Lead every stat other than....

[saynta]

Paddy goal from a 50m penalty, Lonie goal from dropping at the knees to get high contact... don’t mention them either!

Swings and roundabouts my friend, swings and roundabouts.

F@rk Off - I will take the warning - or the banning - but just F@rk Off!!!!!!

Tonight - on the night of our best game of the season you come here sprouting this shite - this game could be the turning point of this young group of kids and you are just full of bile and cr@p.

JUST F@RK OFF!!!!!

Plus 1

[saynta]

The umpiring was crap and clearly favoured the Eagles, as it usually does when we play them in Perth.

But, they're 1st, we're 16th, we're the away team, they move the ball with precision and polish, whereas we butcher it, so they'll always get rewarded for the 50/50 or even iffy free kick calls. It's not fair, but that's how its always been.

But 25 to 12. Really?

[Sainter_Dad]

The umpiring was crap and clearly favoured the Eagles, as it usually does when we play them in Perth.

But, they're 1st, we're 16th, we're the away team, they move the ball with precision and polish, whereas we butcher it, so they'll always get rewarded for the 50/50 or even iffy free kick calls. It's not fair, but that's how its always been.

But 25 to 12. Really?

25 to 12 represents better than the average for the past 4 years.

71 to 27 over the journey begore this game - So on average it should have been 24 to 9

[CURLY]

The umpiring was crap and clearly favoured the Eagles, as it usually does when we play them in Perth.

But, they're 1st, we're 16th, we're the away team, they move the ball with precision and polish, whereas we butcher it, so they'll always get rewarded for the 50/50 or even iffy free kick calls. It's not fair, but that's how its always been.

But 25 to 12. Really?

25 to 12 represents better than the average for the past 4 years.

71 to 27 over the journey begore this game - So on average it should have been 24 to 9

Margetts wasn’t there other wise it would have been far worse if that’s possible.

[Joffa Burns]

More possessions tackles clearances inside 50’s yet get smashed 25-12 in free kicks. That is in a 13 point game. Two horrendous frees to Kennedy both goals one too Cripps on Sinclair goal to WC and s mark gifted to NicNat when he was behind another goal. Blatant frees our way ignored Sheed McGovern diving on the ball play on blocks and push outs on Paddy ignored. How long must we cop this cheating s***.

By the way shame Jack Riewoldt missed tonight with that serious f***** head knock.

Curly, it is rare that I agree with you but in this instance I do and we got the absolute @rse end of the umpiring on Saturday night. The umpires were way too involved and contentious frees paid both ways, but WCE had the absolute run of the decisions.

I don't believe you can state they cost the match as WCE definitely backed off in the 4th but they rode a wave of umpiring benefit.

I believe the umpires were absolutely crowd influenced and WCE were the major beneficiary.

[CURLY]

More possessions tackles clearances inside 50’s yet get smashed 25-12 in free kicks. That is in a 13 point game. Two horrendous frees to Kennedy both goals one too Cripps on Sinclair goal to WC and s mark gifted to NicNat when he was behind another goal. Blatant frees our way ignored Sheed McGovern diving on the ball play on blocks and push outs on Paddy ignored. How long must we cop this cheating s***.

By the way shame Jack Riewoldt missed tonight with that serious f***** head knock.

Curly, it is rare that I agree with you but in this instance I do and we got the absolute @rse end of the umpiring on Saturday night. The umpires were way too involved and contentious frees paid both ways, but WCE had the absolute run of the decisions.

I don't believe you can state they cost the match as WCE definitely backed off in the 4th but they rode a wave of umpiring benefit.

I believe the umpires were absolutely crowd influenced and WCE were the major beneficiary.

The Herald Sun made mention of the lop sided free kick count not helping us. I think we got reamed more so against Collingwood but WC was well and truely favoured as usual. Two big clubs the umpires want to keep on side.

[saynta]

Paddy goal from a 50m penalty, Lonie goal from dropping at the knees to get high contact... don’t mention them either!

Swings and roundabouts my friend, swings and roundabouts.

F@rk Off - I will take the warning - or the banning - but just F@rk Off!!!!!!

