Review Round 11 = Fremantle 75-75 Collingwood

[Big Bryza]

The video says what I wanted to. It was an incredible achievement last night, to have more than matched Fremantle at their home ground, after a 6 day break, after two consecutive games which we had to play for substantial periods two or even three men down, and with such an inexperienced team missing so many Top 22 players.
The coaches again formulated a strategy capable of winning the game, and the team executed it, down to the last man.
This game was further proof of the incredible mental strength of this team, its refusal to ever accept defeat, amazing physical courage and fortitude, and resilience.
I will not put any limits on what this team can achieve. Once again, we are witnessing a special year.

This side could win the flag even finishing 5th-8th. Still think top 4 is a huge shout though.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

This side could win the flag even finishing 5th-8th. Still think top 4 is a huge shout though.

Absolutely. We haven’t lost in our last eight games. Keep not losing and it’s 17 flags for us.

 

[Big Bryza]

It would do us no good for Pies to lodge a formal complaint with the AFL, given they have said it was the correct decision.

They said it was correct for PR reasons only. In house they know it was a campaigner of a call.

 

[Big Bryza]

The silly thing in all of this is had Sullivan placed the footy on the ground it would have been slower getting to the ump.

This is the funny thing about it. He actually saved time passing it to Nick who threw it straight to the bald campaigner.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

They said it was correct for PR reasons only. In house they know it was a campaigner of a call.

I’m guessing that although it was a correct call, those at AFL house did this when they saw it;

 

[domus]

This is the funny thing about it. He actually saved time passing it to Nick who threw it straight to the bald campaigner.

I just listened to the Leigh Matthews/Caroline Wilson discussion of this incident and felt like grabbing them both by the proverbial lapels and shaking them as they rabbited on about the rule being enforced for time wasting.

They both agreed that time off had been called so no time was being wasted. The second point they kept repeating was the player has the option of just leaving the ball on the ground. Well, we saw what Nicholls did when Sidey left the ball on the ground. He rolled his eyes, shook his head and tutted like a waitress who didn't get a tip.

The second point is it would waste more time for an ump to bend down and pick up the ball than it did for Sully to do what he did!

My third and final point is that if the whistle was not blown not one person in the stadium would have raised an eyebrow or batted an eye lid. This is the ultimate common sense test. We all know how AFL crowds roar for holding the ball, holding the man, in the back, not giving the ball back when manning the mark or running too far. When there is silence, it is clear there is no sense in the crowd of tens of thousands that there has been any kind of transgression which harmed their side.

Nicholls clearly had his knickers in a knot over Sidey's temerity in not retrieving the ball and forcing him to bend his scrawny back.

How can you be penalised for time wasting when no time was wasted?
No doubt philosophers will ponder this conundrum through the centuries

 

[The Royal Sampler]

My third and final point is that if the whistle was not blown not one person in the stadium would have raised an eyebrow or batted an eye lid. This is the ultimate common sense test.

This really is an excellent point. No-one would have noticed. At all. Because it didn’t waste time, and there was no intent to waste time.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I reckon this is something that will fall into the category of:

• The umpire followed the letter of the law
• The competition has been put on notice
• Players will now give the ball straight back to the umpire
• The umpires won’t call this again unless it is blatant time wasting
• Us punters will have all forgotten about it by the time we get to the bye.

 

[beez]

So I rarely say much of anything about umpiring as it’s always “whatever”. But if Collingwood just let that go and don’t make a formal complaint to the AFL what are we even doing with this game???

The absolute mongrel pulled a free kick out of his ass. I’ve never seen that kind of absolute BS call in my years of watching football

Any normal person would have not said a thing. He legit manufactured a free kick infront of goals to freo.

If this isn’t reported and pursued to the limit of the clubs ability absolute SHAME

Maybe you need to watch more football.

Then you might have a greater understanding of the laws.

Then you wouldn't get so upset when a free kick is correctly paid.

 

[beez]

How can you be penalised for time wasting when no time was wasted?

This is the most asinine argument.

It is clearly a time-wasting free kick.

How so many people in AFL circles use the argument "time-off was called" clearly are being disingenuous.

That people like Leigh, Caro, Kane Cornes etc use this argument boggles the mind.

And I will happily die on my own hill in the belief that is 100% the correct decision.

 

[bunter]

There’s always one

 

[jathanas]

A tone deaf decision that was declared "technically correct" by the AFL.

Nobody saw that coming.

 

[domus]

I reckon this is something that will fall into the category of:

• The umpire followed the letter of the law
• The competition has been put on notice
• Players will now give the ball straight back to the umpire
• The umpires won’t call this again unless it is blatant time wasting
• Us punters will have all forgotten about it by the time we get to the bye.

I'll never forget it. I've never forgotten Rosebury's cowardice costing us another flag either.

 

[domus]

This is the most asinine argument.

It is clearly a time-wasting free kick.

How so many people in AFL circles use the argument "time-off was called" clearly are being disingenuous.

That people like Leigh, Caro, Kane Cornes etc use this argument boggles the mind.

And I will happily die on my own hill in the belief that is 100% the correct decision.

Many people choose to die on the hill of their own belief no matter how absurd their belief might be. That's a character flaw not something to proudly proclaim.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I'll never forget it. I've never forgotten Rosebury's cowardice costing us another flag either.

Sure, maybe if it had happened towards the end of season. But nobody ever remembers things from a round 11 game. Just like nobody remembers things from the first half.

If that same Nichols call had been made in the first five minutes of the game, nobody would be talking about it now.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Also we have lost players for two games when we have shorter breaks. 12 seems to be the minimum.
I’m not sure we get Reef back this week

Yes, we seem to be erring on the side of caution with our concussed players.

