AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Yes, but in terms of common sense, neither should have been paid. Davey was clearly staging both times.
Yeah ok.
Either you clearly don't understand the game, or your bias has completely blinded you. Put the shoe on the other foot, if say Didak did the same thing against Daniher. I'd say your take on the incident would change.
The infringements were there. The rules don't say anything about staging cancelling out a free kick. If you want to change the rules then that's a different matter, but the players understand them going into the game.
If you actually look at the replay you'll see that Thornton's shoulder hits Davey's chin because Davey is so short. Doesn't matter if he was staging or not. Makes no difference to whether the infringement was there.
Since when was it "common sense" to not apply the rules? Everyone has a different idea of what common sense is, which is WHY WE HAVE RULES.
Put it this way, if you're stupid enough to bump a player, and cop him high, immediately after the ump has signalled "All Clear", and right in his full view, then you deserve to give away another shot at goal via a free kick. What I honestly couldn't believe was that they were stupid enough to do it a second time. Don't go blaming the umpires for Carlton's stupidity.
The point is there were dozens of illegal bumps, plenty of illegal jumper pulling etc etc, prior to Davey getting a free. Because he fell to the ground, he was rewarded.
How many times have you seen a holding the man decision given away in that situation? I can't think of one. On the other hand, decking a player after he kicks at goal has always been a free kick.
Exactly my point. There are none given, nor should they. Decking a player
He didn't "fall" to the ground, he was knocked to the ground. Did he dive? I don't think so. If he did, then why didn't he get another free kick by diving the second time?
Watch the incident again. A dive of the highest order. Davey saw Thornton coming, braced himself for the bump, then simply threw himself to the ground upon contact. He could quite easily have held his ground. That constitutes a dive in my book. The second time, although tempted, he didn't throw himself to the ground. He threw himself backward, yes, and the contact was about the same as previous, yet a free wasn't paid because he DIDN'T go to ground. The difference with the two is that he got a free first time round for throwing himself to ground, second time round he didn't go to ground and therefore didn't get a free. Same contact was made. The point is, umpires are effectively paying free kicks for players falling over. It only promotes diving.
Now you're just being silly.
Just making the point that common sense needs to be employed in umpiring. It's not that difficult.
Decking a player
HAHAHA!!
How is shouldered on the chin different to grabbing of the jumper, or grabbing someone by the scruff of the neck?? All are illegal... why wasn't any jumper grabbing paid?? The difference is that one player FELL to ground. He didn't pay the second free kick because Davey DIDN'T FALL to ground. Same contact, different result. Fact is, the game rewards players who cheat. If you reckon Davey was struck forcefully enough to give him no alternative but to go to ground, then your knowledge of football and concept of basic common sense is about in keeping with what I perceive it to be.
Read your rule book all you want pal, it will not advance your knowledge one iota. It doesn't give you a feel for the game, which you clearly lack.
They let Waite's bump go, and no-one seems to be upset about it... They pay Thornton's and people are howling about it. What does this tell you?? There's a difference between the game progressing, and turning it into soccer where whoever is the best at conning referees is most likely to win the game.
I'm not ignoring the high contact at all... and he wasn't knocked over. He was bumped and could easily have stood on his feet, but chose to fall over in a successful attempt at conning the umpire. He knew full well that if he stood on his feet that he was no chance of getting a free. The point I am making is that the umpire could have pulled out several free kicks beforehand, either to Carlton or Essendon, but rightfully chose not to, because players were having a bit of a scuffle... that happens in the game. Many of those earlier infringements were of the same nature as the Davey one, yet weren't given, simply because the players involved stood on their feet.
