Just while we're asking for a please explain

[Mutineer]

I was being a bit sarcastic. 1970s post started about a please explain but then just focused on the normal complaints about selection.

Which is fair enough, but I can't imagine we're going to give ourselves a please explain.

 

[1970crow]

Ok fair enough re it’s fun. I won’t be the party pooper after this post but do you truly believe Nicks, Davis and co sit there on Thursday night saying “we are deliberately choosing a less than optimal 23 which will likely cost us the game”?. Or they are choosing the best 23 in their eyes and you - many - disagree with some of their decisions? You can debate named players all you like (not that I am going to spend more time re this but i certainly agree Murph shouldn’t be in the team if you had read my last 20 messages on him).

The umpiring sucked big time yesterday like I have rarely seen for us. That’s an unambiguous fact. It’s negligent to not be making a scene out of this to gain leverage down the track in various ways

Of course I don't think they knowingly choose our not best 23. That's the criticism. I once had to terminate a worker following his final effup using the forklift. He dropped a pallet of wine that was loaded on top of a fashion cage that had been loaded in sideways. Crap happens, but he'd accumulated a few straws on his back. Anyway, his defence was that he was really concentrating and being very careful. My response was basically, 'well, that's the problem, you're trying as hard as you can and still screwing up'. That's Nicks and his crew, when they select Murphy (at all) and Milera over Nank, they genuinely believe they're selecting our best 22.

I can understand selecting Crouch and Laird, but in my view it's a discussion worth having. And I might actually be wrong, I know, unlikely, but it's possible. But Murphy getting a game full stop and selecting Milera over Nank is unarguably wrong and weakens overall team performance.

 

[Samcro24]

The question is what are we going with:

Pedlar
Harry
Jones
Berry
Cook

Taylor
Dowling

Edwards
Ryan

And why is Murphy ahead of any that play forward?

 

[1970crow]

AFL admits umpiring errors ... 2!

Izak's should have been a mark .... and should have received a free (Damo on FootyShow)

Can't be both, typical AFL stupidity. My view not a mark, the opponent had correctly impacted and ball spilled, but then continued on and tackled whilst it was still a marking contest. Undeniably a free kick.

 

[1970crow]

Ok Grandpa.

Love the left, gotta worry about pronouns but ageism is perfectly ok. Are you allowed in the club if you don't rank a 9 out of 10 on the hypocrisy scale? No wukkers for you, you're sweet with that.

 

[GrommoT]

Just after the Izak non-calls, also had these ...

Numerous times during the game our guys got tackled and hand balled like that but got pinged HTB ... nothing to see there.

Then Noble clearly raised his raised his arm and ducks to cause the high tackle and the ump couldn't pay the free fast enough.

 

[Pugsley]

Same shit, different year. We got it wrong.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

We just got an apology from the AFL so you can close the thread now it's all fine and we are all super happy.

They need to drop the umpire.
Missed mark then missed free for tackling during a marking contest and then missing HTB from play on then correctly paying high tackle.

What about TT kick in the head from Mac while TT on the ground with 10 seconds to go.

 

[Eagleboy2011]

Just after the Izak non-calls, also had these ...

Numerous times during the game our guys got tackled and hand balled like that but got pinged HTB ... nothing to see there.

Then Noble clearly raised his raised his arm and ducks to cause the high tackle and the ump couldn't pay the free fast enough.

Izak was called HTB earlier for holding it 0.0001 seconds.

 

[40porpoise]

The play on in the first quarter when Rowell was awarded the free kick was worse IMO.

Rankine mark and free kick was a subjective interpretation of the rules gone wrong.

Letting a player other than Rowell take the free kick wasn't a subjective decision, it was objectively wrong according to the rules.

It's embarrassing that both these two things can happen in the one game

 

[PCORF]

Same shit, different year. We got it wrong.

It's becoming pretty obvious now. Not the last time this will happen.

 

[Pugsley]

It's becoming pretty obvious now. Not the last time this will happen.

No doubt and we just take it.

 

[Greenfinger]

The AFL should be saying that they will undertake an investigation to this specific game as part of an anti corruption measure. It’s important they actually do something rather than a simple sorry and there’s enough circumstantial elements to this game in terms of many strange decisions against one team that it warrants a thorough investigation. It might be nothing but doesnt mean it shouldn’t be investigated. There’s so much money with gambling now so the motive is there for corruption

 

[Pilchard_Adams]

Could Captains be allowed a number of challenges per game? 1, 2 or 3? Where when play has stopped due to an umpiring decision the captain can call a review?

 

[mtbkym]

The issue is the trend of this happening, what other clubs have this happening to them?

 

[WetCrow1991]

Love the left, gotta worry about pronouns but ageism is perfectly ok. Are you allowed in the club if you don't rank a 9 out of 10 on the hypocrisy scale? No wukkers for you, you're sweet with that.

You seem overly sensitive grandpa. Poor little fella.

 

[Coopers]

NOTHING WE CAN DO!

At least it wasn't a final. Time to suck it in and move on to next week!

If we want to be a good team, we need to perform our best when facing adversity. We have been a weak club in those situations for many years. We have to change and prove this to everyone on Thursday against Geelong.

There's not nothing we can do.

There's a reason this stuff doesn't happen to say, collingwood.

 

[steve9798]

NOTHING WE CAN DO!

At least it wasn't a final. Time to suck it in and move on to next week!

If we want to be a good team, we need to perform our best when facing adversity. We have been a weak club in those situations for many years. We have to change and prove this to everyone on Thursday against Geelong.

2012 and 2017 - been there.

We will never be a successful club if we have to be 5% better than our opposition to make up for incompetent/biased umpiring.

 

[skam85]

2012 and 2017 - been there.

We will never be a successful club if we have to be 5% better than our opposition to make up for incompetent/biased umpiring.

2012 yes, but we need to stop playing the 2017 hard done by in the GF card. Umpires or not, we were trash that day.

 

[Slippery Pete]

I was pleasantly surprised to see this get quite a decent run in the media, along with some of the historical shit decisions to back up the story.

It means someone at the club is doing his or her job.

And really, that’s all you can do in a few days.

The umpires this Thursday night will definitely feel like they’re on notice.

 

[GameofSloanes]

1970crow mentions the Keane throw, fair enough. We could also look at the play on in the goalsquare, sling tackle and play on by wrong player calls, all of which resulted in goals and could certainly be argued were umpiring mistakes. Overall we were well behind in poor decisions resulting in scores.
Tend to agree though, our focus needs to be on what can we do to win, and eliminate the umpires as a factor in deciding games. Because we're never going to get the rub of the green

 

[Crow till I die]

Could Captains be allowed a number of challenges per game? 1, 2 or 3? Where when play has stopped due to an umpiring decision the captain can call a review?

THIS is the most obvious solution - say its 2 challenges a game and get it wrong and you lose the challenge, get it right, you retain it. It would mean that your side won;t be wasting them on frivolous challenges

 

[feenix67]

People also saying Rankine may have missed... well to be honest, if the Mark was correctly paid then it should have bene 50. He would have been kicking from the goal square.

I agree with the premise of the thread though, we need to control what we can control and get selection right.

 

[skam85]

People also saying Rankine may have missed... well to be honest, if the Mark was correctly paid then it should have bene 50. He would have been kicking from the goal square.

I agree with the premise of the thread though, we need to control what we can control and get selection right.

Even if he kicks a behind it's scores level and in our half of the ground

 

[NSolis]

Even if Rankine misses I'd still be happy with the scores level and a kick in to come with a minute to go. Good chance to win or draw the game from there.