Meltdown The Western Bulldog's success is built on a lie (Trigger Warning)...

[compact72]

Dan Hannebury says hello.

Reality Check - Was never a free kick, was above the knee not below

You seem quite passionate, would you kindly watch the GF and show us where Sydney should've gotten the free kicks?

 

[Beer n Skittles]

Dan Hannebury says hello.

He wasn't hurt because a dogs player dropped the ball, he was hurt because Wood went lower & harder

 

[Plugger35]

How many frees in front of goals was it? 5 (30 points)? It was early on the game, so clearly wrecked all momentum for Carlton as they know St Kilda had the rub of the green.

I just listened to radio coverage of the game so I can't comment on the umpiring and it was a pre-season game anyway so it's not like it matters.

So another poster I don't even know has the same thoughts that I do. That means I'm delusional and unoriginal, nothing to do with the fact we happen to see the same umpiring issues coincidentally.

I have never seen so many neutrals think the GF umpiring was a bit off. This is a team that most neutrals were probably supporting by the way.

Anyone that questions the Bulldogs umpiring advantage from last year is labelled a troll by their supporters, only their opinions on umpiring are truthful.

 

[maddog37]

No I said you heard it hear first, because my understanding of what was previously posted this was some kind of extremely left field prediction. Now you're backpedalling and are saying 'but others have said this'. You're only confirming that what I'm saying is closer to a Reality Check than you think.

Hard to argue with this. Hard to even understand actually.

 

[Bollox]

He wasn't hurt because a dogs player dropped the ball, he was hurt because Wood went lower & harder

The AFL has spent a lot of skin penalising and enforcing this exact rule. On any other day that would have been an instant free kick and a referral to the MRP.
Supposed to keep your feet these days.
Which is what Hannebery was doing.
Even the post mortem by the AFL/umps said it was not ok.

I;m not much for that rule coz i hate these ridiculous grey rules that are open to misinterpretation from week to week, so it doesnt bother me. BUT...to gloss over it as some sort of fair attack on the ball within these new rules just aint right.

If the rule was not in place, i think you'll find Hannebery would have also gone in "lower and harder" as well, instead of trying to keep his feet.
Hannebury is a ball ferret and doesnt normally avoid contact. Clear case of one bloke doing it to the letter and coming off second best. Shit happens.
Luckily it only cost half a pre season to an elite midfielder. Could have been pretty bad.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

If you were a GWS or Sydney fan watching the finals against the Bulldogs, you would probably have been tearing your hair out seeing the players in red white and blue be brought down, only to slap it out or deftly drop it to a running teammate. It reminds me of Kevin Bartlett's running bounces when he knew he was about to be tackled. I'm not doubting the talent on the Bulldog's team, and the rebuild under Beveridge has been incredible. But I can't help but think their success last year was built on exploiting the grey areas of disposals by hand. Ironically Hawthorn cops a lot of bashing for having a good go from the umpires, but their premierships were built on precision passing with elite foot skills. I won't deny that at times a few of their disposals by hand have been dubious, but that goes for every team. The Bulldogs are simply capitalising on this, and you can't deny it when you go back and watch their games last season.

So what is to be done? Well we need to more broadly define what an illegal disposal actually is, because let's face it, this is currently the only sport where commentators will say 'WOW what a great fumble!' Here are my suggestions...


- Knocking the ball with an open palm is always illegal, if not in a ruck contest OR if the ball cannot be marked. If a player is uncontested and slaps the ball instead of marking it, play on. The only exception is if you manage to recover the ball yourself. A player is a allowed to slap the ball to get it to sit up better for him, but if a teammate recovers it first then a free kick is awarded to the opposition.

- Placing the ball on the ground and leaving it there, even when not being tackled is dropping the ball.

- If a player has possession for at least ONE second and loses the ball in a tackle it is considered dropped, regardless whether the defending player slapped it out of him or not. If the ball didn't come out straight away in the tackle and the player is immobile the umpire goes red hot on a ball up.


I know any mention of rule changes is going to be open with heavy resistance and criticism, and I'm open to the fact that these changes might make the game worse instead of better. I'm just of the opinion that the grey is overshadowing the black and white of this particular rule, and I won't be surprised if the Bulldogs once again exploit this to meme themselves into another premiership.

THE HORROR of it all!

 

[gangsta deluxe]

You must not have watched a lot of footy in the last 10 years.

He hasn't been to Subi once in that time, quite clearly (except maybe against us in the elim lol)

 

[hoianbulldog]

I like how the Bulldogs, who used to HATE that they were LOVED by everyone else have all suddenly turned into special little snowflakes since their success. In fact the OP wasn't even about the Bulldogs, it was about the rule they exploit more than most other clubs. But I guess a team that's used to getting so much praise for competitive preliminary finals, the fans haven't really been prepared this kind of criticism. It's OK doggies, we still like your team!

Read the thread title and come back to me and tell me again it isn't about the bulldogs.

 

[NarrativeWatch]

Reality campaigner on aborted narrative watch

 

[jdz101]

Dan Hannebury says hello.

>Tries to make smart comment to feign knowledge about the rules
>Spells Hannebery's name wrong

 

[Ozil]

 

[Reality Check!]

