Autopsy Autopsy vs Collingwood aka the Great Pain Robbery

Remove this Banner Ad

Engimal v3 said:
For those who want something to back up their anger:
Click to expand...
How were they supposed to be in front with freed early when we dominated possession?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

None of this really matters we need to file it in the draw called ‘revenge’ pull it out and savour it when we start to win games by beating the team we’re playing against, the umpires and the afl, that is the Shinboner way and it will happen 😎
 
HotPiesWithSauce said:
Says the person refusing to accept a result and implying that the contest was rigged
Click to expand...
Incompetence isn’t rigging.

But I’m sure the AFL is happy with what occurred.
 
Nylex said:
Laura Kane lost me as soon as she sent Maynard to the tribunal last year.
All she had to do was stick to the system. Be consistent.
High contact, High Impact, careless or negligent impact. 3 or 4 weeks. Not sent to the tribunal to orchestrate getting Maynard off
Click to expand...

I was pretty disappointed someone didn’t put Maynard to sleep after what he did to Powell.




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
 
In the last 10% of the game, Collingwood received 17% of their possessions from Free Kicks:

1718613937372.png
 
Warrboy said:
Shame on Bailey for causing such a confusing situation
Click to expand...
And he should never have touched the ball when crisp kicked the point that was awarded a goal. Bailey is the reason for the AFL becoming a shambles, and will be the reason why the whole house of cards collapses...


... hopefully.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

What was her perspective or the AFL's? Umpires should not be confused. I'd get that if they took a slight step forward but these blokes charged at Bailey Scott.

Accept the mistake and move on. That's poor form from the AFL and Laura Kane. I really thought she would make the right call. Just leaves a sour taste.
 
AFL

“UMPIRED DIFFERENTLY”: CORNES SAYS NON-DECISION IN PIES’ EPIC WIN IS EVIDENCE OF “SUPERSTAR TAX” FOR DAICOS​

BY SEB MOTTRAM 12 HOURS AGO
IMG_3751.jpg



Kane Cornes says a controversial non-decision that would have penalised star Magpie Nick Daicos late in his side’s win over North Melbourne is evidence of a “superstar tax” from the umpires.
Daicos was huge in the second half as Collingwood came from 54 points down early in the third term to down the Roos by a solitary point. Still only 21 years old, Daicos finished with game highs in contested possessions (18) and score involvements (10) to drag his side back into it.


With the Pies holding a two-point lead late, Daicos swooped on a loose ball, took on a Cam Zurhaar tackle and replays suggested the son-of-a-gun didn’t get a proper handball away.
It was a defining moment with 2:45 left on the clock.
“Nick Daicos is umpired differently,” Cornes declared on SEN Break



“There is undoubtedly a superstar tax when it comes to umpiring. I’ve had this theory for a number of years now, ever since I was playing, because the best players in the game are umpired differently.
“This isn’t a knock on Nick, it’s a knock on how he’s adjudicated. He gets more favourable treatment from the umpires if there is a 50/50 call, more often than not he gets the benefit of that call.
“The one late yesterday is clearly holding the ball inside forward 50. If that is any other player, who is not a superstar, that free kick is paid against him.”
Daicos finished with six free kicks for from the clash and only gave one away. Collingwood won the free kick count 24-14 on the day.
It wasn’t the only contentious decision the Magpies got away with late. North Melbourne’s Bailey Scott marked 70 metres from goal with 43 seconds on the clock and then watched Magpies Steele Sidebottom and Beau McCreery run straight over the mark.
Given those two came from outside the marking contest, Scott should have been awarded a 50-metre penalty and given a set shot to win the game.
Nevertheless, the Pies claimed their 8th win of the season with the come-from-behind triumph, their 4th win by a single figure margin in 2024.




Contact UsComplaintsCorporatePrivacy PolicyTerms & Conditions© 2024, SEN All Rights Reserved Digital Agency - VERSA
 
Leigh Matthews, Jimmy Bartel, and every campaigner thats seen the footage all agree it was a 50m penalty, but Laura ****ing Kane waxes lyrical and pisses in everyone's pocket calling it a simple 'misunderstanding'

Even the commentary were astonished it wasn't given!

Fall on your sword, you lying POS.

