I'd like to complain about the umpires...

[sr36]

Pulls Touhys arm high, then rolls over and throws his arms out to the ump

Pathetic. He's clearly pretty skilled i just wish he'd focus on winning the ball without having to cheat to do it

View attachment 1499165

Are you using the term "pathetic" to describe Buddy's successful playing for frees against Melbourne? Imagine the uproar if it was Ginnivan and not Franklin who duped the umpire with those two ridiculous back to back momentum shifting frees in the Sydney vs Melbourne game. But na da from anyone.

Play on was the right call for this Ginnivan one. He's got to change his mindset. I don't mind players playing for frees, but you can't just cough it up in the process or put yourself out of the contest. He does both way too often.

 

[legendstatus]

No one can argue especially muppets who our Mods allow to post on our board, that we got screwed by the umpires- the one where Maynard ran down that bitch Duncan and some players even literally stopped, was a shocker!


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ksardog]

Not to mention the Geelong throws in the last.

Here's one in our forward 50...

View attachment 1499031

the Selwood one in the last qtr with the umpire no more than 10m away with a direct unimpeded view gobsmacked me, shouldn’t be surprised though considering who it was and who he was playing against. One arm throw with right hand with the pretend back to front handball technique

 

[PieLebo87]

How inconclusive was the Johnson mark on the behind line? On the scoreboard it looked like not all the footy had crossed the line.

After the Lynch decision they were always going to lack courage on a close score review and I knew when it occurred it would be to our detriment.

This particular one confused me.

If it was inconclusive, doesn’t that mean it was a mark? If it was completely over the line then it would’ve been conclusive. AFL/ARC have cocked it up twice in 4 finals games. Would hate for a Grand Final goal/non goal to be decided by the ARC incorrectly.

 

[PieLebo87]

At the end of the day, the club have themselves to blame for not winning, but only blind Freddy or a one-eyed hater/Cats supporter would disagree that the umpires just missed way too many blatant frees across the whole weekend. It was officiated completely differently to what the fans/players have become accustomed to across the previous 23 rounds of 2022. Everyone would’ve accepted the whistles to go away, but for blatant frees to not be paid makes the competition a joke.

 

[HeathySure]

 

[loki04]

Play on was the right call for this Ginnivan one.

No it fooking wasn't! are you blind or what?

1. Toohey makes high contact around the neck, this happens prior to Ginni grabbing his arm.

2. After Ginni let's go he swings him down by neck those is actually hard to stop esp when a bigger and stronger opponent does it. Your body wants to follow your head.
Don't believe me? get someone to to push your head back whilst standing and your knees want to buckle.

3. He then yanks him over onto his back and rolls him back into a deeper headlock.

4. Instead of releasing him he holds him in position in prolonged headlock.

5. Ginnivan is not in possesion of the ball throughout it!

Which part of that is farkin play on? Why because he asked for a rightful free kick? Or he grabbed on for a second once?

 

[sr36]

No it fooking wasn't! are you blind or what?

1. Toohey makes high contact around the neck, this happens prior to Ginni grabbing his arm.

2. After Ginni let's go he swings him down by neck those is actually hard to stop esp when a bigger and stronger opponent does it. Your body wants to follow your head.
Don't believe me? get someone to to push your head back whilst standing and your knees want to buckle.

3. He then yanks him over onto his back and rolls him back into a deeper headlock.

4. Instead of releasing him he holds him in position in prolonged headlock.

5. Ginnivan is not in possesion of the ball throughout it!

Which part of that is farkin play on? Why because he asked for a rightful free kick? Or he grabbed on for a second once?

Tackle started legal and Ginnivans actions resulted in it becoming high. These are the high frees which the AFL have cracked down on, as noone other than the team that would benefit wants to see them paid.

The ones where he simply is really low and gets taken high should be paid and the umpires lost the plot on them midseason, but that one was a good call.

 

[loki04]

Tackle started legal and Ginnivans actions resulted in it becoming high. These are the high frees which the AFL have cracked down on, as noone other than the team that would benefit wants to see them paid.

