GOTY Lloyd

Remove this Banner Ad

Kenneth_

Kenneth_

Debutant
Suspended
Sep 21, 2006
125
0
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Lyon
This is a joke. No way in the world was this goty. First of all it was right in front of goal and secondly it was an incorrect disposal because he just droped the ball on the ground then he back healed it. Fev's goal against st kilda was better and so was motlops and yze's.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Absolute rubbish - not just because it's him or that it was against us.
The ONLY reason I can see it might be there is because of the timing, right on 3qtr time to get the lead. But that shouldn't be anything to do with it.

Even the scum supporters agree it shouldn't have been given GOTY.
 
Agree. An absolute joke.

Imagine if McVeigh's mark over Thornton in Round 3 was awarded Mark of the Year. With the new interpretation of the rule, that was clearly a push in the back!
 
Kenneth said:
This is a joke. No way in the world was this goty. First of all it was right in front of goal and secondly it was an incorrect disposal because he just droped the ball on the ground then he back healed it. Fev's goal against st kilda was better and so was motlops and yze's.
Click to expand...
Was never tackled watch the video was never tackled and its called a drop kick..u should no what a drop kick is becoz u r one
 
Stants_24_Legend said:
Was never tackled watch the video was never tackled and its called a drop kick..u should no what a drop kick is becoz u r one
Click to expand...

a drop kick's more of a half volley than what Lloyd did. he dropped the ball on the ground, then began his kicking action, where as a drop kick you already have your leg back whilst the ball drops.
 
Kenneth said:
This is a joke. No way in the world was this goty. First of all it was right in front of goal and secondly it was an incorrect disposal because he just droped the ball on the ground then he back healed it. Fev's goal against st kilda was better and so was motlops and yze's.
Click to expand...

Is that true? Unbelievable. I'd hardly rate that as goal of the week let alone the year. :)
 
Stants_24_Legend said:
Was never tackled watch the video was never tackled and its called a drop kick..u should no what a drop kick is becoz u r one
Click to expand...


If only you had ended your post at the bolded part it might have been funny but the rest is like, no shit is that what you meant?:rolleyes:
 
Kenneth said:
This is a joke. No way in the world was this goty. First of all it was right in front of goal and secondly it was an incorrect disposal because he just droped the ball on the ground then he back healed it. Fev's goal against st kilda was better and so was motlops and yze's.
Click to expand...
Ive been arguing with my mate over this since it happened, I think it was incorrect disposal as well, even tho he kicked it there were two seperate actions therefore it shouldnt be a goal, I thought Alwen Daveys against the pies was the best by a mile.
 
Look, IMO it was a very clever goal, but there were many, many more freakish, clever, unbelievable goals than Lloyds. If anything he would have been very lucky to be top 5 from some of the snaggers this year...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bluegal1983 said:
Agree. An absolute joke.

Imagine if McVeigh's mark over Thornton in Round 3 was awarded Mark of the Year. With the new interpretation of the rule, that was clearly a push in the back!
Click to expand...
Was thinking much the same thing.;)
 
bluegal1983 said:
Agree. An absolute joke.

Imagine if McVeigh's mark over Thornton in Round 3 was awarded Mark of the Year. With the new interpretation of the rule, that was clearly a push in the back!
Click to expand...

It was a mark.

In the sanitised, "letter of the law" football world we live in at the moment he probably infringed, but in the spirit of the game, you couldn't take that off him.

If those types of marks get scrutinised to the point where the umpire pays a free kick for the incidental contact, then my interest in the game will continue to wane. All bias aside, you can't tell me you honestly think that it should have been taken off him??
 
Il Naso De Gastev said:
It was a mark.

In the sanitised, "letter of the law" football world we live in at the moment he probably infringed, but in the spirit of the game, you couldn't take that off him.

If those types of marks get scrutinised to the point where the umpire pays a free kick for the incidental contact, then my interest in the game will continue to wane. All bias aside, you can't tell me you honestly think that it should have been taken off him??
Click to expand...
No it should stand as a mark..........as should have Hoops mark over Davey that was payed a push and cost a goal......the list goes on.

If they want to pay it, consistency is the thing we want.

I do agree though that those types of marks should stay in the game (Milburn's in round 2 similar).
 
Without a doubt the worst GOTY of all time.
Absolute Bullshit.
SHAME AFL.
 
This was bloody pothetic. Nicky R from the saints did it I think in '05 and I'm sure it wasn't even eligable for goal of the year, accept his was further out. This is just the AFL sucking up Essendons ass. Pothetic.
 
Il Naso De Gastev said:
It was a mark.

In the sanitised, "letter of the law" football world we live in at the moment he probably infringed, but in the spirit of the game, you couldn't take that off him.

If those types of marks get scrutinised to the point where the umpire pays a free kick for the incidental contact, then my interest in the game will continue to wane. All bias aside, you can't tell me you honestly think that it should have been taken off him??
Click to expand...
The interpritation of the rule says that it was a free kick to the T-Bird, but your right, in all fairness, it was a mark. It was at a crucial time, but it was still a ripper mark. BUt if the AFL is goign to enforce this rule, they have to have constrant consistency, or it's nothing but a game wrecker. Brett Burton's hanger not long ago was a perfect example. The leap, no hands in the back, and a free kick against him.
 
Il Naso De Gastev said:
It was a mark.

In the sanitised, "letter of the law" football world we live in at the moment he probably infringed, but in the spirit of the game, you couldn't take that off him.

If those types of marks get scrutinised to the point where the umpire pays a free kick for the incidental contact, then my interest in the game will continue to wane. All bias aside, you can't tell me you honestly think that it should have been taken off him??
Click to expand...

Bluebear said:
No it should stand as a mark..........as should have Hoops mark over Davey that was payed a push and cost a goal......the list goes on.

If they want to pay it, consistency is the thing we want.

I do agree though that those types of marks should stay in the game (Milburn's in round 2 similar).
Click to expand...

What Bluebear said :thumbsu:
 

Remove this Banner Ad

GOTY Lloyd

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top