Oppo Camp Opposition supporters say the strangest things

[cats_09]

For those who haven't seen it, here is the free against Moore

 

[PhatBoy]

Now there is a Tigers fan (I’ll let you guys guess which one) trying to draw a link between the Dangerfield fend on Vlastuin a few seasons ago to the Stewart bump - saying it’s proof of deliberate targeting.

I’m staggered that someone at or near an adult age can actually be that stupid

 

[standupand]

Nah, forcing the ball over the line includes carry.

Ok. Not the way I would've interpreted the word, but ok.

 

[Romeoh1]

For those who haven't seen it, here is the free against Moore

Yep- it’s an interesting one isn’t it? He was technically speaking under pressure- do you have to meet all the criteria or just a couple or what?

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

For those who haven't seen it, here is the free against Moore

That's an iffy one. I'm guessing he was trying to toe poke it forward a fraction so he could pick it up ... It went further than he anticipated due to the wet ground.

Very unlucky.

 

[standupand]

For those who haven't seen it, here is the free against Moore

Wouldn't have even been a deliberate out of bounds, let alone a deliberate behind. Howler.

 

[BotsMaster]

Yep, this was absolutely disgraceful.

 

[cats_09]

Yep- it’s an interesting one isn’t it? He was technically speaking under pressure- do you have to meet all the criteria or just a couple or what?

Only need to meet one of the criteria:

(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line on the full.


(a) applies to the first kick/toe poke by Moore as he was further than 9m from goal (goal square); I've read it estimated he was 15m from goal

I'm not sure he was actually intending to kick it over the line at that stage, but with the conditions it traveled further than he wanted. He needed to do a better job at "fumbling" the pick up - think Scarlett in the 2009 GF, who showed how to professionally fumble the ball towards your own goal & not be penalised


(b) then comes into things if Moore did get a hand on the ball before it finished crossing the line. Riccardi stopped chasing Moore when he realised he wasn't going to get to the ball first, and that by stopping it also meant Moore would no longer be "under immediate physical pressure) as the closest GWS player was outside the goal square

 

[Spearman]

We need to get the Mayor of Geelong or Matty Scarlett to give personal references for Stewart.

 

[standupand]

Only need to meet one of the criteria:

(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line on the full.


(a) applies to the first kick/toe poke by Moore as he was further than 9m from goal (goal square); I've read it estimated he was 15m from goal

I'm not sure he was actually intending to kick it over the line at that stage, but with the conditions it traveled further than he wanted. He needed to do a better job at "fumbling" the pick up - think Scarlett in the 2009 GF, who showed how to professionally fumble the ball towards your own goal & not be penalised


(b) then comes into things if Moore did get a hand on the ball before it finished crossing the line. Riccardi stopped chasing Moore when he realised he wasn't going to get to the ball first, and that by stopping it also meant Moore would no longer be "under immediate physical pressure) as the closest GWS player was outside the goal square

It's pretty clear that when he kicks it, he's not intending to put it over the line. It's that simple. He never catches up to it from there so it can hardly be the last touch that's deliberate. I really don't like these decisions that penalise the player who plays in front and actually makes the play.

 

[Romeoh1]

Only need to meet one of the criteria:

(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line on the full.


(a) applies to the first kick/toe poke by Moore as he was further than 9m from goal (goal square); I've read it estimated he was 15m from goal

I'm not sure he was actually intending to kick it over the line at that stage, but with the conditions it traveled further than he wanted. He needed to do a better job at "fumbling" the pick up - think Scarlett in the 2009 GF, who showed how to professionally fumble the ball towards your own goal & not be penalised


(b) then comes into things if Moore did get a hand on the ball before it finished crossing the line. Riccardi stopped chasing Moore when he realised he wasn't going to get to the ball first, and that by stopping it also meant Moore would no longer be "under immediate physical pressure) as the closest GWS player was outside the goal square

Yep- ok-it’s tough but I am okay with the umpires call. He was a long way from the goals- he had options. Happy for it not to be paid also.

 

[Hinkley29]

That's an iffy one. I'm guessing he was trying to toe poke it forward a fraction so he could pick it up ... It went further than he anticipated due to the wet ground.

Very unlucky.

After watching it a few times I think the ump got it wrong, but I can also understand why at real speed it probably looked like Moore deliberately kicked the ball through the goals from distance.

Just one of those things, and to be honest I wish they paid those as deliberate more often.

 

[FreddyTwoShoes]

Only need to meet one of the criteria:

(a) is greater than nine metres from the Goal Line or Behind Line;
(b) is not under immediate physical pressure;
(c) has had time and space to dispose of the football; or
(d) from a Ruck contest, hits the football over the Goal Line or Behind Line on the full.