Reality Check - Was never a free kick, was above the knee not below

You seem quite passionate, would you kindly watch the GF and show us where Sydney should've gotten the free kicks?

Luke Ball "literally" said it should have been paid a free kick. Why should I bother if you don't even agree with him?

 

[Reality Check!]

You dun did a typo! Here's a simpsons meme

Great argument.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Okay, I think I have go it. We tap the ball to a team mates advantage which is totally within the rules and always has been, therefore our success was built on a lie.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Do the Dogs bend the rules? Absolutely.

Do they deliberately do things to get free kicks etc? Absolutely.

Are they alone? Absolutely not.

All 18 clubs cheat the rules subtly, flick the ball instead of handballing, drag the ball into a player on the ground, bend at the knees...

The Dogs merely play football better than the rest of the league (or if you're being picky, they did in finals) and a part of football is taking every advantage you can while the umpires are blindsided.
You cannot honestly single the Dogs out here.

(on another note, whilst frustrating, it is better than the cheating of the olden days when flogs used to kinghit each other)

 

[NarrativeWatch]

The OP is about as good as RC's combined AFL, BBL and test cricket tipping record

 

[Shane Sheridan]

Luke Ball "literally" said it should have been paid a free kick. Why should I bother if you don't even agree with him?

Played your trump card a bit late. If you literally dropped Luke Ball's name in the opening paragraph this argument would have ended a long time ago.

 

[manicmagpie]

If the speed limit is 60 and i drive 59, i'm not exploiting the the rules, i'm following the rules. we don't need to bring it down to 58 to stop people from exploiting it.

If the bulldogs can capitalize on it then anyone else can too, and if they thought of it before everyone else did then they deserve whatever they won out of it.

Actually I think it's more like going 62 in a 60 zone but the cops let you get away with it because there's an allowance for the accuracy of the speed gun.

In recent years all teams have been allowed to get away with all manner of dodgy disposals in the name of 'keeping the game flowing'. It's high time there was a tightening of interpretation.

However to suggest this is responsible for the Bulldogs' success is laughable.

 

[Reality Check!]

Played your trump card a bit late. If you literally dropped Luke Ball's name in the opening paragraph this argument would have ended a long time ago.

Yes it's true. I should have known most people on here wouldn't know the rules.

Do the Dogs bend the rules? Absolutely.

Do they deliberately do things to get free kicks etc? Absolutely.

Are they alone? Absolutely not.

All 18 clubs cheat the rules subtly, flick the ball instead of handballing, drag the ball into a player on the ground, bend at the knees...

The Dogs merely play football better than the rest of the league (or if you're being picky, they did in finals) and a part of football is taking every advantage you can while the umpires are blindsided.
You cannot honestly single the Dogs out here.

(on another note, whilst frustrating, it is better than the cheating of the olden days when flogs used to kinghit each other)

This is not all about the Bulldogs. But the fact is their whole game plan is based on cheating the rules, not so much about getting away with little things here and there.

 

[SilentHunter_]

OP this was never going to end well. Let's be honest.

 

[VitalDread]

 

[Toump Ass]

You know, I'm actually going to find it pretty hilarious when the umpire's decide to call the first 'throw' by a Bulldog's player.

Confusion in the crowd, turns to anger as incorrect disposal is repeatedly called throughout the game.

In the press conference Luke Beveridge questions these decisions and appeals to the AFL for some clarity about what's going on.

This is followed by a press release by the Umpire's Association, re-stipulating the laws of the game, and saying the Umpire's were 100% correct.

Panic sets in at Whitten Oval. "It's OK", you think. "We still have some gun midfielders, like Bont, Dalhaus, Daniel, Wallis....JJ and Libba are elite too...r-right?Boyd is going to reach his potential, Liam Picken...g-gun."

But it doesn't work. Without the classic 'egg laying' or 'professional fumbles' the Bulldogs struggle to keep up with the top 4 the rest of the year, and their true power level is exposed.

For a name like "Reality Check" you sure do have an active imagination!

On topic: You are absolutely clueless. Give up now, please.

 

[Mattdougie]

No one resents the Bulldogs, except maybe Sydney and GWS fans. A second premiership in nearly 100 years by exploiting the rules is nothing to be proud of, it's kind of cute actually. Now if a team like Carlton won like this I would be seething, but I really care little for the Bulldog's success even if they create a mini dynasty.



No complaint about the umpires at all. I just pointed out that the way the rules are it's so difficult for them to officiate. I actually feel sorry for them, because if they start paying against these illegal disposals, the abuse from fans would be merciless because they've become accustomed to getting away with it. The umpires are now put in a difficult position where they have to be consistent with every game. The result? Holding or dropping the ball is rarely paid across all the games and the rolling mauls have become worse.

The premiership supplemented my happiness and put a pep in my step.

Premiers 2017

 

[compact72]

Yes it's true. I should have known most people on here wouldn't know the rules.



This is not all about the Bulldogs. But the fact is their whole game plan is based on cheating the rules, not so much about getting away with little things here and there.

So why have the "Western Bulldogs" in the title?

 

[Butane]

Sydney had only 7 shots in the second half and the Bulldogs had 16. Even if Sydney converted every shot they still wouldn't have won. The score line was flattering in the end.