On SM-G991B using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
AFL

“DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE”: CORNES AND HEALY RESPOND AS AFL TICKS OFF CONTROVERSIAL NON-50-METRE CALL​

BY LACHLAN GELEIT AN HOUR AGO
14NMCo24MW04353.jpg



AFL footy boss Laura Kane says umpires were right not to award a 50m penalty to North Melbourne late in Sunday’s loss to Collingwood.
The controversial non-call dominated headlines on Monday as two Collingwood players appeared to encroach on the mark and charge at Scott after he took a mark in the final minute of the 118-119 loss.


While the two Collingwood players encroached – which would be 50m if the decision was simply called a mark – Kane says that Scott should have been told to play on immediately after he took the mark as he went off his line.
Kane believes that it caused confusion on-field, as Collingwood’s players were reacting to Scott instead of the umpire, with the umpire’s mistake instead not calling him to play on straight away.
As he didn’t tell the Collingwood players to stand either, Kane says that the error was in communication, not in officiating.
"It was a confusing situation and I understand why people are confused and left wanting to understand what happened," Kane told AFL Media.
"You can see on the vision, Bailey Scott takes the mark, the umpire blows his whistle and one of two calls could be made. It could be play on immediately, or it could be stand, which would indicate the mark had been paid.
"Neither of these two calls were made in the immediate moment after the free kick has been blown, and Bailey takes four steps or so inbound and looks to play on. So the correct call should have been play on initially.
"That has caused confusion for the players in the immediate vicinity, the Collingwood players, that there was a delay whistle-to-message and that communication was the error, I guess you could call it.
"The important part for the umpire then is to make sure he or she has control of the situation and the decision to regain control from a series of confusing incidents was to pay the mark and bring the ball back.
"The initial call, the initial mistake, was that play on wasn't called. It should have been called play on.
"So, Collingwood players (were) anticipating that they were going to hear a call post-whistle. A really common discussion around players is play the whistle and when you hear it, wait for what's next. What's next didn't come quick enough so the confusion for those Collingwood players was what to do, as was probably the level of confusion that sat with Bailey himself.
"If the umpire had called stand indicating that a mark had been paid and those Collingwood players continued to contest the player or the ball, it would have been a 50m penalty.
"But what has happened here is (there was a) whistle and no immediate call or instruction. Players have been left confused and that's what we're focused on. We are focusing on the time between the whistle and the communication and making sure the umpires understand that the initial call should have been play on, given he took four steps or so inbound and every objective marker of play on was there.


SEN Sportsday duo Kane Cornes and Gerard Healy responded to Kane’s explanation and the former Port Adelaide great didn’t agree with how the footy boss viewed the incident.
While Healy also thinks that Scott should have been called to play on, he thinks it still should have been a 50m penalty as no official play on call was made.
Cornes: “In the good, the bad and ugly – that explanation of the non-50 metre penalty well, it's really ugly,
“It didn't make any sense to me. I just thought he played on because he had two Collingwood players charging at him, so his instant reaction was to play on.”
Healy: “Chicken or the egg - did he play on because of them charging, or did he play on (straight away)?
“I thought he played on (straight away), but I don't think you can get past that explanation without starting with, ‘We got this wrong’, because they not entitled to chase if they haven’t called play on.”
Cornes: “We've seen players just creep over the mark who aren't involved in the marking contest and be penalised straight away.
“Umpires love nothing more than to pay a 50-metre penalty if they can for any reason.
“Yet, they've not paid one there, so I'm not sure that is going to wash.”


Contact UsComplaintsCorporatePrivacy PolicyTerms & Conditions© 2024, SEN All Rights Reserved Digital Agency - VERSA
 
Kanga Glory said:
AFL

“DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE”: CORNES AND HEALY RESPOND AS AFL TICKS OFF CONTROVERSIAL NON-50-METRE CALL​

BY LACHLAN GELEIT AN HOUR AGO
14NMCo24MW04353.jpg



AFL footy boss Laura Kane says umpires were right not to award a 50m penalty to North Melbourne late in Sunday’s loss to Collingwood.
The controversial non-call dominated headlines on Monday as two Collingwood players appeared to encroach on the mark and charge at Scott after he took a mark in the final minute of the 118-119 loss.


