You know what I changed my mind after re-watching it. I'd be livid if I was a Brisbane fan.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Can an independent commission investigate the AFL for blatant cheating?
- Thread starter bzparkes
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Feb 9, 2015
- 4,777
- 9,426
- AFL Club
- Geelong
They were both incredibly obvious terrible calls, but you seen the one that went in your favour as 50/50. Self reflection not a bad skill here.
Fundamental misunderstanding of the rules here. If you don't have prior opportunity and make a genuine attempt, there's no such thing as illegal disposal.
Prior opportunity is 100% relevant in this case. And he did have prior opportunity as he was trying to avoid the tackler. It was a clear holding the ball.
Lol. Take the glasses off mate. I’ve already said the deliberate was a 50/50 which could be argued either way. Yet to see anyone say the Blitz one was anything but a blatant missed incorrect disposal call. If you think they are in the same stratosphere then maybe it is you who is displaying some bias.
So every time there's a bad decision it's a big conspiracy.
Like Covid isn't real and the Yanks faked the moon landing.
By the way it's hilarious that a West Coast supporter started the thread.
Like Covid isn't real and the Yanks faked the moon landing.
By the way it's hilarious that a West Coast supporter started the thread.
- Sep 26, 2017
- 29,030
- 49,062
- AFL Club
- Geelong
5.3 goals for the lions from frees... 44% of their scoring from frees....imagine the outrage if they won...no just crickets?
the game is more than just the last min , if the lions it is had kicked straighter the results would be different
the game throws up games like these in a close , we have lost close games before in susoectable circumstances
that’s life you get over it ...or you have over emotional main board losers whinge non stop and ignore the whole the game which could had influenced the game more.
pathetic sooks
the game is more than just the last min , if the lions it is had kicked straighter the results would be different
the game throws up games like these in a close , we have lost close games before in susoectable circumstances
that’s life you get over it ...or you have over emotional main board losers whinge non stop and ignore the whole the game which could had influenced the game more.
pathetic sooks
- Apr 5, 2016
- 8,299
- 19,360
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics
Geelong dominated the game and were lucky to win.
Geelong fans have more to worry about than umpiring favouritism or not. They lost to the last years spooners and admittedly undermanned, dominated a game and won by a point in dubious fashion.
In saying that. Brisbane lost because they kicked 11.14 and didn’t take their chances.
Geelong fans have more to worry about than umpiring favouritism or not. They lost to the last years spooners and admittedly undermanned, dominated a game and won by a point in dubious fashion.
In saying that. Brisbane lost because they kicked 11.14 and didn’t take their chances.
- Sep 26, 2017
- 29,030
- 49,062
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Fair enough. Could be argued that he didn't make a legitimate attempt to dispose of the ball. Slow it right down and he actually drops it with both hands before trying to punch the ball with one hand.
I might not know the rulebook off by heart, but I know "holding the ball" or one of its brothers when I see it.
It was an incorrect non call, but if it happened in the first 10 minutes of the game, no one would be talking about it
In a game where there are more turnovers by players than minutes of game, blaming umpires is merely a poor excuse
In a game where there are more turnovers by players than minutes of game, blaming umpires is merely a poor excuse
AndrewShawble
Premiership Player
- Sep 10, 2019
- 3,618
- 5,909
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
But it didn’t happen in the first 10 mins, it cost the Lions the 4 points so naturally yeah, everyone is talking about it.
The umpire didn’t miss it - they didn’t have the spine to call it.
One of the biggest howlers in AFL umpiring history, that ump should be finished. If you don’t have the stomach to officiate regardless of time/stakes you should be done.
I dont think it wouldve happened in the first ten minutes. I think in this case the umpire shat his dacks due to the crowd and the context of the game.
I thought the Guthrie to Selwood was the bigger howler.
But yes, people not actually knowing the rules is a huge problem. Especially when you have BT commentary setting the narrative and the bloke has absolutely no idea of the actual correct rule interpretations.
What help do the mug punters at home have??
This is the actual rule
18.6 HOLDING THE BALL
18.6.1 Spirit and Intention The Player who has Possession of the Football will be provided an opportunity to dispose of the football before rewarding an opponent for a Legal Tackle.
18.6.2 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Prior Opportunity Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
18.6.3 Free Kicks - Holding the Ball: Incorrect Disposal Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.
For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when: (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football; (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.
So whether the Player has had Prior Opportunity is ALWAYS the first consideration in any Holding the ball decision.
Prior Opportunity: a designation to a Player in Possession of the Football who:
(a) is balanced and steady; or
(b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent; or (c) has taken a Mark or been awarded a Free Kick; or
(d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent.
Smith handballs the ball to Blicavs, he didn't try to fend and didn't have time to be balanced or steady, so the interpretation is that by Blicavs trying to turn is that 'evading'....for mine it is a no, that was just Blicavs trying to break the Tackle, as he was almost instantaneously tackled by Bailey.
So if you are ruling out Prior, you only then consider "incorrect disposal" if the Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of it....note the avoidance of doubt where it states it is NOT Incorrect Disposal if the Player makes an attempt or the legal Tackle causes the ball to be dislodged.