Tonight - on the night of our best game of the season you come here sprouting this shite - this game could be the turning point of this young group of kids and you are just full of bile and cr@p.

JUST F@RK OFF!!!!!

Plus 1

Bump.


Just because it is such a great post.

[The_Dud]

Paddy goal from a 50m penalty, Lonie goal from dropping at the knees to get high contact... don’t mention them either!

Swings and roundabouts my friend, swings and roundabouts.

F@rk Off - I will take the warning - or the banning - but just F@rk Off!!!!!!

Tonight - on the night of our best game of the season you come here sprouting this shite - this game could be the turning point of this young group of kids and you are just full of bile and cr@p.

JUST F@RK OFF!!!!!

Plus 1

Bump.


Just because it is such a great post.

I would say my post was more good than great, but thanks for the complement anyway

[Sainter_Dad]

Paddy goal from a 50m penalty, Lonie goal from dropping at the knees to get high contact... don’t mention them either!

Swings and roundabouts my friend, swings and roundabouts.

F@rk Off - I will take the warning - or the banning - but just F@rk Off!!!!!!

Tonight - on the night of our best game of the season you come here sprouting this shite - this game could be the turning point of this young group of kids and you are just full of bile and cr@p.

JUST F@RK OFF!!!!!

Plus 1

Bump.


Just because it is such a great post.

Shhhhhhhhh!

You will get be 'dobbed in' to the mods!

[sunsaint]

Plus 1

Bump.


Just because it is such a great post.

I would say my post was more good than great, but thanks for the complement anyway

I assumed he was lording up is own +1 post

[The_Dud]

Plus 1

Bump.


Just because it is such a great post.

I would say my post was more good than great, but thanks for the complement anyway

I assumed he was lording up is own +1 post

[saynta]

Paddy goal from a 50m penalty, Lonie goal from dropping at the knees to get high contact... don’t mention them either!

Swings and roundabouts my friend, swings and roundabouts.

F@rk Off - I will take the warning - or the banning - but just F@rk Off!!!!!!

Tonight - on the night of our best game of the season you come here sprouting this shite - this game could be the turning point of this young group of kids and you are just full of bile and cr@p.

JUST F@RK OFF!!!!!

Plus 1

Bump.


Just because it is such a great post.

Shhhhhhhhh!

You will get be 'dobbed in' to the mods!

By the troll? Who cares.

[The_Dud]

Just came across this gem which I thought would be handy for some of the forumites who are less in touch with the rules than others...

“Holding-the-ball has gone up around about 55 per cent after the change in the interpretation about three years ago,” he explained.

The umpiring department are coming towards the end of their visits to clubs, which includes an in-depth analysis of the holding-the-ball rule using vision from last year.

“If you have prior opportunity, what do you need to do with the ball? Dispose of it legally. It’s play-on if you successfully dispose, or it’s a free kick if you don’t,” Kennedy explains. (Webster)

“If you haven’t had prior, it’s play-on if you genuinely attempt to kick or handball the ball, it’s play-on if the ball gets knocked out in the tackle and it’s a free kick if you just decide to drop the ball. That’s the old dropping the ball.'' (Sinclair)

So I suppose you’re never going to be happy when you whinge and carry on about decisions that are 100% correct... at this rate I wouldn’t be surprised if in a few weeks I see complaints about being penalised for kicking it out on the full!

The moral of the story; learn the rules, and if you’re going to spam the forum complaining, at least complain about the genuine bad decisions, and not the ones that you just don’t understand.

[kosifantutti]

Just came across this gem which I thought would be handy for some of the forumites who are less in touch with the rules than others...

“Holding-the-ball has gone up around about 55 per cent after the change in the interpretation about three years ago,” he explained.

The umpiring department are coming towards the end of their visits to clubs, which includes an in-depth analysis of the holding-the-ball rule using vision from last year.