While the two Collingwood players encroached – which would be 50m if the decision was simply called a mark – Kane says that Scott should have been told to play on immediately after he took the mark as he went off his line.
Kane believes that it caused confusion on-field, as Collingwood’s players were reacting to Scott instead of the umpire, with the umpire’s mistake instead not calling him to play on straight away.
As he didn’t tell the Collingwood players to stand either, Kane says that the error was in communication, not in officiating.
"It was a confusing situation and I understand why people are confused and left wanting to understand what happened," Kane told AFL Media.
"You can see on the vision, Bailey Scott takes the mark, the umpire blows his whistle and one of two calls could be made. It could be play on immediately, or it could be stand, which would indicate the mark had been paid.
"Neither of these two calls were made in the immediate moment after the free kick has been blown, and Bailey takes four steps or so inbound and looks to play on. So the correct call should have been play on initially.
"That has caused confusion for the players in the immediate vicinity, the Collingwood players, that there was a delay whistle-to-message and that communication was the error, I guess you could call it.
"The important part for the umpire then is to make sure he or she has control of the situation and the decision to regain control from a series of confusing incidents was to pay the mark and bring the ball back.
"The initial call, the initial mistake, was that play on wasn't called. It should have been called play on.
"So, Collingwood players (were) anticipating that they were going to hear a call post-whistle. A really common discussion around players is play the whistle and when you hear it, wait for what's next. What's next didn't come quick enough so the confusion for those Collingwood players was what to do, as was probably the level of confusion that sat with Bailey himself.
"If the umpire had called stand indicating that a mark had been paid and those Collingwood players continued to contest the player or the ball, it would have been a 50m penalty.
"But what has happened here is (there was a) whistle and no immediate call or instruction. Players have been left confused and that's what we're focused on. We are focusing on the time between the whistle and the communication and making sure the umpires understand that the initial call should have been play on, given he took four steps or so inbound and every objective marker of play on was there.


SEN Sportsday duo Kane Cornes and Gerard Healy responded to Kane’s explanation and the former Port Adelaide great didn’t agree with how the footy boss viewed the incident.
While Healy also thinks that Scott should have been called to play on, he thinks it still should have been a 50m penalty as no official play on call was made.
Cornes: “In the good, the bad and ugly – that explanation of the non-50 metre penalty well, it's really ugly,
“It didn't make any sense to me. I just thought he played on because he had two Collingwood players charging at him, so his instant reaction was to play on.”
Healy: “Chicken or the egg - did he play on because of them charging, or did he play on (straight away)?
“I thought he played on (straight away), but I don't think you can get past that explanation without starting with, ‘We got this wrong’, because they not entitled to chase if they haven’t called play on.”
Cornes: “We've seen players just creep over the mark who aren't involved in the marking contest and be penalised straight away.
“Umpires love nothing more than to pay a 50-metre penalty if they can for any reason.
“Yet, they've not paid one there, so I'm not sure that is going to wash.”


Contact UsComplaintsCorporatePrivacy PolicyTerms & Conditions© 2024, SEN All Rights Reserved Digital Agency - VERSA
Click to expand...
Comical.
 
Rocco sifreddi said:
Umpires completely changed the momentum of the game and made sure they got the pies over the line 24-14 frees and don't get me started on the untouchable Daicos don't care what anyone
Says I've never seen a more rigged game in my life it was discusting
Click to expand...
The closing minutes of Fitzroy vs Adelaide in the closing minutes back in the early ‘90s is the only one to top it.
 
Orange Peanut said:
The AFL have instructed their umpires to help Collingwood win so they will make more money at finals time.
Nobody's leaked it, everyone's cool with it.
Yeah, nah.
Click to expand...
Yes that's the only way you can rig something, with direct messaging.

You must've had a charmed working life where you've avoided environments where everyone "knew" what they could and couldn't do without ever being explicitly told.

But sure, the fixtures are completely lopsided, the drafts are completely compromised (both items even moreso in AFLW) but the umpiring is squeaky clean with no extraneous influence. Sure thing.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Autopsy Autopsy vs Collingwood aka the Great Pain Robbery

Similar threads

Flawed Genius
Autopsy Autopsy vs Carlton
20 21 22 23 24
Replies
576
Views
21K
Samsquanch
Samsquanch
Flawed Genius
Autopsy Autopsy vs GCS - no longer 18th
19 20 21 22 23
Replies
567
Views
25K
ferball
ferball
DERRINALPHIL
Let's review the season as painful as it will be
2 3
Replies
68
Views
3K
Johnny99
J
Flawed Genius
Autopsy Autopsy vs Richmond - narrow win gives NMFC its third win of the season
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
298
Views
13K
TennisPlayerAndy
TennisPlayerAndy
Skarrz
Autopsy Pain v Godeez
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
458
Views
18K
Horace
Horace
GoNorth
Vale Dot Pain
Replies
17
Views
947
Hearts to hearts
H
Flawed Genius
MVP Votes vs Collingwood
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
Twinkletoes
Twinkletoes

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top