News What's Your Decision?

[Harry Reems]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/119515/default.aspx

So the Eagles fans were screaming that Ballas cheated by deliberately moving off the mark to get a better angle for his missed shot that could have won Fremantle the game.

The vision shown on the "what's your decision" show on the AFL website shows that the glove throwing, Quentin "not anymore" Lynch actually moved off the mark, so Ballas probably presumed that where Lynchy stood was where the mark actually was.

So the point should never have been counted as he technically played on after the siren had gone.

Well Quentin was never really known for his intelligence, especially after that drink driving incident where he tried to out run the cops at 135 kmph through the back streets of Como in 2004.

So the Eagles fans now want it to be known that they actually beat Fremantle by 2 points and not 1.

According to them also, that was not a free kick for a high tackle near the goal square on Luke McPharlane in the dying stages of the game.

The Geisch didn't even mention that one.

 

[Clay Davis]

Is this thread needed? We're effectively three days away from the next game.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Part of the natural run up. There aren't too many players who don't have an arc. Buddy's is fine, so Balla's would be even more so.

 

[Quinz]

Margetts told Ballantyne where the mark was. He ran several metres to the side, would have been a gutsy call by the ump though. Irrelevent in the final result.

 

[PapaJ]

In those split seconds I had enough time to think, gees when is the whistle going to go for 'play on' = 'end of game' because he clearly went off the line, but he let it go and rightly so. It's like the technical play-on calls that umps don't make all the time. Thecnically yes, but they never call it and shouldn't have.

Ironically if he had have arced just that fraction less (and all else being equal) he may have actually kicked the goal.

Anyway, it's a stupid point - he missed, end of story.

 

[prattsta]

It's just his 'natural arc.' If it's good enough for Buddy...

 

[Bender571]

It doesn't matter now ...


... because De Boer was clearly elbowed in the head (high, low impact, negligent) by Rosa before the deliberate.

 

[PapaJ]

It doesn't matter now ...


... because De Boer was clearly elbowed in the head (high, low impact, negligent) by Rosa before the deliberate.

Nice pickup. In any case, I think I'd have preferred Frodo at 50 meters over DeBoer at 40 when it comes to set shots.

.... though must admit The Pig has looked a bit more confident in front of the sticks this season.

 

[Marlin01]

If Ballas had have kicked that goal, it could have been Sirengate all over again.

My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong), but it should have been play-on the second he crossed back into the field of play, so it should have been a pretty easy decision for the umpire.

 

[Nickos66]

Nah, if Ballas got the goal nobody would've even questioned it until today (wednesday) when the Gooch has his weekly verbal diarrhea bout. Nothing in it, to question it would set a dangerous precedent for the game.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Remember Max Rooke in the 09 GF? and the whinge all the saints fans had?

Final result wasn't impacted. It's up to the kicker to keep the natural line IIRC - whoever is on the mark has every right to move around from side-to-side as long a they don't move over the actual line - in which case it would have been a 50m penalty

Would have been an incredibly ballsy call to give Ballas play-on and an automatic dead-ball end of game situation

I do feel that if it had of been a goal there would have been much more of a fuss about the situation

 

[DizzyHB]

If Buddys massive arc is fine, then so is Ballas.

 

[dugrene]

If Buddys massive arc is fine, then so is Ballas.

Something which really gets up my nose is the fact we effectively have two rules. One for everybody else and one for Buddy.

I cannot get my head around it.
At least with the cheat Murali the ICC made a rule for every bowler. Buddy has his own rule, but it's still cheating.

 

[DizzyHB]

And how far can Ballas really run around with those little legs compared to Buddys?

 

[QL 21]

So the Eagles fans were screaming that Ballas cheated by deliberately moving off the mark to get a better angle for his missed shot that could have won Fremantle the game.

I'm not, I think he did incredibly well. If we had lost I would have been annoyed with the umpire, not Ballantyne.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Good call QL

Letting Ballantyne run off his mark is okay in my book if no other players are being called up on it. Yes he ran off his line, but the umpire didn't allow him to do that, simply didn't call him up on it and the buck stops there with the umpire. Likewise I was more annoyed at the MRP than Judd after the incident. Sure he's a dirty **** for what he did to Pav, but it's not his fault he got let off - the MRP let him get away with it.

I said to the Sydney fans after the game in one of the many threads there, that if the calls were there, they shouldn't be complaining about those calls in particular, rather the consistency and that's where the umpires should be held accountable.
They were annoyed at Ballantyne for getting away with niggling, "punching with force" and general bad behaviour and felt that the umpires should have called him up on it - but I am 99% sure the umpires know what Ballantyne does is nowhere near reportable or enough to give away a free kick. They do, however, know that players are likely to retaliate and will always look out for those free kicks. The most they can really do is tell Hayden to settle down and play footy - but he generally does that anyway, the niggle is an added bonus.

 

[Andronicus]

What did freo people think of the waters free for high contact at the other end of the ground?

I thought it was ugly, but not worth a free kick since it was just an attack on the ball in a marking contest.

 

[Sman-21]

Reckon they came out an said should of been play on just to put a stop to any ... did it make the distance,can we get a better side on angle etc questions.
Just incase in other angles it looks like it went over the line.

Players have been getting away with slightly moving over to get better angles since ive been watching.
Happens with just about any set shot thats not straight infront they all improve the angles.

As for the the waters free i havent seen any replays so only going from what i saw at game, but looked to me he just crunched him HARD in the back/shoulder blades.
Was rough an umpires dont like seeing any hard hits an are always quick to blow the whistle not sure if there was any real contact above shoulders to be called a free though.
Could be completely wrong seen no replays

 

[raffrox]

Waters free shouldn't have been one. Mayne had his eyes on the ball and protected himself at the last second.

Play on.

 

[bruzaar62]

Waters free shouldn't have been one. Mayne had his eyes on the ball and protected himself at the last second.

Play on.

Yep ,no free,Waters was running into a position he shouldnt have been.Mayne was clearly going for the ball and Waters backed into a marking contest.
On Balla's kick,if they had more room between the boundry and the fence and the angle wasnt so acute he could have had a normal run up,wasnt possible from where he was

 

[Andronicus]

yeah i was watching it with a hawks friend, and we were both wanting to see a good game.

Both thought the waters one was one of many bad calls freo copped.

I dont buy into all the talk that WC got robbed.

 

[Scotland]

The correct decision was to call "play on", just like the 19 times the same thing happened in the previous 2 and a half hours.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Yep ,no free,Waters was running into a position he shouldnt have been.Mayne was clearly going for the ball and Waters backed into a marking contest.
On Balla's kick,if they had more room between the boundry and the fence and the angle wasnt so acute he could have had a normal run up,wasnt possible from where he was

Since when was high contact not considered a free kick?

Also its a tough angle so the rules shouldn't apply???? Really?

 

[Clay Davis]

Since when was high contact not considered a free kick?

Mayne was going for the mark. It was incidental contact.

If it was deliberate or reckless contact, Mayne would have been looked at during the week.

 

[Nickos66]

It wasn't technically 'high contact' either. he crashed into his back at shoulder height, hence why Waters went down so quickly. If it had been his head he would have resembled more like a tree falling in the woods and wouldn't have bounced back up straight away, he would have had a concussion - see J Brown.