Autopsy Pies v Kuwarna (Crows) - AFL Rd 10, 2024 - Sat May 18TH 1:45PM (M.C.G.)

[DaddyMac80]

So we’ve gone from Adelaide supporters saying the ump got it wrong, to they should have put the whistle away because of the time left, and now we have this amazing perspective of oh it’s the vibe. Amazing.

Outside of that pearler, if you’re going by what the commentators think, then clearly you were up in arms a few minutes earlier when Keane was tackled in the pies forward 50 and threw the ball but wasn’t penalised? Because the commentators all said he got away with one there, and clearly what they say is right all the time according to your post?

 

[ElectricG]

Adelaide would have put their team ILLEGALLY in position.
You failed to add this, you even admit it was the right call.

I ask again, if you think it's a conspiracy, why do you still follow the game?

You just keep saying the same thing over and over and ignoring the argument being put to you.

Nobody is saying Rankine didn’t run further than 15m. You just act like a they are because it’s the argument you wish was being made.

 

[LoungeLizard]

You just keep saying the same thing over and over and ignoring the argument being put to you.

Nobody is saying Rankine didn’t run further than 15m. You just act like a they are because it’s the argument you wish was being made.

If the correct call was made, then what is everyone arguing about?
I know you were arguing about Port never seem to get them paid to them, but always against, even though this is not even about Port.

 

[ElectricG]

If the correct call was made, then what is everyone arguing about?

Can you stop deliberately being dense please?

 

[LoungeLizard]

Can you stop deliberately being dense please?

Personal now?
If you don't want me asking you questions, then why should I even answer yours.

Now, if you want dense, that's following a league that you think everyone is conspiring against you.

It's only a sport, go do something else.

 

[ElectricG]

Personal now?
If you don't want me asking you questions, then why should I even answer yours.

Now, if you want dense, that's following a league that you think everyone is conspiring against you.

It's only a sport, go do something else.

Okay, here’s your answer:

People are arguing because the umpire gave the ball back to Collingwood by paying a free that isn’t normally paid. In isolation it’s a bitter pill to swallow. In the broader context of Collingwood’s close wins this year and last year, it’s part of a pattern of the umpires deciding they want Collingwood to win.

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Loving this meltdown over an obvious and proven correct decision

Poor umps

On SM-A225F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[LoungeLizard]

Okay, here’s your answer:

People are arguing because the umpire gave the ball back to Collingwood by paying a free that isn’t normally paid. In isolation it’s a bitter pill to swallow. In the broader context of Collingwood’s close wins this year and last year, it’s part of a pattern of the umpires deciding they want Collingwood to win.

You see, that is in your eyes.

When you come into a thread about Collingwood and Adelaide and tell us how the umpires never pay free kicks to Port, that's weird.
If you can't understand that, that's your problem.

Now you are getting upset and calling me dense, something tells me, you always think you are right, so good for you, but you won't stop me laughing at you.

 

[ElectricG]

When you come into a thread about Collingwood and Adelaide and tell us how the umpires never pay free kicks to Port, that's weird.

I was providing an answer to a specific question.

 

[LoungeLizard]

I was providing an answer to a specific question.

No, you gave me what you think.
And I told you what I think.

 

[Vankri]

Okay, here’s your answer:

People are arguing because the umpire gave the ball back to Collingwood by paying a free that isn’t normally paid. In isolation it’s a bitter pill to swallow. In the broader context of Collingwood’s close wins this year and last year, it’s part of a pattern of the umpires deciding they want Collingwood to win.

If the umps want Collingwood to win close games, why exactly did they decide to pay HTB against Naicos in a 50/50 in the last minutes of the game and decided not to pay the same 50/50 against Keane?

Or even easier, just before the stoppage that led to the rankine over-run, why did they not make a very easy decision in paying front on contact on Schultz?

If you lack the brain capacity to argue objectively then don’t even try. It’s obvious that you want something to be true so decided to read the situation to fit your conclusion. It’s called confirmation bias.

 

[ElectricG]

No, you gave me what you think.
And I told you what I think.

Okay LoungeLizard. Next time I am asked “when was the last time X happened” I will be sure to answer in list form only with no additional thoughts as I don’t want to run the risk of being “weird”.

 

[LoungeLizard]

Okay LoungeLizard. Next time I am asked “when was the last time X happened” I will be sure to answer in list form only with no additional thoughts as I don’t want to run the risk of being “weird”.

Ok then try keep it on topic too.

