About as soft as the free Ottens received in the first qtr, 15m from goal, for Harris "supposedly" keeping him away from the contest. Neither player even knew what the free was for, let alone who was going to receive it. May have been technically there (I personally didn't see any contact), but fans get rightly annoyed by technical decisions being awarded and blatant frees being missed. Doesn't make it right, but it all tends to even itself out in the wash-up.SCRAY72 said:
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
S. Wests dive
- Thread starter Coin_Toss
- Start date
- Tagged users None
stmookeyj
Brownlow Medallist
Veteran
10k Posts
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Nathan Mullenger-McHugh Player Sponsor 2018
Western Bulldogs - Mitch Honeychurch Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Josh Prudden Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Cordy, Honeychurch, Prudden, Dale Player Sponsor 2015
Having just seen the incident, I noticed that the umpire (#3: Stephen McBurney) motioned for a PUSH IN THE BACK rather than a shepherd even though he blew the free kick before Wojcinski fell into West.
The Lord Commander said:
Another idiot quote....You shouldn't pay those free kicks.
OK from now on we pay some free kicks but not others....you nob head
If you pay them players will stop doing it....this is why we have rules you fool
If its a free kick its a free kick....simple, end of story.
Read the rule book and go and play some footy clown
catempire
Premium Platinum
Spook said:
The point is that they don't pay them all the time. If they did, we wouldn't have a problem with it.
SCRAY72 said:
Genuine champion of the game. I like him and rate him very highly.
However, his staging and diving sickens me.
Brad Johnson and Smith aren't far behind.
Hopefully the young fellas down there don't follow their lead.
catempire said:
I think you'll find he said "You shouldn't pay those free kicks"
catempire
Premium Platinum
Spook said:
Well you shouldn't unless you're going to pay them all. I agree.
catempire said:
You then need to argue that it should not be a rule then.
You can't say well its a free kick but we are never going to pay it!
catempire
Premium Platinum
Spook said:
Head... brick wall... banging...
Option 1: Don't pay any
Option 2: Pay them all
Not an option: Pay ones like Scott Wests but not the other 149 that occurred in the same match.
catempire said:
???? This is just my point... How can you have your Option 1????
I agree with option 2, but your option 1 should read:
Option 1: remove the rule from the rule book.
How can you have a rule and never enforce it. Your Option 1 in nonsensical
Its either a rule or it isn't, which one do you want?
I rest my case
catempire
Premium Platinum
Spook said:
You can have option 1 by making that the interpretation. Our rules are full of interpretations, they're not just black and white. Option 1 is to have an interpretation that incidents like that are not paid as free kicks. It most certainly is an option. My problem is with being neither here nor there which is what it currently is. I have no objection with enforcing the rule, so long as it is consistent.
Agree with your logic, but it could easily be applied to other situations. Ottens received an exceptionally soft free for "sheparding off the ball" in the 1st qtr, resulting in a gifted Geelong goal (this "contact" would happen many times during the course of any game and not given a free kick). G. Ablett's final goal was the result of a spillage from a pack where the Geelong player (not sure who) ran directly into Chris Grant against the flow with no eyes for the ball (that is paid a free 99 times out of 100 but not on this occassion). Like I said before, it all eventually sorts itself out in the end.catempire said:
I guess we would all be much happier supporters if technical free kicks (ie: West, Ottens, Grover's "sheparding" on Ricciuto) were not awarded and the clear free kicks (ie: Grant being taken out of the contest, J.McVeigh being blatantly tripped yesterday) were given.
catempire
Premium Platinum
Sedat! said:
Your second paragraph sums it up perfectly.
Consideration need not be adequate, but it must be sufficient.
catempire
Premium Platinum
gridlocked said:
Nup. You've lost me. Can't see how that applies here.
Similar threads
