11-5

[CURLY]

New season same old biased crap. Yes we get it AFL you need a team to play Geelong in front of their new stand but seriously don’t cheat.

[The_Dud]

Clueless Cryin’ Curly back for 2024!

How’s Membrey going?

[Jacks Back]

Clueless Cryin’ Curly back for 2024!

How’s Membrey going?

The booing of Membrey from that cat's crowd is a disgrace.

[The_Dud]

Clueless Cryin’ Curly back for 2024!

How’s Membrey going?

The booing of Membrey from that cat's crowd is a disgrace.

The booing of Membrey by some on here is worse!

[CURLY]

Umpire umpire umpire

Cheating at its best

[Life Long Saint]

There have been some astonoshingly bad decisions.

[Otiman]

14-17 in the end.

[shrodes]

14-17 in the end.

You won’t hear that from the Stooge

[Devilhead]

The Stocker free against was a total disgrace .... game changer

[skeptic]

I thought it was bad night for us with the umps

[Life Long Saint]

The Stocker free against was a total disgrace .... game changer

The Bonner one was just as putrid.
Lucky neither cost us a goal.

[Scollop]

The Stocker free against was a total disgrace .... game changer

That one where Danger kicked Liam Stocker fair square in the kidneys, our player wasn't sliding and he wasn't on the ground...he was bending over to get the ball.

Both Stockers feet were still planted as he's bending to win the footy. Even Selwood who was commentating said he thought it should have been a st Kilda free

[CURLY]

Cost us in the end no surprise

[Scollop]

So he's bending over with both feet on the ground...

You have to be allowed to contest the footy.

Danger wasn't anywhere near the football. Danger recklessly kicks him in a vulnerable area and he gets the free

Danger sucked in the ump

[Scollop]

Cost us in the end no surprise

I think we should have won, but we cost ourselves a little too with Max King making a couple of mistakes in that last quarter. He was selfish instead of selfless

He made up for it with the kick to Wilson

[Sainter_Dad]

Dud and Curly sitting in a tree - P - I - S - S - I - N - G

Seriously guys - so glad this is not in the main game thread - but get a room!

[Sainter_Dad]

So he's bending over with both feet on the ground...

You have to be allowed to contest the footy.

Danger wasn't anywhere near the football. Danger recklessly kicks him in a vulnerable area and he gets the free

Danger sucked in the ump

And Stocker was removed from the ground.

[skeptic]

Cost us in the end no surprise

I think we should have won, but we cost ourselves a little too with Max King making a couple of mistakes in that last quarter. He was selfish instead of selfless

He made up for it with the kick to Wilson

I’m going to play with the words here… I thought it was lack of composure as opposed to selfish.

The first one… the long bomb, I can understand because the square was free, time pressure was on and he backed himself to a near miss.

The play on from the Collard free was a very bad choice though. Needs to be a team rule to not guess if unsure RE advantage

I agree with you in principle though. We could have got the front before Geelong kicked out like that

[The Fireman]

Clueless Cryin’ Curly back for 2024!

How’s Membrey going?

The booing of Membrey from that cat's crowd is a disgrace.

s*** crowd. Like going to a game at West Coast or Fremantle surrounded by one particular crowd. They are not challenged by the people around them so they become a totally biased self centred pack of Ill-informed morons.

[WellardSaint]

Steele tackled and brought a guy to the ground, Cat dropped ball between his legs, and then kicked it a bit.

THE BALL WAS ON THE GROUND
Therefore 'DROPPING THE BALL'

[bigcarl]

The Stocker free against was a total disgrace .... game changer

Yep, they need to look at that rule. Our guy had eyes only for the ball

[Sainter_Dad]

Steele tackled and brought a guy to the ground, Cat dropped ball between his legs, and then kicked it a bit.

THE BALL WAS ON THE GROUND
Therefore 'DROPPING THE BALL'

On the face of it - but apparently ....
- No prior
- Attempted to clear the ball
- No Free Kick

Still love to see how they argue Stocker slammed into by Dangerfield's KNEE and having to leave the ground - but that was BELOW THE KNEES.

And replayed - so the ump had time to u/hasumpstuffedup

[The_Dud]

So he's bending over with both feet on the ground...

