Anti-Franklin umpiring taken to a new level

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Re: Franklin & the umpires

HAWKS HEROES said:
sorry :eek:
William Minson
Click to expand...

Now that I can identify who you are talking about, there is only the factual inaccuracy to address.

You call Minson a whinger with no justification and he did not concede a 50 metre penalty at any point on Friday. He was penalised for complaining about the umpire ignoring a blatant holding free in the first quarter, but that did not involve a 50.

Will cops plenty of poor umpiring decisions and for the most part gets on with it. He was the best performed ruckman from both sides on Friday.
 
Re: Franklin & the umpires

Bulldog Joe said:
Now that I can identify who you are talking about, there is only the factual inaccuracy to address.

You call Minson a whinger with no justification and he did not concede a 50 metre penalty at any point on Friday. He was penalized for complaining about the umpire ignoring a blatant holding free in the first quarter, but that did not involve a 50.

Will cops plenty of poor umpiring decisions and for the most part gets on with it. He was the best performed ruckman from both sides on Friday.
Click to expand...
1 q a free was given against he he had words with the ump we got a 50 i re watched the game and the ump clearly said 50 against minson abuse of umpire ,

in tassie he was incensed that he did not get a free reckoned he had someone do in the back to him he touched the umpire and all , reason i know this i was there and it happened right in front of me .

to me he will be a whinger ! always

he was not in the ruck either times he was in the back line
 
Re: Franklin & the umpires

HAWKS HEROES said:
1 q a free was given against he he had words with the ump we got a 50 i re watched the game and the ump clearly said 50 against minson abuse of umpire ,

in tassie he was incensed that he did not get a free reckoned he had someone do in the back to him he touched the umpire and all , reason i know this i was there and it happened right in front of me .

to me he will be a whinger ! always

he was not in the ruck either times he was in the back line
Click to expand...

Well you go off and play n your little fantasy land then.
 
Re: Franklin & the umpires

Buddy is undisciplined. The umpires are aware of this and jump on him for things that a lot of other players get away with. Plenty of other undisciplined players experince the same thing. Hall, McPhee, Soloman etc.

As for not getting free kicks he should. We that is no different to any other key forward....... except Riewoldt - you can't touch Riewoldt.
 
wolvesjr34 said:
Was that the one where he choked cooney, or a different one?
Click to expand...

Yeh, choked him with a tackle UNDER the arm pit and the with his other arm high on Cooneys other arm. Was holding the ball every day of the week, except it wasn't. It was another charity goal to the Bullies from a blatantly bad decision.
 
MinerBoy said:
Yeh, choked him with a tackle UNDER the arm pit and the with his other arm high on Cooneys other arm. Was holding the ball every day of the week, except it wasn't. It was another charity goal to the Bullies from a blatantly bad decision.
Click to expand...

Hawthorn supporters must have some odd issues.

Please understand the following

Tackles that choke a player are considered high even when committed by Hawthorn players.

Every decision paid against Hawthorn or not paid to Hawthorn is not a bad decision.

For heavens sake get a broader understanding of the game and open both eyes before you comment.

This sort of comment is just ridiculous and makes supporters who make them look worse than Collingwood's worst supporters.
 
Bulldog Joe said:
Bulldog supporters must have some odd issues.

Please understand the following

Tackles that under a players arm pit are not considered a choke, even if committed by Hawthorn players..
Click to expand...

Edited.


The free kick that resulted in a goal to Cooney was a remarkably bad decision.
 
MinerBoy said:
Edited.


The free kick that resulted in a goal to Cooney was a remarkably bad decision.
Click to expand...

Get a life and a set off eyes.

The free kick to Cooney against Franklin was a BLATANT high tackle that almost choked Cooney.

If you could not see that you have either

a) relied on someone else to tell you

b) have incredibly bad eyesight requiring use of a seeing eye dog

or

c) You are simply one of those supporters who simply refuse to acknowledge that anyone from the team you support could possibly be guilty of any indiscretion. (Note simply is used twice because you are probable incapable of understanding anything complex.)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sure Joe, whatever YOU say.;)

In the end, if an umpire waits on his whistle long enough, he can eventually pay a holding the man or in the back. Of course, he completely misses the holding the ball and/or incorrect disposal that should be paid in the first place.

Cooney wasn't choked, it was just an affliction that took hold over him and his team mates.
 
Bulldog Joe said:
Get a life and a set off eyes.

The free kick to Cooney against Franklin was a BLATANT high tackle that almost choked Cooney.

If you could not see that you have either

a) relied on someone else to tell you

b) have incredibly bad eyesight requiring use of a seeing eye dog

or

c) You are simply one of those supporters who simply refuse to acknowledge that anyone from the team you support could possibly be guilty of any indiscretion. (Note simply is used twice because you are probable incapable of understanding anything complex.)
Click to expand...

Joe, you are wrong. It was not a blatantly high tackle. It wasn't even a subtle high tackle. It was a legal tackle. Franklin made no high contact with Cooney. Those are the facts mate.
 
Bulldog Joe said:
Get a life and a set off eyes.

The free kick to Cooney against Franklin was a BLATANT high tackle that almost choked Cooney.