The fact that Bailey's tackle was perfect actually made it harder for the umpire to penalise Blicavs, as you can see thinking that
A - No prior, immediately Tackled by Bailey
B - no handball....but he shaped to try, and the strong Tackle actually contributed to the ball dropping as Bailey prevented Blicavs arms from swinging as he took him to the ground
Enough grey there to understand, if you actually know the rules and how umpires are told to interpret them, why the umpire made the call to not penalise Blicavs.
And that is the key part, the rule is about penalising the player who holds onto the ball, not 'rewarding' the tackler.
Did Blicavs have prior opportunity and did the Tackle contribute to the ball being dislodged?
The tackle clearly did IMHO, and I am fine with umpire deeming him to have not had Prior.....thus play on.
The prior Opportunity ruling is critical in situations where the Tackle is really good.
- Apr 5, 2016
- 8,299
- 19,360
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics
You realise that a call not being made at the end of the game is not justified by a team who's received several free kicks that for the most part were actually there yeah?
Face it. Geelong were very lucky that it wasn't paid at the end as it should've been. I didn't see a lot in the game that wasn't there, but I saw a lot that happened that wasn't paid. The issue was those that weren't paid probably impacted Brisbane more than it impacted Geelong.
- Sep 26, 2017
- 29,030
- 49,062
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Ahhh sure ...my point was that the umpiring kept the lions in it ...no need for the tears
If any of the umpires saw it, thought it was holding the ball and didn't have the strength to call it, then I agree we have a problem, but we are still making assumptions
The facts are, every act/decision a player/team makes has a greater impact on the game.
Lions should never of given up that lead early on, Cats should have shut the game down earlier, Zorko's frustration giving away a 50 late in the last, which resulted in a Cats goal, when it was deep in their forward line, etc, etc
I am in vast minority here but there is definitely doubt it was holding the ball, by the rules.
Under the 2021 release of the Laws of Australian Football, holding the football is covered by Law 18.6.[2] Four specific clauses apply, mostly depending upon how the player came to be in possession of the ball. The wording of these variations in the laws is as follows:
18.6.3 - Does not seem to apply as the following is my interpretation of what happened.
Its 18.6.2 (b) that is the contentious one to me, he did turn to attempt to unload a hand ball, is that evadeing? I think it is more in question then puiblic opinion makes it appear and even harder for an umpire on the ground in real time to call. Give the umpires a break. For the record I would not have complained if it was called holding the ball I think that 18.6.2 (b) could certainly apply.
Under the 2021 release of the Laws of Australian Football, holding the football is covered by Law 18.6.[2] Four specific clauses apply, mostly depending upon how the player came to be in possession of the ball. The wording of these variations in the laws is as follows:
- 18.6.2 Holding the ball: Prior Opportunity – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player does not Correctly Dispose of the football immediately when they are Legally Tackled.
- 18.6.3 Holding the ball: Incorrect Disposal– Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if that Player elects to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled. For the avoidance of doubt, a Player does not elect to Incorrectly Dispose of the football when:
- (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football
- (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.
- 18.6.4 Holding the ball: No Genuine Attempt – Where a Player in Possession of the Football has not had Prior Opportunity, a field Umpire shall award a Free Kick if the Player is able to, but does not make a genuine attempt to Correctly Dispose of the football within a reasonable time when Legally Tackled.
- 18.6.5 Holding the ball: Diving on Top of the Football – A field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against a Player who dives on top of or drags the football underneath their body and fails to immediately knock clear or Correctly Dispose of the football when Legally Tackled.
- (a) is balanced and steady; or
- (b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent; or
- (c) has taken a mark or been awarded a free kick; or
- (d) has driven their head into a stationary or near stationary opponent
18.6.3 - Does not seem to apply as the following is my interpretation of what happened.
- (a) the Player genuinely attempts to Correctly Dispose of the football
- (b) the Legal Tackle causes the football to be dislodged from the Player’s possession.
- (a) is balanced and steady; or
- (b) attempts to evade or fend an opponent
Its 18.6.2 (b) that is the contentious one to me, he did turn to attempt to unload a hand ball, is that evadeing? I think it is more in question then puiblic opinion makes it appear and even harder for an umpire on the ground in real time to call. Give the umpires a break. For the record I would not have complained if it was called holding the ball I think that 18.6.2 (b) could certainly apply.
it’s nothing to do with whether goals/behinds come from free kicks or not..it’s all to do with the officiating of the game..if you can’t agree the lions should’ve got a free in the dying minutes for incorrect disposal then you are as blind as the umpires.
- Sep 26, 2017
- 29,030
- 49,062
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Sure sure
How exactly is is corrupt? It was an incorrect decision. Posting that it is corrupt just makes you look like an idiot sorry.
What makes the AFL more money, Brisbane team winning or the team that has been around the mark for nearly twenty years that everyone is sick of seeing?
He had a clear opportunity to dispose of it. He didn’t take it.
No, no chance of that interpretation, he was attempting to handball behind him immediately.
Its whether he attempted to evade or not.
Sent from my SM-N975F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Yes cats last quarter was poor. Lions played all over them. Sort of hoping it's a consequence of shorter preseason having played last game late October
But yes hasnt been a flash start
