The Video of THAT tackle

[DidakDelight]

Just saw it for the first time;

What a disgrace of a decision!

 

[Jezzitizle]

That was a free kick every day of the week. Onus is on the tackler not to land in the back. If Mooney cant tackle its his own fault. Great decision. Not borderline in the slightest.

 

[JB17]

it has been a free kick all year, why stop now?
mooney should not have had a goal in the 1st qtr.. he claimed he soccered it through, but it shows dawson punched it! take the good with the bad.

 

[The Fireman]

Just saw it for the first time;

What a disgrace of a decision!

How so?

 

[Murraj1966]

If you Geelong fans feel you got the raw end of the deal?

HAWKINS HIT THE POST.

 

[Sttew]

Regardless of whatever you think, the result in this game was decided by a 50:50 umpiring decision. The AFL won't like that, but the AFL won't drop the umpire because that will be an admission he stuffed up.

 

[rand corp]

As a neutral the way I view it is: that it is in the grey area where I'd expect all Cats fans to think it not a free and all Saints fans to think it is.

The Geelong player can consider himself unlucky, the tackle was low waist, the St Kilda player propelled himself forward and took the tackler with him but, technically I believe the free was there to be intepreted as such as stated in the current laws of the game.
In this instance there was contact and forward force to the back of the St Kilda player albiet that said force may have been caused by the St. Kilda player himself.

 

[surfer1605]

I've watched the first 1 and 1/2 quarters and seen the same decision paid twice already. Although I agree it is a crap rule, if a player has prior opportunity and gets caught it should be a tackle regardless of how he's brought down, it is still consistent with the ones they paid earlier in the game and throughout the year.

 

[Majinbuu]

Regardless of whatever you think, the result in this game was decided by a 50:50 umpiring decision. The AFL won't like that, but the AFL won't drop the umpire because that will be an admission he stuffed up.

It wasn't a 50:50 decision, what is wrong with these cat supporters, look at the footage.

 

[glengowan]

I have a sense of deja vu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceYumueb2IE&feature=related

 

[demondavey]

pathetic, completely and utterly pathetic. If this game gets any softer we might as well just call it a hybrid between soccer and european handball....... cant believe that decision

 

[Peter_Davies]

100% a free kick. Fall into someone's back while making a tackle REGARDLESS of how it is made is a free kick in any form of the code in Australia.

 

[demondavey]

Pause it at 44 seconds.... look at Mooney clearly being off the ground when he tackled, where else could he go as Gwilt was also unbalanced - gravity may suggest down? Hmmm funny how that works. Combine that with wet conditions and you have a clear case of something called 'the benefit of the doubt'???

 

[Winterstick]

In the back!!!

 

[bigfarter]

I don't hold that decision responsible for the loss. Poor kicking and a terrible first half (and a very good opponent) took care of that. That being said, upon watching the replay I could only remark "What else could Mooney have done?"

The frustration comes from the fact that decisions like that were paid on and off all night without consistency. It's just upsetting that one was paid at such a heartbreaking time for Geelong.

Saints fans will think it was there. Cats fans won't. The threads about this decision show that even neutral fans are divided so clearly nobody is sure. All Geelong (and it's fans) can do is get over it and move on and hope that we get a rematch in the Grand Final.

And to everybody sooking that it should have been fifty against Cam for mouthing off, I hope you've never complained about umpires imposing themselves on the game or players being forced to act like robots. Seriously, if you endorse fifties for verbal you're a sad, sad little girl.

 

[TheBloods]

why is everyone talking about this incident?

Frees during the game generally balance out. Frees directly costing goals in the final minute are clearly important.

Gwilt, falling face first with arms pinged from behind dragged Mooney with him?

What was he holding onto Mooney with? His big toe?

Arms "pinged" [sic] (I think you mean pinned)?? His arms were freee - he handballed it. And if you have hold of something and it moves forward, then of course you move forward with it.

 

[Subprime]

I have a sense of deja vu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceYumueb2IE&feature=related

2010 "you just cost us the game" = 2009 "right in front of me"

 

[The Fireman]

Frees during the game generally balance out. Frees directly costing goals in the final minute are clearly important.

no more important than a goal given any other time during the game.
Why didn't you mention the goal given Mooney that was punched through by Zac?
Your logic is flawed.

 

[sunnyTEE]

Regardless of whatever you think, the result in this game was decided by a 50:50 umpiring decision. The AFL won't like that, but the AFL won't drop the umpire because that will be an admission he stuffed up.

The result of a game is dictated by 4 quarters of footy. Including Mooneys dubious goal, Stevie J running head first at St Kilda players and every other single incident in the game.

You Geelong muppets are embarrassing yourselves.

 

[sunnyTEE]

Pause it at 44 seconds.... look at Mooney clearly being off the ground when he tackled, where else could he go as Gwilt was also unbalanced - gravity may suggest down? Hmmm funny how that works. Combine that with wet conditions and you have a clear case of something called 'the benefit of the doubt'???

In the back is in the back champ.

There are a million variables that go into every free kick. Balance, body position etc. If you land on their back it's a free kick, doesn't matter how you get there.

 

[PUSSIES_07_FLAG]

"You just lost us the game"

NEVER TRUER WORDS SPOKEN THROUGH THE UMPIRES MICS.

Disgraceful.

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Put it this way, if Rutten's "push" on Anthony was a free in last years semi, then Mooney's was a free too.

Personally, I dont think either of them should have been paid.

Rutten was pinged for holding the jumper, which he was clearly doing.

That was clearly in the back, too.

 

[Darealrath]

He landed on his back...that has consistently (well, as consistently as umpiring can be)been paid all year whether people like the interpretation or not.

 

[QuietB]

Regardless of whatever you think, the result in this game was decided by a 50:50 umpiring decision. The AFL won't like that, but the AFL won't drop the umpire because that will be an admission he stuffed up.

This is where cats fans (some, not all) are wrong. This decision did not decide the game - 120 minutes of footy decided the game.

Lets not forget that the Saints played all over Geelong for the first half in particular - credit where credit is due. 50/50 games can go either way just as 50/50 decisions can go either way. Technically, you can argue that it was there.

The number of games where Geelong have benefited from umpiring is ridiculous. Absolutely hilarious that they are throwing out the toys when they are on the receiving end.

 

[Mr Cannons]

Put it this way, if Rutten's "push" on Anthony was a free in last years semi, then Mooney's was a free too.

Personally, I dont think either of them should have been paid.

PS Am I the only one that thinks Geelong's second goal of the game by Varcoe actually shaved the post on the way through?

PPS. Just watching the first few minutes of the replay to have another look at Varcoe's goal, and I notice that Schneider got a free against Ottens, that was exactly the same as Gwilt's. So I guess the umps were consistent?

rutten's was for holding anthony's arm, both were free kicks, gwilt didnt play for the free he simply went forward from the force of mooney