Roast Troy Pannell

Remove this Banner Ad

At least the standards of evidence for any sort of AFL enquiry are clearly set after this week.

Two brothers talking = 2 month enquiry.
Mick Malthouse having some sort of vague suspicion Eddie Betts might have exercised his rights as a free agent = 1 month enquiry.
Unprecedent umpiring performance = straight to the pool room, and lock up any evidence from journalists.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

marvin said:
Mick Malthouse having some sort of vague suspicion Eddie Betts might have exercised his rights as a free agent = 1 month enquiry, including being interrupted at his grandfather's funeral
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
Ol Bevers is a crack up, day after the game, frees are because we play a certain way.
Two days after, it's disgusting to suggest we play a certain way, insulting to the players.
 
Geoffa32 said:
After watching the game again, Things is a sloppy tackler. Frees against him were fair.

However the Bulldogs are obviously coached to get the high tackle free. Their coach even eluded to that this week. I wonder what ramifications constant small knocks to the back of neck and head will have in the future in terms of brain injuries.
Click to expand...
Think you mean "alluded".

Elude means to evade or escape. For example, the thief eluded the police who tried to track him down.
Allude means to imply or suggest.
 
Vader said:
Think you mean "alluded".

Elude means to evade or escape. For example, the thief eluded the police who tried to track him down.
Allude means to imply or suggest.
Click to expand...
Dam the English language.....
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

texanmike said:


10 minutes in, LOL at lloyds face hes loving it, barrett ripped beveridge a new one, bev lost for words absolute meathead.
Click to expand...


At the 12min Bevebitch looks like he wants to throw a punch. I will go on record he could be the first coach to do this.:p
 