Unlike some clubs who leave their players on the ground...!

 

[3rdMan]

They said it was correct for PR reasons only. In house they know it was a campaigner of a call.

Yes, and I agree that it may be technically correct. Any rule around this is about time wasting though. I don't think any significant time was wasted by Sullivan, on the ground, throwing the ball to Nick who handed it to the umpire. Would have taken as long for him to get it to the umpire himself. This free should only be paid when the "infraction" has some effect on the game, in this case I don't believe it did and was a simple mistake.

Agree on what others have said, time wasting to allow positioning is certainly a thing, but not what happened in this case.

 

[Hardas]

A ll
F *****g
L awyers

 

[JLC]

One more thing in relation to Nicholls - I was watching a bit of Geelong v Giants game and in similar situations the umpire communicated to the player to pass him the ball.

Had Nicholls said to Sullivan 'pass me the ball' and he ignored that then maybe. However, watching it back Nicholls does not say anything until after the ball has been given to Daicos.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

One more thing in relation to Nicholls - I was watching a bit of Geelong v Giants game and in similar situations the umpire communicated to the player to pass him the ball.

Had Nicholls said to Sullivan 'pass me the ball' and he ignored that then maybe. However, watching it back Nicholls does not say anything until after the ball has been given to Daicos.

Be curious to know what Nicholl's other job is .. teacher? He was speaking & reacting to players like they were children.

 

[pugsville]

I just listened to the Leigh Matthews/Caroline Wilson discussion of this incident and felt like grabbing them both by the proverbial lapels and shaking them as they rabbited on about the rule being enforced for time wasting.

They both agreed that time off had been called so no time was being wasted. The second point they kept repeating was the player has the option of just leaving the ball on the ground. Well, we saw what Nicholls did when Sidey left the ball on the ground. He rolled his eyes, shook his head and tutted like a waitress who didn't get a tip.

The second point is it would waste more time for an ump to bend down and pick up the ball than it did for Sully to do what he did!

My third and final point is that if the whistle was not blown not one person in the stadium would have raised an eyebrow or batted an eye lid. This is the ultimate common sense test. We all know how AFL crowds roar for holding the ball, holding the man, in the back, not giving the ball back when manning the mark or running too far. When there is silence, it is clear there is no sense in the crowd of tens of thousands that there has been any kind of transgression which harmed their side.

Nicholls clearly had his knickers in a knot over Sidey's temerity in not retrieving the ball and forcing him to bend his scrawny back.

How can you be penalised for time wasting when no time was wasted?
No doubt philosophers will ponder this conundrum through the centuries

You are NOT a mind reader you have no Idea of Nichols state of mind. Your attribution of his actions to various emotional reasons is unfounded speculation.

 

[JLC]

Be curious to know what Nicholl's other job is .. teacher? He was speaking & reacting to players like they were children.

Totally agree. Nicholls easily could and should have yelled out earlier for the ball to be given to him.

An example was shown of a free kick paid for the same offence in Ess v Kangaroos - For me that highlights how stupid the 'rule' is. That was 5 seconds into the match. Who would be wasting time 5 seconds into the match. Surely common sense would say next time pass the ball straight back.

 

[jmac70]

Totally agree. Nicholls easily could and should have yelled out earlier for the ball to be given to him.

An example was shown of a free kick paid for the same offence in Ess v Kangaroos - For me that highlights how stupid the 'rule' is. That was 5 seconds into the match. Who would be wasting time 5 seconds into the match. Surely common sense would say next time pass the ball straight back.

If this happened to Geelong, the AFL would issue a written apology

 

[Sweeetleftfoot]

I just listened to the Leigh Matthews/Caroline Wilson discussion of this incident and felt like grabbing them both by the proverbial lapels and shaking them as they rabbited on about the rule being enforced for time wasting.

They both agreed that time off had been called so no time was being wasted. The second point they kept repeating was the player has the option of just leaving the ball on the ground. Well, we saw what Nicholls did when Sidey left the ball on the ground. He rolled his eyes, shook his head and tutted like a waitress who didn't get a tip.

The second point is it would waste more time for an ump to bend down and pick up the ball than it did for Sully to do what he did!

My third and final point is that if the whistle was not blown not one person in the stadium would have raised an eyebrow or batted an eye lid. This is the ultimate common sense test. We all know how AFL crowds roar for holding the ball, holding the man, in the back, not giving the ball back when manning the mark or running too far. When there is silence, it is clear there is no sense in the crowd of tens of thousands that there has been any kind of transgression which harmed their side.

Nicholls clearly had his knickers in a knot over Sidey's temerity in not retrieving the ball and forcing him to bend his scrawny back.

How can you be penalised for time wasting when no time was wasted?
No doubt philosophers will ponder this conundrum through the centuries

My understanding is, and I could be completely wrong however I’m assuming the free was paid regardless of time on the clock as it allows Collingwood extra time to setup. Thus it falls under time wasting.

However there’s no doubt in my mind after the look he gave Sidebottom he was just itching to pull something.

If you listen to the original audio initially he says free kick Collingwood , in my mind just means he had us on the mind.

This is a rule interpreted to the absolute extreme ends of it.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Totally agree. Nicholls easily could and should have yelled out earlier for the ball to be given to him.

An example was shown of a free kick paid for the same offence in Ess v Kangaroos - For me that highlights how stupid the 'rule' is. That was 5 seconds into the match. Who would be wasting time 5 seconds into the match. Surely common sense would say next time pass the ball straight back.

Haha, just out of curiosity, I decided to look up Nicholls wiki page to see if it showed his occupation..

Mathew Nicholls - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Here's a screenshot, just in case it's re-edited