The ones where he simply is really low and gets taken high should be paid and the umpires lost the plot on them midseason, but that one was a good call.

Err you'd need to actually have the ball for it to start legally...

Beyond that little tid bit, Toohey has numerous opportunities to let him go and doesn't then continues to reef and hold the lock on.

What your saying is if a player tries to evade a tackle like Ginnivan actually tried (he wasn't doing his usual trick here), then you are fair game for not only that initial contact but the ensuing 15 seconds and that opposition can have cart blanch on your neck or head?

It's bloody laughable for you to defend that passage of play. Like ridiculous.

 

[JoinDate]

Tackle started legal and Ginnivans actions resulted in it becoming high. These are the high frees which the AFL have cracked down on, as noone other than the team that would benefit wants to see them paid.

The ones where he simply is really low and gets taken high should be paid and the umpires lost the plot on them midseason, but that one was a good call.

There's no realm where that is not a free kick. He had Gini in a headlock and brought him to ground still in a headlock.

 

[Mavs13]

Tackle started legal and Ginnivans actions resulted in it becoming high. These are the high frees which the AFL have cracked down on, as noone other than the team that would benefit wants to see them paid.

The ones where he simply is really low and gets taken high should be paid and the umpires lost the plot on them midseason, but that one was a good call.

Your first point is the issue. When a player is tackled and his arms drop down and ends up tackling the player around the legs, they always pay tripping. Even if the tackle started legit. What is the difference when he tackled correctly at the start then goes high. Should it be high as that is where the tackle ended, like the one with tripping?

 

[loki04]

There's no realm where that is not a free kick. He had Gini in a headlock and brought him to ground still in a headlock.

Exactly even if by some chance you want to argue Ginnivans caused the initial high contact at what point do you allow the headlock to last before you say well hang on that is now a free kick.

It's not like a initial high then nothing he is holding a headlock for 10 seconds or more and reefing him around.

On top of this Ginnivan didn't take possession the ball literally bounces past these two and into dangerfields hands.

So that's another free kick as you can't tackle people without the ball and ginnivan has every right to try extricate himself from it and or look at the ump for a free when in a headlock on his back...

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The game encapsulated in two images.

Magpie players.

Umpires.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

Tackle started legal and Ginnivans actions resulted in it becoming high. These are the high frees which the AFL have cracked down on, as noone other than the team that would benefit wants to see them paid.

The ones where he simply is really low and gets taken high should be paid and the umpires lost the plot on them midseason, but that one was a good call.

I wish Ginnivan would get the playing for frees out of his game.
That said. It was and always has been a free kick to lay a prolonged headlock tackle on a player who does not have the ball. I don't know how you are trying to argue otherwise. The only player I've ever seen be tackled like that and not awarded a free kick is Ginnivan this year.
The non calls impacted his game. It's a disgrace the way one player has been deliberately singled out by the games officiates for special treatment.
The club should escalate this to the AFLPA and file a complaint with WorkCover.

 

[sr36]

I wish Ginnivan would get the playing for frees out of his game.
That said. It was and always has been a free kick to lay a prolonged headlock tackle on a player who does not have the ball. I don't know how you are trying to argue otherwise. The only player I've ever seen be tackled like that and not awarded a free kick is Ginnivan this year.
The non calls impacted his game. It's a disgrace the way one player has been deliberately singled out by the games officiates for special treatment.
The club should escalate this to the AFLPA and file a complaint with WorkCover.

I saw it differently. Once Ginni forces the tackle high, he grabs the blokes arm and holds it in place. I didn't see it like the Redman one, even if a freeze frame can make it look like a headlock.

 

[Scritchyscroony]

I saw it differently. Once Ginni forces the tackle high, he grabs the blokes arm and holds it in place. I didn't see it like the Redman one, even if a freeze frame can make it look like a headlock.