SallyWidebottom said:
Following on from my 1st half non aligned analysis of Pannellgate, here’s my non bias take on the 2nd half.
The first 2 Crows frees after half time were definitely there so no arguments about them.
INTERESTING NOTE: 17:00 Pannell could have paid a high contact to Mackay against Dalhouse but choose not too.
WB 15th Free - Against Mackay into Wallis back - looked to both tumble fwd and Wallis looked to hit the turf with his left side. Momentum of the turn had his back to the ground when he looked at the ump (NOT Pannell) soft but you could argue it was there.
AFC NON FREE - 13:57 Mitch Wallis gets a centre clearance from a loose ball. Matt Crouch was never in possession of the ball but Bontempelli clearly had 2 arms wrapped around him and threw him to the ground
WB 16th Free - Hartigan into Dalhous’s back. No issue.
AFC NON FREE / INTERESTING NOTE: 09:16 Talia marks and in a second action the ball is knocked from his hands by Roughhead using his left hand to pull down on Talia’s right arm - Mark should have been paid if not then an arm chop should have been paid
AFC NON FREE - 08:31 Hartigan should have received a high contact free. Roughead’s left arm is clearly over Hartigan’s shoulder. 3rd replay shows umpire has clear view but decides to allow play on. Interestingly Matthew Richardson states "the umpire should have seen that. You can’t do that”. The controlling umpire was Pannell - cue suspicious music.
WB 17th free - High contact against Thompson on Dickson. Paid by Pannell but I’d say it was there as it wasn't necessary by Thompson. Thompson has been responsible for a few of these - he needs to work on this aspect of his game
WB 18th Free - High to Dalhouse against Crouch - it was there. Paid by Pannell who was the non controlling ump, he obviously had a better view.
WB 19th Free - In the back to Libba against Henderson. Given Henderson had Dalhouse tackling him without the ball which had spilled to the ground in the previous tackle I think it is a very harsh decision by Panell to pay this free kick. PLAY ON
WB 20th Free - Thompson evaded Libba’s tackle (prior) but then was wrapped up by Dickson - Libba then joins the tackle so the free was there but I’d argue it was Dickson’s tackle so he should have been given the free not Libba.
INTERESTING NOTE: Thompson didn’t return the ball on the full so “technically" Pannell could have paid a 50m but didn’t. He probably realized wouldn’t have got out of there alive if he had (LOL).
AFC 6th Free - No brainer Sloan in the back. Panel would never have umpired again if he didn’t pay that.
AFC NON FREE - 17:06 Stringer kicks long to the goal square. Alia has front position infant of Roughead whom then, using 2 hands throws Talia out of the way.
AFC 7th Free - To Brown for a throw against Lachie Hunter, clearly there.
AFC 8th Free - In the back, obvious.
WB 21st free - Hands in the back against Jacobs. It was there. The 50m was there Jacobs knew who he offended against as there was no other dogs in the vicinity which makes the free all the harder to bear of you are Pike as the Crows outnumbered the Dogs at that contest 4-1. From when the ump stopped talking 3 seconds passed before he blew the whistle for the 50m penalty and Jenkins had still not released the ball.
AFC NON FREE - 12:57 Jenkins R arm clearly held by the dogs defender using 2 hands. Jenkins R arm is extended down and away from this body which is trying, but is impeded, to move fwd to the impending contest. Replay shows umpire (NOT Pannell) had a clear view if his eyes were open.
AFC 9th free - Deliberate OOB - what can you say these are a lottery just be glad Pannell wasn’t the controlling ump doubt he’d have paid it.
AFC 10th Free - Obvious good run down tackle from Crouch.
AFC 11th Free - Tex being held? Ump says “Holding”. Replay didn’t really show that unless it was before the camera angle changes to the close up. Close up did not show holding?
INTERESTING NOTE: Smart Replay shows the WB will now receive 7 frees to Nil i.e. between Tex’s free and the end of the game.
I will watch with interest to see what influence Pannell has given the controversy surrounding him on these pages.
WB 22nd Free - The old Selwood move by McLean tuck ball under left arm lower R knee lean into tackler and throw the R arm up.
INTERESTING NOTE: I frigging hate that these are paid they are a blight on the game of AFL. If I was a coach I’d spend a shed load of time training everyone on my list to be the best in the game at this tactic. The only way it will be stamped out is when there are 30 of these in each & every game. Until then those that exploit it are being rewarded so Crows get better at it until then you have to put up with it & the doggies have been very good at it tonight.
AFC NON FREE - 07:32 Cameron tackles McLean whom proceeds to dispose of the ball by handing it to Boyd in contravention of AFL Rule 15.3.2 which states
15.3.2
Incorrect Disposal and Payment of Free Kick
When the football is in play, a Free Kick shall be awarded against a Player who hands the football to another Player or throws the football.
WB 23rd Free - High against Hartigan on Redpath it was there. Understand Hartigan’s frustration as the commentators pointed out where was his earlier?
WB 24th Free - Hartigan on Picken high contact - not even sure it was high reaches around and shoves him out of the way. Common sense (now there’s an oxymoron with umpires) should have prevailed no need for a further free kick. Blow the whistle, tell Picken to clear out then blow time on & PLAY ON
INTERESTING NOTE: Note to Ross Lyon (my coach) - Use this tactic in future as a tactic to give your defenders more time to set up just ensure ump has called play on otherwise it could be 50m? Just stupid umpiring really & only hurt the Bulldogs really.
WB 25th - Illegal disposal against Thompson. They usually do pay these where a bloke is run down from behind unless there is an obvious push in the back which you couldn’t claim was the case in this instance.
INTERESTING NOTE: The Betts to Sloan kick not being 15m? Seen these paid before and will again. Could you say Ump was cheating (it was Pannell) no you couldn’t 50/50 call went against AFC.
INTERESTING NOTE: Bontempelli possibly (though Pannell was the controlling ump) could have been penalised if Brad Crouch hadn’t taken it off him when he was tackled - as the commentators pointed out.
WB 26th Free - Hunter taken high by Brodie Smith. Yep it was there, but clearly Hunter is crouched (bent knees when he takes possession and leans right extending the left leg to ensure the contact is made. Tactic they use repeatedly & well.
NON WB FREE: 04:26 Thompson wasn’t penalised for high contact on Macrae given the many others that were paid to the dogs bit surprised this wasn’t.
NON WB FREE: 03:26 Hartigan not penalised for high contact on Dickson
WB 27th Free: Wow against Thompson again. Bailey Dale was low & it was there. Thompson is a repeat offender & needs to eradicate this weakness from his game.
INTERESTING NOTE: Commentator said 50M to Betts prior to Jenkins goal. I disagree. Eddie was at least 5m fwd of where he took the mark so Morris had every right to try to hold him - Goal Jenkins so no issue anyway.
WB 28th Free: Blocking in the ruck - soft seen a lot worse not paid. PLAY ON

Doggies well drilled to milk the high Contact ala Selwood fashion. Thompson to work on his offending high. Tex to hold more marks. Pannell will not umpire you again against the Dogs unless the AFL is completely corrupt....(Nekminut) So I suggest you finish higher on the ladder or play them again in the finals at their home ground which you’d want to avoid.
As for Pannell outright cheating - I think the Adelaide fans, not unwarranted, frustration leads them to that conclusion. Though 17-1 is pretty damning I must admit.
Clearly he should not umpire next time you 2 teams meet & if that is a final you’ll probably be glad he showed his hand now rather than in a final.
Click to expand...
Did we end up with a final tally of incorrect v correct?
 
Slippery Pete said:
Is he saying Chris Scott is saying the questioning of umpires was unfair or is he saying Chris Scott was saying the questioning of our questioning of umpires is unfair?

******* Twitter users. I wish they'd all piss off.
Click to expand...
I had a bit of trouble with it too

my take: Chris scott said yesterday that criticism of the way adelaide FC have approached the issue is unfounded, and i as an important tweetery person agree.
 
deaneus said:
I am glad this story refuses to die
Click to expand...

Pretty sure a whole lot of journalists are smelling blood in the water and circling. The AFL has ruled their access to information and this gives the journalists a chance to bite back.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Roast Troy Pannell

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top