Toast Round 7 = Adelaide 58-59 Collingwood

[Cousin of Daicos]

Heard it on the radio. Triple M.

'The will to win from the boys is crazy': Murphy

Hear from Collingwood Defender Nathan Murphy after the Pies' one point win against Adelaide.

www.collingwoodfc.com.au

Unless he's lying he says himself here he passed the test

Reckon someone on MMM was trying to spread some FUD

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

One thing I don't think I've seen anyone mention (maybe I just missed it)

Given the pressure of the game and how atrocious the umpiring was, we were RIDICULOUSLY disciplined. Particularly in that final quarter.

 

[Chrispiesssss]

'The will to win from the boys is crazy': Murphy

Hear from Collingwood Defender Nathan Murphy after the Pies' one point win against Adelaide.

www.collingwoodfc.com.au

Unless he's lying he says himself here he passed the test

Reckon someone on MMM was trying to spread some FUD

Oh yes, he’s fine. It’s probably Triple M tried to run a story before getting the correct information from the club.

 

[Kes1984]

Just noticed, we'll be playing Adelaide again June 25th at the G. The fixture is so up the creek now! Won't have played a number of sides before meeting them for the second time, and just 8 weeks later.

 

[neilk]

Agree, Fogerty had every right to attempt the front on spoil - as soon as he made contact above the shoulders it was a free.

I believe that any front-on contact is a free, high or not.

 

[domus]

I might be wrong on this, I think Fogarty having his eyes on the ball ruled out the front on contact rule, you can always run back with the ball as long as you're watching the ball and not the player (otherwise, you'd never be able to take a mark running back with the ball and making front on contact) - what 4 umpires seemed to have missed is that Fogarty made forcible contact above the shoulder - that's a free kick every day of the week.

No. Even eyes on the ball doesn't negate front on contact unless you take the mark running with the flight and then collide with the other player. I have seen that exact scenario repeatedly penalized where the player who has transgressed is saying he had his eyes on the ball. It's usually hyper tiggy touchwood whenever there is interference front on.

 

[Mollythedolly]

Careless.
High.
High impact.
How many weeks is that for Fogarty?

I’m not sure he took his eyes off the footy so not really reportable imho. Did get Murphy high though so should have been a free at a minimum.

 

[Mollythedolly]

I think there might've been a bit of a "Cotchin" there - taking the opportunity to hurt when it presents - but hard to see him getting reported for a straight arm spoil that looked like a "football act". At worst a fine.

The umpire on the other hand was careless and probably high too.

I thought he had eyes on the footy and was actually trying to mark the footy rather than spoil until the very last instant.

 

[RobJD]

Don’t mind the attack at all costs mindset. I just think Moore must play in defence especially with Howe, Murphy and Frampton not there to help.

He was closest to Steele when he took the mark to put us in front and he was back to take the last mark of the game - we went all in to win and we pulled it off, can't criticize Moore's decision making.

 

[Zzorse]

Faaaark yeah !!

 

[Mollythedolly]

I’m happy with our concept of wanting to even up numbers, just not with Darcy Moore. We also had Murphy off the ground.

We had IQ playing on Walker & Maynard on Fogarty.

I would have been happy for anyone but Moore to push forward. Just an opinion.

It wasn’t just about evening up numbers. Moore said he was there to stop the Crows defenders marking the footy every time we kicked it inside F50 thereby keeping it alive. Who else could have done that?

 

[RobJD]

I believe that any front-on contact is a free, high or not.

If you're eyes are on the ball and you take the mark whilst making front on contact it is definitely NOT a free - not certain about the spoil attempt.

 

[No SPIN]

Heard it on the radio. Triple M.

It might be a good idea to include the source in the post so that we can assess its veracity.
Using “confirmed” when the source is unreliable just opens you up for criticism.

 

[neilk]

If you're eyes are on the ball and you take the mark whilst making front on contact it is definitely NOT a free - not certain about the spoil attempt.

Agree with your first point, but any front on contact when spoiling is a free kick.

 

[RobJD]

Agree with your first point, but any front on contact when spoiling is a free kick.

You could be right, I thought that there is a grey area when you've got your eyes on the ball (and at no time focus on the player you make contact with). One thing I know for sure, I wouldn't be asking any of the game umpires for guidance on the rule, they demonstrated that they collectively had NFI!

 

[Chrispiesssss]

He was closest to Steele when he took the mark to put us in front and he was back to take the last mark of the game - we went all in to win and we pulled it off, can't criticize Moore's decision making.

Definitely not critiquing Moore’s decision making. I would have preferred we have some protection behind the ball.

 

[Chrispiesssss]

It wasn’t just about evening up numbers. Moore said he was there to stop the Crows defenders marking the footy every time we kicked it inside F50 thereby keeping it alive. Who else could have done that?

I understand the logic behind moving Moore forward. However, their KPPs were marking everything. With Murphy out, it would have been smarter to have at least Moore behind the ball

 

[Mollythedolly]

It's lucky Razor Ray didn't give the Ash Johnson decision, not only would he have not paid it he would have paid 3 50m penalties for dissent!

I’d have happily have had Razor Ray umpiring our game yesterday. I don’t get the knock on him.

 

[HeathySure]

I’d have happily have had Razor Ray umpiring our game yesterday. I don’t get the knock on him.

my comment was more a smart arse comment on Ray's decision to award 50 against Stevo for ducking his head calling it dissent. Ash's protestations were just as bad.

 

[sideswipe]

I’d have happily have had Razor Ray umpiring our game yesterday. I don’t get the knock on him.

Take a look at the second 50 he threw on Stephenson yesterday. The first one was fair enough but the second was just over the top. Then showing him the hand.

AFL fans blow up at rare double 50-metre penalty: ‘Disgrace’

The decision from the ‘Razor Ray’ drew plenty of debate.

7news.com.au

 

[Mollythedolly]

Take a look at the second 50 he threw on Stephenson yesterday. The first one was fair enough but the second was just over the top. Then showing him the hand.

AFL fans blow up at rare double 50-metre penalty: ‘Disgrace’

The decision from the ‘Razor Ray’ drew plenty of debate.

7news.com.au

Don’t need to. Any and every umpire can make those types of calls. RR is one of the better umpires. Stevo continued to argue, got his right wack.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I might be wrong on this, I think Fogarty having his eyes on the ball ruled out the front on contact rule, you can always run back with the ball as long as you're watching the ball and not the player (otherwise, you'd never be able to take a mark running back with the ball and making front on contact) - what 4 umpires seemed to have missed is that Fogarty made forcible contact above the shoulder - that's a free kick every day of the week.

Honestly it should have simply been paid as a mark.

 

[sideswipe]

Don’t need to. Any and every umpire can make those types of calls. RR is one of the better umpires.

It's his manner. You see any other umps holding their hand up to players like that?

 

[Apex36]

Just noticed, we'll be playing Adelaide again June 25th at the G. The fixture is so up the creek now! Won't have played a number of sides before meeting them for the second time, and just 8 weeks later.

Seems to happen every year. We’ll play several teams twice before we get a crack against the Hawks too.

 

[Mollythedolly]

I understand the logic behind moving Moore forward. However, their KPPs were marking everything. With Murphy out, it would have been smarter to have at least Moore behind the ball

Happy to agree to disagree.