the mark


What Windhager did was so dense - it’s pretty rare to see it happen. Maybe that’s why so many are confused..


Seeing a lot of whining about Lohmann being warned “not to kick it” - no mention of the time the Saints player ran off, and handballed the ball away, despite a free having just been paid our way. No 50 on that occasion either - as it should be.


And the “dangerous tackle” that meant a Dunkley set shot became a Max King goal down the other end..

And the “dangerous tackle” against Charlie, despite not actually tackling the airborne Saints player (and letting him down gently)..

And the “non-dangerous tackle” where Bruce had his head smashed into the turf..


There were garbage calls aplenty - these were a few of the ones that went against us. I’m sure there’s some that went the other way too. That’s life.

At the end of the day, despite Neale being bear-hugged and scragged at every opportunity for 2 hours, we received 20, to the Saints 22.

If you win clearances 13 to 1, and find yourself 5 goals down at the first break, perhaps your energy would best be spent on something other than sulking about umpiring.

 

[paulige]

Crystal clear.

 

[Dee Train]

Lion supporters on this thread high flog %

 

[Zacs_Magic_Tooth]

Correct decision? Who cares if it is technically correct? It is an absolute blight on the game to see the outcome decided by something which in no way affected the play. It is similar to the decision to penalize Sullivan a few weeks back in the Freo Collingwood game. Technically correct but an appalling fee kick which also affected the outcome of the clash when no time was wasted, and nobody was inconvenienced. Try and explain this shit to a visitor from overseas.

If you can tell me you have no problem with a grand final being decided with a free like that, I think we have a very different view of how our game should be adjudicated. The rule needs to be revisited. If a player cribs over the mark then pay fifty as he is genuinely affecting the options of the player with the pill. Backing away from the mark should never be a fifty.

Of all the things to complain about in AFL, penalising a bloke who blatantly comes in to stand the mark 3m over the line and seconds after the mark is actually taken to deliberately cut off the ability to progress the ball is not one of them. Bone-headed take. Of course it should be paid in a grand final, just like the Berry decision last year should have been paid

 

[Holden Megroin]

Yep. People genuinely do not understand the difference between:

- a player, who is in the contest, having momentum take them past the mark, and being told how far to come back

VS

- a player, who is not in the contest, choosing to stand well over the mark


What Windhager did was so dense - it’s pretty rare to see it happen. Maybe that’s why so many are confused..


Seeing a lot of whining about Lohmann being warned “not to kick it” - no mention of the time the Saints player ran off, and handballed the ball away, despite a free having just been paid our way. No 50 on that occasion either - as it should be.


And the “dangerous tackle” that meant a Dunkley set shot became a Max King goal down the other end..

And the “dangerous tackle” against Charlie, despite not actually tackling the airborne Saints player (and letting him down gently)..

And the “non-dangerous tackle” where Bruce had his head smashed into the turf..


There were garbage calls aplenty - these were a few of the ones that went against us. I’m sure there’s some that went the other way too. That’s life.

At the end of the day, despite Neale being bear-hugged and scragged at every opportunity for 2 hours, we received 20, to the Saints 22.

If you win clearances 13 to 1, and find yourself 5 goals down at the first break, perhaps your energy would best be spent on something other than sulking about umpiring.

Goal square infringement free Brisbane kicked a goal as a result.


Berry scragging and holding Steele he received no frees.

Danihers apparent ruck work never being penalised.

All three dangerous tackle frees were free kicks.

Brisbane got a fantastic run if not biased on many occasions

 

[Zacs_Magic_Tooth]

Goal square infringement free Brisbane kicked a goal as a result.


Berry scragging and holding Steele he received no frees.

Danihers apparent ruck work never being penalised.

All three dangerous tackle frees were free kicks.

Brisbane got a fantastic run if not biased on many occasions

They must have finally remembered our Victorian routes

 

[420]

What was the story with the 'free in the goalsquare'? Was it really a 666 rule breach with no warning? They were dumbfounded on the broadcast

 

[HairyO]

He was pinged at least twice.

Frees for: 2, Frees against: 1.

Im happy watching that game again to see the 1 against and whether it was a centre bounce ruck infringement.

 

[HairyO]

How was Dinaher launching into Marshall in the Center ruck without looking at the ball like he was a cannonball, never even tried to contest the ball, not pinged once

The umpires this year dont care. Every game ruckmen now charge eachother then look where the ball is. They block every time.

And this is what the AFL want because they changed the rule.

Of course do this in a marking contest and its a free.

Just like holding and wrestling around the ground seems to be fine but in a marking contest is a free.

There is no consistency. Just a big mess of rules which confuse everyone.