If you could not see that you have either

a) relied on someone else to tell you

b) have incredibly bad eyesight requiring use of a seeing eye dog

or

c) You are simply one of those supporters who simply refuse to acknowledge that anyone from the team you support could possibly be guilty of any indiscretion. (Note simply is used twice because you are probable incapable of understanding anything complex.)
Click to expand...

It was a legal tackle, but Cooney dropped one shoulder under Franklin's arm after the initial contact. The umpire was blindsided and only saw the end result, which was a high tackle.
Have it all on DVD, so have seen it a couple of times.

The one that pisses me is when Lake backed into Franklin and as soon as he felt contact, he lurched forward, and got the free. It was forearms not hands he backed into, so should have been play on.
 
Mr Lizard said:
Joe, you are wrong. It was not a blatantly high tackle. It wasn't even a subtle high tackle. It was a legal tackle. Franklin made no high contact with Cooney. Those are the facts mate.
Click to expand...

Go back and have a look at a replay. It was blatantly high.
If you still can't see that it was high please apply for a blind pension and stop making comments that you obviously are not equipped to distinguish.

To all Hawthorn supporters who do not understand that the tackle was high, please desist from making inane comments about any umpiring decision involving Hawthorn as you are obviously incapable of a fair assessment.

Just enjoy that you were a better side and prepare for your next encounter when Buddy will again concede more free kicks than he receives.
 
Bulldog Joe said:
Go back and have a look at a replay. It was blatantly high.
If you still can't see that it was high please apply for a blind pension and stop making comments that you obviously are not equipped to distinguish.

To all Hawthorn supporters who do not understand that the tackle was high, please desist from making inane comments about any umpiring decision involving Hawthorn as you are obviously incapable of a fair assessment.

Just enjoy that you were a better side and prepare for your next encounter when Buddy will again concede more free kicks than he receives.
Click to expand...

You go back and look at the replay, chief, then serve yourself up some humble pie.

It wasn't a high tackle, Franklins right arm reached around in front of Cooney and grabbed his sleeve up near the left shoulder. No contact with head or neck. No high contact.

Instead of calling me blind and stupid (again) go back and have a look at the replay.
 
Mr Lizard said:
You go back and look at the replay, chief, then serve yourself up some humble pie.

It wasn't a high tackle, Franklins right arm reached around in front of Cooney and grabbed his sleeve up near the left shoulder. No contact with head or neck. No high contact.

Instead of calling me blind and stupid (again) go back and have a look at the replay.
Click to expand...

I am sorry. I thought you were being serious when you suggested that a tackle that ends in a headlock was not high. Obviously I am the one who does not understand that the rules relating to high tackles (above the shoulder) are somehow different for Hawthorn players.

As you apparently have a Hawthorn only rule book you will have a different understanding.
 
Bulldog Joe said:
I am sorry. I thought you were being serious when you suggested that a tackle that ends in a headlock was not high. Obviously I am the one who does not understand that the rules relating to high tackles (above the shoulder) are somehow different for Hawthorn players.

As you apparently have a Hawthorn only rule book you will have a different understanding.
Click to expand...

Joe, go and look at the replay again, and take careful note of the part where Franklin doesn't take Cooney high. That's the bit I want you to pay careful attention to. Note how his right arm reaches across and grabs Cooneys jumper on the left sleeve without any contact made to Cooney's head or neck.

I think I've repeated myself about three times now, as have you. Do you understand the words I'm typing, Joe, or are you going to regale me with further tales of sleeper-holds?
 
Mr Lizard said:
Joe, go and look at the replay again, and take careful note of the part where Franklin doesn't take Cooney high. That's the bit I want you to pay careful attention to. Note how his right arm reaches across and grabs Cooneys jumper on the left sleeve without any contact made to Cooney's head or neck.

I think I've repeated myself about three times now, as have you. Do you understand the words I'm typing, Joe, or are you going to regale me with further tales of sleeper-holds?
Click to expand...

Lizard
If we are talking about the same incident, Cooney ended up in a headlock from Franklin.
You can explain that any way you want, but the rule book used by every one not associated with Hawthorn consider that to be an illegal tackle.

I have come to understand that Hawthorn have a different secret rule book that allows such tackles. Perhaps you should distribute some of yours to the umpiring fraternity.
 
Try banging your head against the wall Mr.Lizard cos Joe don't wanna know.

In all seriousness though, I just hope Cooney is alright. Those sleeper holds can do some damage.
 
Re: Franklin & the umpires

I have no problem at all with the second two 50's.

Especially the middle one. Lake was only just out of play, it was very close to fair.

And it was fun to watch.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Anti-Franklin umpiring taken to a new level

Similar threads

G
Honeysuckles AFL 9's strategy leaked - Rumours of potential rift between key coaching staff Richardson and Travers. Travers to the Pudds?
Replies
1
Views
2K
J_Moore
J_Moore
Cdog71
Coaching Footy Drills to develop not being beaten 1v1 for 13-16 yr olds
Replies
5
Views
2K
Underdog
Underdog
The Majestic
Skills Is it too late to get into some footy?
Replies
20
Views
2K
The Majestic
The Majestic

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top