You know not about Port and how they are conspired against and maybe then I may even agree with some of your points.
Have a nice day now, go fishing or something, I hear the whiting are nice down your way.

 

[ElectricG]

Ok then try keep it on topic too.

You know not about Port and how they are conspired against and maybe then I may even agree with some of your points.
Have a nice day now, go fishing or something, I hear the whiting are nice down your way.

“When have port been robbed?”
“On these occasions”
“Why’d you bring up port lol stay on topic”

 

[DaddyMac80]

I was providing an answer to a specific question.

You mustn't have any friends to unload on. Poor lad.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

A correct decision was “so awful” ?

Ive heard it all now. Ridiculous.

Yes.

It's very simple.

The 'insufficient intent' law is an example where umpires never pay a guy walking the ball over the boundary. But according to the laws of the game, it should be a free kick. But they never pay it

Imagine is all of a sudden, out of nowhere they pinged Mason Cox for it in the dying stages of the game?

Correct decision. But it would be appalling umpiring to suddenly pay it when it is never paid.

 

[ElectricG]

Yes.

It's very simple.

The 'insufficient intent' law is an example where umpires never pay a guy walking the ball over the boundary. But according to the laws of the game, it should be a free kick. But they never pay it

Imagine is all of a sudden, out of nowhere they pinged Mason Cox for it in the dying stages of the game?

Correct decision. But it would be appalling umpiring to suddenly pay it when it is never paid.

It’s like the incorrect disposal rule. You’re not allowed to throw the ball. But if the ball is on the ground and you do a quick throw to a teammate and kinda sorta make one hand look like a fist, the umpires will allow it. Probably good advice not to do it against Collingwood with 2 minutes to go.

 

[Ricmel]

Lol marginal.

There are 1141 posts on the video "Did Rankine run too far?" about 50% say yes and about 50% say no.

That is the very definition of marginal. No one is arguing that he didn't run more than 15 metres. In the same way some 50 metre penalties are 40 metres and some are 60 metres.

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

It’s like the incorrect disposal rule. You’re not allowed to throw the ball. But if the ball is on the ground and you do a quick throw to a teammate and kinda sorta make one hand look like a fist, the umpires will allow it. Probably good advice not to do it against Collingwood with 2 minutes to go.

So Keane who threw the ball out from his possession when tackled should have had a free kick paid against him, and a shot on goal for the Pies with about 2 mins to go?

 

[ElectricG]

So Keane who threw the ball out from his possession when tackled should have had a free kick paid against him, and a shot on goal for the Pies with about 2 mins to go?

If they normally ping players for it, yes. If not, no.

 

[Dead Eye Didak]

Would love to know what the discussion would be like if Nick Daicos had run 25 metres without bouncing the ball, and hit DeGoey lace out on the chest, and he goes back and kicks the winning goal. I'm tipping the discussion would be about how can the umpires miss that free kick, how the Crows were robbed blah blah blah, and not about how the "running to far" rule is hardly ever called, or who cares if he ran an extra 7 metres or that the umpires call was correct considering the situation of the game at the time....

Actually Naicos did deliver a pass lace out to DeGoey and he did ultimately kick the winner....

 

[No SPIN]

Cats were 7pts down when the Cameron goal was disallowed nufty.
7-6 =1.
Port still lead, balls back in centre, 6,6,6 applies.
Now make up your winning narrative.

Adelaide would have had the ball locked in its F50 with time for any number of opportunities, a clean snap or a ruck infringement to name 2.

oh - so Adel had a chance to win if the ball landed in their F50. But Geel in CB situation couldn't have scored.

 

[No SPIN]

Nah, im complaining about the inconsistency in who benefits from them.

Now, shouldnt you be studying for your 3rd grade math test, nufty.

We lost a GF ON THE MCG TO AN INTERSTATE TEAM - due to a bad decision.
That is the most EGREGIOUS example of what you say NEVER happens
Anything else?.

 

[No SPIN]

You cant say that for sure.

It may have been correct by the letter of the law but is overlooked multiple times in every game.

So you are advocating the past MISTAKES needed to be repeated!!!!
Any sensible person would have acknowledged the correct decison.

 

[Apex36]

Yep, and then to add insult the AFL and winning team nufties roll out the 'but its the right call by the letter' to justify it and sound intelligent, whilst ignoring the dozen or so other examples within the same game that arent paid.

If that call was against the Pies the same people would be after blood but fortunately that never seems to happen.

If the call happened against the pies I’d be annoyed with the player in question who ran too far, not the umpire who officiated the rules correctly.