SJ
Premium Platinum
In fairness, a number were rushed, Ling hit the post from the boundary and Selwood had a torp from 55.
Here is the vision of the free kick:
[YOUTUBE]eI03HuNvZmc[/YOUTUBE]
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Mooney and that FREE
- Thread starter legend166
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Here is the vision of the free kick:
[YOUTUBE]eI03HuNvZmc[/YOUTUBE]
- Banned
- #352
No more harsh infact alot less harsh than their 2 infront of goal and Dawson touching the ball and the ump giving them a goal for free....Hawks and Pies will work the cats over badly now, we will see if theyve lost it or not
sainter12riewoldt
Club Legend
mooney has carry over points suspenbded for bringing game into disrepute??
I'm proud to say The Saints beat The Pussies.
Hey BF apprentice boy, the finals aren't over yet.
I'd still rather the Saints win rather than Collingwood, but with some of the nuffy Saints supporters on BF, it's becoming a closer call by the day......
- Dec 7, 2001
- 23,443
- 8,519
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
so, you think he should be suspended.
get a grip.
and IF the AFL did that, one word.. Injunction.
Got to agree. Don't know how anyone could argue against that. It's been paid all year and had it been in any other time of the match most would have accepted it and gotten on with it by now.
Does it every game.
As far as the decision goes I thought it was a 50/50 by the umpire, they have been paying them through out the year and the current interpretation does dictate that that type of tackle where a player lands in the back of a player after being carried forward in the tackle generally gives away a free kick. I did feel though on this occasion however the ball had already been disposed of before the contact to the back was made and it hadn't really affected the contest.
As for the interpretation of the rule, i don't like it at all. The push in the back rule isn't paid any more for when player sdo actually push their opponents in the back. It is a common occurence to see a player pushed off his kick with two hands fair square in the back without a free kick being paid, players also regularly push players in the back close to the boundary line to prevent them from being able to gather the ball without taking it out of bounds. These are the type of free kicks that should be being paid.
Under the current interpretation all you see being paid is players dropping their knees on the bottom of the pack when tackled to force the tackling players in the back or letting a player tackling from behind carry them into the ground. Once a solid legal tackle is laid it shouldn't matter what happens to the player being tackled in his attempts to break the tackle or his lack of balance at the time of the tackle. If a legal tackle is laid and a player being off balanced (at the time of the tackle being laid) causes him to land on the ground in such a way that the tackler lands on his back then the contact to the back should be disregarded.
Having said that Geelong had plenty of opportunities to win the game and themselves had some soft high contact frees awarded that resulted in goals that could easily be argued against the same way.
As for the interpretation of the rule, i don't like it at all. The push in the back rule isn't paid any more for when player sdo actually push their opponents in the back. It is a common occurence to see a player pushed off his kick with two hands fair square in the back without a free kick being paid, players also regularly push players in the back close to the boundary line to prevent them from being able to gather the ball without taking it out of bounds. These are the type of free kicks that should be being paid.
Under the current interpretation all you see being paid is players dropping their knees on the bottom of the pack when tackled to force the tackling players in the back or letting a player tackling from behind carry them into the ground. Once a solid legal tackle is laid it shouldn't matter what happens to the player being tackled in his attempts to break the tackle or his lack of balance at the time of the tackle. If a legal tackle is laid and a player being off balanced (at the time of the tackle being laid) causes him to land on the ground in such a way that the tackler lands on his back then the contact to the back should be disregarded.
Having said that Geelong had plenty of opportunities to win the game and themselves had some soft high contact frees awarded that resulted in goals that could easily be argued against the same way.
sainter12riewoldt
Club Legend
Hey BF apprentice boy, the finals aren't over yet.
I'd still rather the Saints win rather than Collingwood, but with some of the nuffy Saints supporters on BF, it's becoming a closer call by the day......
....and with some of the Numpty Cats supporters crying over ONE decision(that was there by the way); I really don't care who you'd "rather win".