I read that as ((a and b and c) or d). Nerd alert

 

[STPer18]

Gotta say this has been the most enjoyable post-match fallout that I can remember in a long time. There was a Bulldogs game a few years back that had them hot under the collar for some unknown reason, but this one from the Tuggers will take some beating. It's everywhere you look, they've all gone off the deep end together.

 

[winty]

We need to get the Mayor of Geelong or Matty Scarlett to give personal references for Stewart.

Or the deputy PM. I think he's a Cats fan.

 

[Footy_Fan2007]

Reading that rule, I never realised that it can't be deliberate if you carry the ball over the line. I think Kolo did once in the 4th and the commentators were having a mini-fit over it. But technically you can carry it over the line whether you're under pressure or not. You just can't kick, handball or force it over the line.

Wasn’t he in the goal square when he did it? No idea why the commentators were calling for deliberate. He was under pressure!
Actually One of the worst commentated games I can recall. Gary Lyon was absolutely appalling. He was the one who kept going on about the Stewart bump. Literally did not shut up about it for the entire game.

 

[Sky]

Or the deputy PM. I think he's a Cats fan.

The politician I hate the least then

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Re - the Tiger supporters- 2 points

Anyone who talks conspiracy theories are just complete nutters

The one thing i can see why they get upset - is since theve been good - they have had or received a shocking free kick count for and against - and Haw has copped the same actually - game after game where there is a big discrepancy for and against

With Geel the past 10 years we are about level for and against - we are about level - so its a non issue - and you have got W/Coast Nth Melb and Footscray in that order - who have had fantastic/charmed runs receiving hundreds more free kicks than against

Thus i do think if we copped game after game after game - conceeding 10 plus more frees it would pisss off quite a few of our supporters - however with the Rich supporters re Big Footy - the bottom line is - its only a game - a form of entertainment - but i think with alot of them its an obsession

Absolutely zilch correlation between match result and FK +/-

 

[And_ROOS]

Tiggies fans online aren't coping guys.

So far I have seen calls for a 6-8 game ban for Stewart, have heard it was deliberate before the bounce and that it was Scotts plan all along, that Richmond have no dirty players and Houlis hits off the ball were accidental, and Cotchin is purely penalised based on a fabricated reputation, and that Cameron should get 4 weeks for eye gouging.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

Tiggies fans online aren't coping guys.

So far I have seen calls for a 6-8 game ban for Stewart, have heard it was deliberate before the bounce and that it was Scotts plan all along, that Richmond have no dirty players and Houlis hits off the ball were accidental, and Cotchin is purely penalised based on a fabricated reputation, and that Cameron should get 4 weeks for eye gouging.

Luckily for the tigers, there isn't an IQ requirement to support the team, otherwise they'd have no members.
In a sea of dumb football supporters I think they are the bottom rung.

 

[And_ROOS]

Luckily for the tigers, there isn't an IQ requirement to support the team, otherwise they'd have no members.
In a sea of dumb football supporters I think they are the bottom rung.

Only a requirement to operate a microwave basically.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Initially I was not that serious, however I believe the club should consider pursuing both Stewart personally and the AFL on assault and WHS grounds respectively. Reality is Prestia was knocked out for no reason and play continued. The AFL has identified controls for this situation - stop play and 50m penalty - and decided to enact neither of them.
This is a failure of their duty to maintain an existing control. Clear breach of WHS legislation.
Seperate proceedings against Stewart for assault.
Let’s face it our relationship with the AFL cannot get any worse. This would be a massive shot across the bows that we will not accept the AFL’s behaviour and we are strong, not weak, so we will not agree to one of their famous deals or repent under media pressure from the usual suspects.
There is nothing for the club to lose. I first thought about this as a bit of a long shot but the more I read the more I am convinced the club should give legal action serious thought.

 

[standupand]

Tiggies fans online aren't coping guys.

So far I have seen calls for a 6-8 game ban for Stewart, have heard it was deliberate before the bounce and that it was Scotts plan all along, that Richmond have no dirty players and Houlis hits off the ball were accidental, and Cotchin is purely penalised based on a fabricated reputation, and that Cameron should get 4 weeks for eye gouging.

I'd be surprised the chain of command didn't go all the way up to Hocking.

 

[Stab Pass]

The Tiggy supporters a re a special bunch. Caught up with one I hadn't seen for a while. Smart guy, lawyer yet was full on that the AFL had changed the rules to stop the Tigers winning 5 or 6 flags in a row. Evidently the Stand rule was all about Richmond.

 

[Catman]

Only a requirement to operate a microwave basically.

Even that is beyond many of them.