“If you have prior opportunity, what do you need to do with the ball? Dispose of it legally. It’s play-on if you successfully dispose, or it’s a free kick if you don’t,” Kennedy explains. (Webster)

“If you haven’t had prior, it’s play-on if you genuinely attempt to kick or handball the ball, it’s play-on if the ball gets knocked out in the tackle and it’s a free kick if you just decide to drop the ball. That’s the old dropping the ball.'' (Sinclair)

So I suppose you’re never going to be happy when you whinge and carry on about decisions that are 100% correct... at this rate I wouldn’t be surprised if in a few weeks I see complaints about being penalised for kicking it out on the full!

The moral of the story; learn the rules, and if you’re going to spam the forum complaining, at least complain about the genuine bad decisions, and not the ones that you just don’t understand.

While you’re doing some research, can you find the bit where you’re paid the mark even if someone else had their hands on it first (Natanui) if you’re tackled by one arm, you can throw with the other (Natanui) you can have the ball over your head and handball to a teammate without ever clenching your fist (Natanui)

[The_Dud]

While you’re doing some research, can you find the bit where you’re paid the mark even if someone else had their hands on it first (Natanui) if you’re tackled by one arm, you can throw with the other (Natanui) you can have the ball over your head and handball to a teammate without ever clenching your fist (Natanui)

I recall the marking contest you’re referring to from the game but not the others, so can’t really comment.

The mark being paid would be a mistake (shock horror) which you see many times every round from marking contests. Shouldn’t have been paid, but no grand conspiracy. I was more upset about Seb’s lack of discipline afterwards giving away the 50, that was the real f-up.

For the second one you reference, all I can say is what I posted earlier, “if you haven’t had prior, it’s play on if you genuinely attempt to kick or handball the ball”. But again, I don’t remember the incident so can’t really comment.

[asiu]

thats the indigenous round subset filed under
'go easy on the darkies week'

with the subset subset of
'ping a whitie week , preferably a Charlie favourite

all filed in the reverse racism cupboard
in the cellar of AFL House

<warning for racist language>

[CURLY]

While you’re doing some research, can you find the bit where you’re paid the mark even if someone else had their hands on it first (Natanui) if you’re tackled by one arm, you can throw with the other (Natanui) you can have the ball over your head and handball to a teammate without ever clenching your fist (Natanui)

I recall the marking contest you’re referring to from the game but not the others, so can’t really comment.

The mark being paid would be a mistake (shock horror) which you see many times every round from marking contests. Shouldn’t have been paid, but no grand conspiracy. I was more upset about Seb’s lack of discipline afterwards giving away the 50, that was the real f-up.

For the second one you reference, all I can say is what I posted earlier, “if you haven’t had prior, it’s play on if you genuinely attempt to kick or handball the ball”. But again, I don’t remember the incident so can’t really comment.

The reason the umpire paid the mark to Nic Nat is because all he was focused on was NicNat. He was making sure no contact or infringement didn't impede him and had no interest in Marshall all the umpire saw was Nicnat. As for the frees against Webster and Sinclair that was just the umpire's keeping in good with West Coast.

[saynta]

Just came across this gem which I thought would be handy for some of the forumites who are less in touch with the rules than others...

“Holding-the-ball has gone up around about 55 per cent after the change in the interpretation about three years ago,” he explained.

The umpiring department are coming towards the end of their visits to clubs, which includes an in-depth analysis of the holding-the-ball rule using vision from last year.

“If you have prior opportunity, what do you need to do with the ball? Dispose of it legally. It’s play-on if you successfully dispose, or it’s a free kick if you don’t,” Kennedy explains. (Webster)

“If you haven’t had prior, it’s play-on if you genuinely attempt to kick or handball the ball, it’s play-on if the ball gets knocked out in the tackle and it’s a free kick if you just decide to drop the ball. That’s the old dropping the ball.'' (Sinclair)

So I suppose you’re never going to be happy when you whinge and carry on about decisions that are 100% correct... at this rate I wouldn’t be surprised if in a few weeks I see complaints about being penalised for kicking it out on the full!

The moral of the story; learn the rules, and if you’re going to spam the forum complaining, at least complain about the genuine bad decisions, and not the ones that you just don’t understand.

