Game Day Sydney Swans vs Geelong Cats Sat 1st May 7:25pm SCG

[Millky95]

It's why I never usually post a lot during the game. Way too much emotion and going early.

But that's where the fun is!

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Scott was very passive aggressive in that presser.

Wow. One man's fish. I found him gracious and philosophical.

 

[SM]

Wow. One man's fish. I found him gracious and philosophical.

I found him very condescending "It's such a hard game for the Umpires" is gaslighting and essentially going at them in a way the AFL can't fine him for. He's a prick and knows exactly what he's doing.

 

[wills2g]

Scott would be completely delusional if he complained about the umps (and he may well be). How many umpire assisted goals in q2/q3 when they were getting absolutely smashed around the ground?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I found him very condescending "It's such a hard game for the Umpires" is gaslighting and essentially going at them in a way the AFL can't fine him for. He's a prick and knows exactly what he's doing.

Seems a bit paranoid to me but whatevs. Didn't trouble me. But like they say, the secret of success is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made.

Play on.

 

[SM]

Seems a bit paranoid to me but whatevs. Didn't trouble me. But like they say, the secret of success is sincerity. If you can fake that, you've got it made.

Play on.

Paranoid? I just think you're being pretty lenient to a guy who has a long track record of doing something else. Just think you're taking a very surface level view of his comments.

Put it this way:

Sincere - "I can't really have any complaints about the call, look at how controversial the decision against Brisbane was and that went our way. Swings and roundabouts. It's a tough game to Umpire"

v

Gaslighting - "I looked at the vision and it's clear it travelled 15 metres... isn't it difficult being an Umpire?"

By leading with the assertion they got it wrong (which by the way I'm still pretty sure the initial call was touched, so dunno where the hang up on the not 15m comes from) he's gaslighting.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Paranoid? I just think you're being pretty lenient to a guy who has a long track record of doing something else. Just think you're taking a very surface level view of his comments.

Put it this way:

Sincere - "I can't really have any complaints about the call, look at how controversial the decision against Brisbane was and that went our way. Swings and roundabouts. It's a tough game to Umpire"

v

Gaslighting - "I looked at the vision and it's clear it travelled 15 metres... isn't it difficult being an Umpire?"

By leading with the assertion they got it wrong (which by the way I'm still pretty sure the initial call was touched, so dunno where the hang up on the not 15m comes from) he's gaslighting.

I don't think what you describe is anywhere the definition of gaslighting.

Anyway, really not interested in any further examination of this. We expressed opinions, we disagreed. Far bigger things on my plate today.

 

[SwansProudly]

Great montage of the cygnets energy, excitement, enthusiasm.
Oh and kicking goals

 

[Tedeski]

Wow. One man's fish. I found him gracious and philosophical.

AFL admits umpiring error in thrilling finish to Cats-Lions game

Umpires boss Dan Richardson says Brisbane's Zac Bailey should have been awarded a free kick late in the game against Geelong

www.afl.com.au

"The umpire at the time called play-on and, upon review, we acknowledge that it was a missed free kick on this occasion," Richardson said.
"By attempting to evade the player with the ball (Blicavs) had prior opportunity and as a result the call should've been holding the ball.
"As Chris (Fagan) has alluded to it doesn't determine the outcome of a game, one decision. There's many moments that impact the outcome of any game."
Richardson confirmed the controlling umpire for last night's decision, Rob O'Gorman, wouldn't be sanctioned for the mistake."


If you don't sanction them it's no wonder the quality doesn't improve.


"The Cats had trailed the match just moments earlier before recruit Isaac Smith became an instant hero for his new club's fans by kicking the match-winner deep in attack.
The AFL is also expected to look at Chris Scott's quarter-time exchange with senior Lions players on Friday when it meets for its football review on Monday"

Gracious and philosophical he is not!

 

[SM]

I don't think what you describe is anywhere the definition of gaslighting.

Anyway, really not interested in any further examination of this. We expressed opinions, we disagreed. Far bigger things on my plate today.

Then no need to continue to engage. However in a thread on the subject I think I'm allowed to express my opinion if it's all the same.

 

[Voice of the G]

All the talk about the non-mark to Cameron. Even if it was paid a mark, he was no guarantee to kick it. Siren probably would have gone before he took his kick, he would have been on an acute angle and would not have been able to move off his line. No guarantee.
Plus the disgracefule free kick paid to Brad Close when Jake Lloyd hardly laid a feather on him makes up for the mark not paid.
Too bad Geelong. Chris Scott is a big wus.

I am confused,I thought the Cameron non-mark was touched off the boot by the person who kicked it to Cameron or was that another incident.

 

[The Gong]

I am confused,I thought the Cameron non-mark was touched off the boot by the person who kicked it to Cameron or was that another incident.

It's turning into something like the JFK assassination. Inconclusive footage and conflicting evidence.

The commentators said it was judged "Not 15", posters on here and the main board have said (after replaying the incident) the umpire clearly said "Touched, play on" and now the umpiring review only mentions the incorrect call about the 15 metres.

But I've just checked the scores on the official page again and guess what? It still says we won.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Then no need to continue to engage. However in a thread on the subject I think I'm allowed to express my opinion if it's all the same.

This is me not continuing to engage.








But just for the record, I never said you weren't allowed to express your opinion.

This is me ceasing to engage.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

It's turning into something like the JFK assassination. Inconclusive footage and conflicting evidence.

The commentators said it was judged "Not 15", posters on here and the main board have said (after replaying the incident) the umpire clearly said "Touched, play on" and now the umpiring review only mentions the incorrect call about the 15 metres.

But I've just checked the scores on the official page again and guess what? It still says we won.

As I said on the MB, people think Humphrey Bogart said "play it again, Sam" in Casablanca. He didn't.

People think Juan Antonio Samaranch said "and the winner is... Syd-er-nee". He didn't, he said "Syd-ee".

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

heck all the above. Why was Cameron not not penalised for incorrect disposal?

 

[The Gong]

**** all the above. Why was Cameron not not penalised for incorrect disposal?

Or why wasn't Selwood penalised for high contact on Rowbottom?

Being an ump is such a thankless job and the game we love is a series of 50/50 judgement calls. Nobody worries about a bad call at the start of the second quarter, but anything in the last minute when the game is in the balance is front page stuff. The game shouldn't have been as close as it was and Geelong should focus on how they didn't convert their chances. As I'm writing this I'm hearing a Dogs supporter say the same thing to me about the 2016 Grand Final.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

As I'm writing this I'm hearing a Dogs supporter say the same thing to me about the 2016 Grand Final.

give him a metaphorical smiting.

 

[Kapers]

**** all the above. Why was Cameron not not penalised for incorrect disposal?

Hayward had prior opportunity, therefore by the same logic Cameron had insufficient intent to keep the ball in.

Immediately should've been a free kick.