- Aug 8, 2010
- 7,721
- 6,830
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #361
You mean the too high free kick he was paid when it was clear he ducked, which incidentally happened just after he was being held but nothing was paid, which also just happened to be before the deliberate out of bounds the umps called a throw in.
2 missed free kicks for 1 that wasn't there, most would agree they cancel each other out.
Re: I feel sorry for Geelong
headline should read:
umpires rape cats, saints jealous.
totally not a free at all.
Umpires cost cats the game.
headline should read:
umpires rape cats, saints jealous.
totally not a free at all.
Umpires cost cats the game.
- Mar 23, 2009
- 5,296
- 4,946
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Other Teams
- San Antonio Spurs
Geez how is this such a big issue, it was just so clearly a correct decision.
If you want to complain, you can complain about the rules and the interpretations but don't complain about the decision.
If you want to complain, you can complain about the rules and the interpretations but don't complain about the decision.
You really could've just stopped there.
HTFU though Cats fans, Barry Hall should never have played in the 2005 GF and Leo 'You star!' Barry's mark was a clear free kick to Ashley Sampi, and I don't recall too much sympathy going our way. Just roll with it, if you're good enough to win it from here you still can.
Looks like you're rolling with it...............5 years later
smoovy
Premiership Player
+1
Agree on both counts with the ones not being paid. There the opposition player is clearly gaining an unfair advantage by his actions. These frees should be paid.
He rode Gwilt straight into the ground. It was there, has been paid all year.
I was going for Geelong, even though I should've been going for St Kilda, and still saw it as a free, on the replay.
I was going for Geelong, even though I should've been going for St Kilda, and still saw it as a free, on the replay.
The free kick against Mooney was there. The problem is so were about 100 other free kicks in the last quarter which went unpaid.
Why wasnt 50 paid against Mooney?
Why wasnt 50 paid against Ling for playing on after the whistle?
Why wasnt 50 paid against Mooney?
Why wasnt 50 paid against Ling for playing on after the whistle?
Re: I feel sorry for Geelong
Free kick was there.
They did their best to win them the game for the rest of the last quarter.
Free kick was there.
SM
Bigfooty Legend
Have to consider also Saints players may have heard the whistle so failed to put any pressure on Ling, allowing him to get the kick at goal away. As much as Cats fans want to bitch, they let the Saints get in front by 33, live with it.
They're just sour they've lost another close finals match, even if Nick 'I see it but I don't believe it' Davis wasn't involved.
They're just sour they've lost another close finals match, even if Nick 'I see it but I don't believe it' Davis wasn't involved.
- Sep 26, 2004
- 47,855
- 64,831
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Moderator
- #370
Re: Cam Mooney tells it how it is!!!
How can someone honestly say that this isn't a free kick?
The game may be becoming soft and over-officiated, but that free kick was 100% there.
Mooney cannoned straight into his back. Absolutely correct decision.
How can someone honestly say that this isn't a free kick?
The game may be becoming soft and over-officiated, but that free kick was 100% there.
Mooney cannoned straight into his back. Absolutely correct decision.
Re: I feel sorry for Geelong
i thought gwilt was already in a forward dive to launch the handball and I dont think Mooney pushed him or rode him into the ground.
I was barracking for a draw and that ruined any chance of it. NOt fair.
i thought gwilt was already in a forward dive to launch the handball and I dont think Mooney pushed him or rode him into the ground.
I was barracking for a draw and that ruined any chance of it. NOt fair.
this. fact.
Re: lol @ Mooney
The only cheat out there was Mooney...pretending to have kicked a goal that Zac touched through.
He and Hawkins make a good pair.
The only cheat out there was Mooney...pretending to have kicked a goal that Zac touched through.
He and Hawkins make a good pair.
Re: I feel sorry for Geelong
It probably will in the addy. Media down here is pretty bad, K-rock was explaining how Collingwood will now be shaking in their boots. Not only have the cats not yet made that prelim, the pies haven't either.
It probably will in the addy
. Media down here is pretty bad, K-rock was explaining how Collingwood will now be shaking in their boots. Not only have the cats not yet made that prelim, the pies haven't either.