While you’re doing some research, can you find the bit where you’re paid the mark even if someone else had their hands on it first (Natanui) if you’re tackled by one arm, you can throw with the other (Natanui) you can have the ball over your head and handball to a teammate without ever clenching your fist (Natanui)

You are trying to preach to the pig ignorant. A waste of time imhfo.

[saynta]

While you’re doing some research, can you find the bit where you’re paid the mark even if someone else had their hands on it first (Natanui) if you’re tackled by one arm, you can throw with the other (Natanui) you can have the ball over your head and handball to a teammate without ever clenching your fist (Natanui)

I recall the marking contest you’re referring to from the game but not the others, so can’t really comment.

The mark being paid would be a mistake (shock horror) which you see many times every round from marking contests. Shouldn’t have been paid, but no grand conspiracy. I was more upset about Seb’s lack of discipline afterwards giving away the 50, that was the real f-up.

For the second one you reference, all I can say is what I posted earlier, “if you haven’t had prior, it’s play on if you genuinely attempt to kick or handball the ball”. But again, I don’t remember the incident so can’t really comment.

The reason the umpire paid the mark to Nic Nat is because all he was focused on was NicNat. He was making sure no contact or infringement didn't impede him and had no interest in Marshall all the umpire saw was Nicnat. As for the frees against Webster and Sinclair that was just the umpire's keeping in good with West Coast.

My advice though, don't feed the troll.

[asiu]

aw c'mon !!

call him a maggot lover again
... that made me laugh

[kosifantutti]

While you’re doing some research, can you find the bit where you’re paid the mark even if someone else had their hands on it first (Natanui) if you’re tackled by one arm, you can throw with the other (Natanui) you can have the ball over your head and handball to a teammate without ever clenching your fist (Natanui)

I recall the marking contest you’re referring to from the game but not the others, so can’t really comment.

The mark being paid would be a mistake (shock horror) which you see many times every round from marking contests. Shouldn’t have been paid, but no grand conspiracy. I was more upset about Seb’s lack of discipline afterwards giving away the 50, that was the real f-up.

For the second one you reference, all I can say is what I posted earlier, “if you haven’t had prior, it’s play on if you genuinely attempt to kick or handball the ball”. But again, I don’t remember the incident so can’t really comment.

I reckon Sinclair had no prior and was making a genuine attempt to handball. It didn't help that the tackle consisted of driving him into the ground and landing on his back.

The first Natanui throw was in the lead up to the Sheed goal in the first quarter. Whether it was a genuine attempt to handball or not, it ended up as a throw and that's a free all day, every day.

The Webster one, was a free. No argument there.

[The_Dud]

While you’re doing some research, can you find the bit where you’re paid the mark even if someone else had their hands on it first (Natanui) if you’re tackled by one arm, you can throw with the other (Natanui) you can have the ball over your head and handball to a teammate without ever clenching your fist (Natanui)

I recall the marking contest you’re referring to from the game but not the others, so can’t really comment.

The mark being paid would be a mistake (shock horror) which you see many times every round from marking contests. Shouldn’t have been paid, but no grand conspiracy. I was more upset about Seb’s lack of discipline afterwards giving away the 50, that was the real f-up.

For the second one you reference, all I can say is what I posted earlier, “if you haven’t had prior, it’s play on if you genuinely attempt to kick or handball the ball”. But again, I don’t remember the incident so can’t really comment.

I reckon Sinclair had no prior and was making a genuine attempt to handball. It didn't help that the tackle consisted of driving him into the ground and landing on his back.

The first Natanui throw was in the lead up to the Sheed goal in the first quarter. Whether it was a genuine attempt to handball or not, it ended up as a throw and that's a free all day, every day.

The Webster one, was a free. No argument there.

Sinclair’s problem was when he was brought to ground he sort of placed the ball on the ground then knocked it out. I think if he would of just held on to it he wouldn’t have got done. I thought the tackler landed more along side him and not flat on his back, could be mistaken tho.

The point I’m trying to make I guess is people shouldn’t carry on about decisions that are correct just because they don’t like them, that’s just their bias coming out. Umpires make mistakes, it’s no grand AFL backed conspiracy. And if you expect every 50/50 decision to go your way then of course you’re going to be disappointed half the time.