This is the problem once you single out a person like that. Confirmation bias.
Was he holding his arm in place around his neck? or was he doing what everybody does when they are in a headlock.. trying to get the arm off his neck?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

They've moved away from deliberate and are now calling it "insufficient intent". So if a clearing kick is near the boundary (which they nearly always are) and it bounces out, you're in trouble. I think it's a ridiculous interpretation whilst they allow blokes to just step over the line if they are boxed in by a tackler, but that's how it's now umpired.

Regardless of wording If your teammate is within sufficient distance to almost get the ball then that is sufficient intent.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Tackle started legal and Ginnivans actions resulted in it becoming high. These are the high frees which the AFL have cracked down on, as noone other than the team that would benefit wants to see them paid.

The ones where he simply is really low and gets taken high should be paid and the umpires lost the plot on them midseason, but that one was a good call.

Except he never had the ball in the first place, making it an illegal tackle. I think it was A 50/50 though and far from the worst decision.

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

The umpiring was fine. Missed calls both ways. Yes it does feel easy to blame the umpires when a contentious decision gets them back in the game, but N Daicos should have played to the whistle on Rohans out of bounds and Ginnivan should have been much stronger in the contest. I think he jumped when he felt contact.

Other than those two calls it was some for them some for us. In such a tense match its easy to blame the umps, but when you watch the replay you can see it wasn't at all bad.

One thing that does drive me nuts is the commentators highlighting every dubious call for our opposition and completely ignoring the same for us. The Rohan out of bounds did not even get a replay!!

 

[noideaatall]

Is it...

Nailed him. WD.

 

[noideaatall]

It seems to me that the umpiring moved away from holding the ball and illegal disposal to encourage players to take possession. This led to tackling that seeks to hold the players arms and lock the ball in. Tackles are chest high rather than waist. If the pay ARTN for anything that ends up being high, rather than where it starts but simultaneously be strict on illegal disposal and holding the ball (especially for a 360 degree spin) lower, and therefore safer, tackles will be the norm.

 

[sr36]

Except he never had the ball in the first place, making it an illegal tackle. I think it was A 50/50 though and far from the worst decision.

Yeah. Whether or not he had the ball was where it could have been paid. I thought there were a fair few both ways. I thought we got jibbed on about 4 clear cut holding the balls.

And Cats have gotten good at exploiting the no prior rule. They just hold onto it until there's a teammate ready to collect and then let it spill for them. It never is a free and is thus interpreted as legitimate.

 

[sr36]

It seems to me that the umpiring moved away from holding the ball and illegal disposal to encourage players to take possession. This led to tackling that seeks to hold the players arms and lock the ball in. Tackles are chest high rather than waist. If the pay ARTN for anything that ends up being high, rather than where it starts but simultaneously be strict on illegal disposal and holding the ball (especially for a 360 degree spin) lower, and therefore safer, tackles will be the norm.

I also think they take too long to call a ball up. The bloke with the ball gets to hold it in if he had no prior and then drop it any way he wants once he has a teammate to collect it. Cats exploited that well.

 

[noideaatall]

I also think they take too long to call a ball up. The bloke with the ball gets to hold it in if he had no prior and then drop it any way he wants once he has a teammate to collect it. Cats exploited that well.

I blame Luke Ball for this. Following the great Gavin Brown's tradition he was an expert at diving on the ball and holding it in forcing a stoppage. The hierarchies aim, assumably, was to decrease stoppages but still encourage taking possession. It may be radical but my theory is the mistake was moving away from 18 players and 2 reserves. It has crowded the game.

 

[sr36]

I blame Luke Ball for this. Following the great Gavin Brown's tradition he was an expert at diving on the ball and holding it in forcing a stoppage. The hierarchies aim, assumably, was to decrease stoppages but still encourage taking possession. It may be radical but my theory is the mistake was moving away from 18 players and 2 reserves. It has crowded the game.

I actually think the game is better than it's ever been. We're watching the most exciting final series that I can remember.

But like rugby union, the games rules haven't stood up like soccer and leagues have and they're constantly tweaking them and making them ever more complex and less defined. Ridiculously hard game to umpire.