You have to be allowed to contest the footy.

Danger wasn't anywhere near the football. Danger recklessly kicks him in a vulnerable area and he gets the free

Danger sucked in the ump

Not saying I called it, but I called it…

You talk about going for the footy as if it's open slather to do whatever you want. You can't. The sliding rule and below the knees rule was introduced to change player behaviour... wasn't it!?!

On a side note, the 'below the knees' rule is one of the worst in footy due to it rarely being used correctly. Its changed from protecting a player from another who is sliding in dangerously (like Goodes did), to rewarding players who aren't actually trying to win the ball and instead choose to 'run over' the player who's going lower knowing they'll get a free. No different from ducking to get a high tackle or diving to get a push in the back. But that's another debate

[Scollop]

So he's bending over with both feet on the ground...

You have to be allowed to contest the footy.

Danger wasn't anywhere near the football. Danger recklessly kicks him in a vulnerable area and he gets the free

Danger sucked in the ump

Not saying I called it, but I called it…

You talk about going for the footy as if it's open slather to do whatever you want. You can't. The sliding rule and below the knees rule was introduced to change player behaviour... wasn't it!?!

On a side note, the 'below the knees' rule is one of the worst in footy due to it rarely being used correctly. Its changed from protecting a player from another who is sliding in dangerously (like Goodes did), to rewarding players who aren't actually trying to win the ball and instead choose to 'run over' the player who's going lower knowing they'll get a free. No different from ducking to get a high tackle or diving to get a push in the back. But that's another debate

Very good call. The risk factor has suddenly become secondary and players are exploiting the literal interpretation by 'running over' a player and not even attempting to contest down low to where the footy is.

The umpires are a laughing stock aren't they? Can't believe they can get sucked in that easily.

I can understand the umpire for making an error and not really understanding what the rule was designed for...but the AFL needs again to change player behaviour if they're trying to milk a free out of the rule.

Why should Paddy Dangerfield get off scott free for a reckless act. Who was the player at risk? He knew exactly what he was doing. He was the perpetrator.

AFL needs to suspend him for rough conduct!! He staged for a free and hurt Stocker in the process.

The MRO needs to ask the question; was Dangerfield making a genuine attempt to contest the footy by hand or by foot? Where is the ball and where is his foot or his hands?

Just like they need to fine this Collingwood player for sucking in another umpire.

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/controve ... c-13970093

[Sainter_Dad]

So he's bending over with both feet on the ground...

You have to be allowed to contest the footy.

Danger wasn't anywhere near the football. Danger recklessly kicks him in a vulnerable area and he gets the free

Danger sucked in the ump

Not saying I called it, but I called it…

You talk about going for the footy as if it's open slather to do whatever you want. You can't. The sliding rule and below the knees rule was introduced to change player behaviour... wasn't it!?!

On a side note, the 'below the knees' rule is one of the worst in footy due to it rarely being used correctly. Its changed from protecting a player from another who is sliding in dangerously (like Goodes did), to rewarding players who aren't actually trying to win the ball and instead choose to 'run over' the player who's going lower knowing they'll get a free. No different from ducking to get a high tackle or diving to get a push in the back. But that's another debate

Very good call. The risk factor has suddenly become secondary and players are exploiting the literal interpretation by 'running over' a player and not even attempting to contest down low to where the footy is.

The umpires are a laughing stock aren't they? Can't believe they can get sucked in that easily.

I can understand the umpire for making an error and not really understanding what the rule was designed for...but the AFL needs again to change player behaviour if they're trying to milk a free out of the rule.

Why should Paddy Dangerfield get off scott free for a reckless act. Who was the player at risk? He knew exactly what he was doing. He was the perpetrator.

AFL needs to suspend him for rough conduct!! He staged for a free and hurt Stocker in the process.

The MRO needs to ask the question; was Dangerfield making a genuine attempt to contest the footy by hand or by foot? Where is the ball and where is his foot or his hands?

Just like they need to fine this Collingwood player for sucking in another umpire.

https://7news.com.au/sport/afl/controve ... c-13970093

On this ....


Who is focused on the ball - I will give you a hint - rhymes with Locker