[The_Dud]

While you’re doing some research, can you find the bit where you’re paid the mark even if someone else had their hands on it first (Natanui) if you’re tackled by one arm, you can throw with the other (Natanui) you can have the ball over your head and handball to a teammate without ever clenching your fist (Natanui)

I recall the marking contest you’re referring to from the game but not the others, so can’t really comment.

The mark being paid would be a mistake (shock horror) which you see many times every round from marking contests. Shouldn’t have been paid, but no grand conspiracy. I was more upset about Seb’s lack of discipline afterwards giving away the 50, that was the real f-up.

For the second one you reference, all I can say is what I posted earlier, “if you haven’t had prior, it’s play on if you genuinely attempt to kick or handball the ball”. But again, I don’t remember the incident so can’t really comment.

The reason the umpire paid the mark to Nic Nat is because all he was focused on was NicNat. He was making sure no contact or infringement didn't impede him and had no interest in Marshall all the umpire saw was Nicnat. As for the frees against Webster and Sinclair that was just the umpire's keeping in good with West Coast.

Not sure if you can determine what the umpire was focussed on, but if that’s the case then that’s probably the reason for the mistake.

The frees against Sinclair and Webster were there, read the interpretations above again if you need to, correct decisions, I’m sure you would have been filthy if the roles were reversed and they weren’t paid.

[The_Dud]

While you’re doing some research, can you find the bit where you’re paid the mark even if someone else had their hands on it first (Natanui) if you’re tackled by one arm, you can throw with the other (Natanui) you can have the ball over your head and handball to a teammate without ever clenching your fist (Natanui)

I recall the marking contest you’re referring to from the game but not the others, so can’t really comment.

The mark being paid would be a mistake (shock horror) which you see many times every round from marking contests. Shouldn’t have been paid, but no grand conspiracy. I was more upset about Seb’s lack of discipline afterwards giving away the 50, that was the real f-up.

For the second one you reference, all I can say is what I posted earlier, “if you haven’t had prior, it’s play on if you genuinely attempt to kick or handball the ball”. But again, I don’t remember the incident so can’t really comment.

The reason the umpire paid the mark to Nic Nat is because all he was focused on was NicNat. He was making sure no contact or infringement didn't impede him and had no interest in Marshall all the umpire saw was Nicnat. As for the frees against Webster and Sinclair that was just the umpire's keeping in good with West Coast.

My advice though, don't feed the troll.

Typical flat-earther, instead of presenting a rational argument just turn to name calling.

With that kind of behaviour if you’re anything other than a 14 year old in your mother’s basement I’ll be disappointed...

[CURLY]

While you’re doing some research, can you find the bit where you’re paid the mark even if someone else had their hands on it first (Natanui) if you’re tackled by one arm, you can throw with the other (Natanui) you can have the ball over your head and handball to a teammate without ever clenching your fist (Natanui)

I recall the marking contest you’re referring to from the game but not the others, so can’t really comment.

The mark being paid would be a mistake (shock horror) which you see many times every round from marking contests. Shouldn’t have been paid, but no grand conspiracy. I was more upset about Seb’s lack of discipline afterwards giving away the 50, that was the real f-up.

For the second one you reference, all I can say is what I posted earlier, “if you haven’t had prior, it’s play on if you genuinely attempt to kick or handball the ball”. But again, I don’t remember the incident so can’t really comment.

The reason the umpire paid the mark to Nic Nat is because all he was focused on was NicNat. He was making sure no contact or infringement didn't impede him and had no interest in Marshall all the umpire saw was Nicnat. As for the frees against Webster and Sinclair that was just the umpire's keeping in good with West Coast.

Not sure if you can determine what the umpire was focussed on, but if that’s the case then that’s probably the reason for the mistake.

The frees against Sinclair and Webster were there, read the interpretations above again if you need to, correct decisions, I’m sure you would have been filthy if the roles were reversed and they weren’t paid.

No the Sinclair free was not there that's just rubbish. Did you watch the Collingwood game?