Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Stanley vs Mumford in a ruck contest... Poor skill on the umpire's part sees the ball go sideways, and Ben McEvoy, being the tallest man around the ball, plucks it out of the air. Free kick awarded, with a ruling that suggested that the umpires felt Stanley was boxing Mumford out so that McEvoy could ruck. Is a player excluded from contesting the ball, because he also happens to be tall, and have contested in the ruck previously in the game??? If It had gone direct to Jack Steven instead, it would have simply been play on... Stanley and Mumford were locked together in that contest, and Mac simply did what gets done countless times throughout a game. Result was that they kicked a very easy goal, snuffed out our possible drive back into the game, and further confused every fan as to exactly how the rules of the game are to be interpreted. Extremely frustrating to see how umpire intervention can ruin a game. Not sure what can be done to fix the over umpiring/under umpiring being experienced. Just wish they could limit the number of reasons the umpires get involved in play, and with what is left, enforce the rules consistently... Dream on I guess...
"No comment IS a comment" - George Carlin
- matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
you cant block a ruckmans movement to the ball in/up (as a third man)
i too went banana when i saw it
until the replay and then had to concede![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
i too went banana when i saw it
until the replay and then had to concede
![Evil or Very Mad :evil:](./images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
That decision was 100% correct and here is why. Ben was the ruckman and Stanley blocked the path of their ruckman. people will argue why cant both go up. they can but one cant block the other ruckman otherwise it would happen at every single ball up around the ground.
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8581
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 526 times
- Been thanked: 1527 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
I haven't seen this one yet but that type of free has always annoyed me due to the "aparthieght" they practice.
I did notice earlier in the game McEvoy and Pike locked in a contest and Mumford was free to go up himself. That apparently was OK.
I did notice earlier in the game McEvoy and Pike locked in a contest and Mumford was free to go up himself. That apparently was OK.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Yep, Plugger is right. Free kick was paid correctly and Rhys should have known better than to do it. He didn't even try to disguise it, but spread his arms out wide to make it obvious. Costly mistake
- matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
BUT
what about tte head high to dal just before?
opinions?
when you see it from the other angle (behind swans player) you see he sorta connects with dals jaw with the shouldr
i thought it was there myself
what about tte head high to dal just before?
opinions?
when you see it from the other angle (behind swans player) you see he sorta connects with dals jaw with the shouldr
i thought it was there myself
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8581
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 526 times
- Been thanked: 1527 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
So what if it was Lenny instead of Ben. Would it still be a free?plugger66 wrote:That decision was 100% correct and here is why. Ben was the ruckman and Stanley blocked the path of their ruckman. people will argue why cant both go up. they can but one cant block the other ruckman otherwise it would happen at every single ball up around the ground.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
kosifantutti wrote:So what if it was Lenny instead of Ben. Would it still be a free?plugger66 wrote:That decision was 100% correct and here is why. Ben was the ruckman and Stanley blocked the path of their ruckman. people will argue why cant both go up. they can but one cant block the other ruckman otherwise it would happen at every single ball up around the ground.
If he blocks then yes. Kosi you understand the game. Surely that was an obvious free. It wasnt even unlucky.
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Thought it was a bona fide free unfortunately.
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8581
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 526 times
- Been thanked: 1527 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Stanley went for the hitout. Why is he not the ruckman? I thought Mumford saw what was happening and made sure he was blocked by Stanley.plugger66 wrote:kosifantutti wrote:So what if it was Lenny instead of Ben. Would it still be a free?plugger66 wrote:That decision was 100% correct and here is why. Ben was the ruckman and Stanley blocked the path of their ruckman. people will argue why cant both go up. they can but one cant block the other ruckman otherwise it would happen at every single ball up around the ground.
If he blocks then yes. Kosi you understand the game. Surely that was an obvious free. It wasnt even unlucky.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
kosifantutti wrote:Stanley went for the hitout. Why is he not the ruckman? I thought Mumford saw what was happening and made sure he was blocked by Stanley.plugger66 wrote:kosifantutti wrote:So what if it was Lenny instead of Ben. Would it still be a free?
If he blocks then yes. Kosi you understand the game. Surely that was an obvious free. It wasnt even unlucky.
He still blocked him though. if you let that go it would happen at every single ball up. He cant block like that.
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8581
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 526 times
- Been thanked: 1527 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Would it be a free if McEvoy wasn't there?
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
- Greg T
- Club Player
- Posts: 664
- Joined: Sun 07 Apr 2013 4:12pm
- Location: Gold Coast
- Has thanked: 825 times
- Been thanked: 15 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
They didn't pay it all night till then,s*** decision , 30 blokes round the ball .......terrible
100 goals in 14 games...Lockett is the key
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11322
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 12:57am
- Location: South of Heaven
- Has thanked: 1312 times
- Been thanked: 447 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Regardless of whether the decision was correct or incorrect, the umpires can still all eat a big bag of AIDS.
No love for umpires here.
No love for umpires here.
Curb your enthusiasm - you’re a St.Kilda supporter!!
![Image](https://i.imgur.com/LkJcQq3.jpg?2)
![Image](https://i.imgur.com/LkJcQq3.jpg?2)
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
kosifantutti wrote:Would it be a free if McEvoy wasn't there?
Yes because he blocked. Well it should be. Who knows what would be paid.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4539
- Joined: Thu 20 May 2010 11:49pm
- Has thanked: 120 times
- Been thanked: 307 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Maybe we are too passive.
Maybe we need a few more umpires robbed us threads!
Maybe we need a few more umpires robbed us threads!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10134
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1299 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Loved in the first quarter Kosi gets pinned in a ruck contest forbumping Mumfford who has a shot. Next throw in Mumfford actually swung Kosi out of the ruck nothing. The Stanley free was barely there and they hadnt paid one all night. The s*** threw up caused the the free . Stanley did nothing wrong but play fir StKilda .
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Munga
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5287
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:00am
- Has thanked: 525 times
- Been thanked: 98 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Some rules are just crap. But when the umpiring isn't consistent is when well all get rampaging.
Gehrig emerged from scans yesterday saying he was "as sweet as a bun"
- Verdun66
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2152
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 6:46am
- Location: Dubai, UAE
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
The replay showed it was a free according to the rules, which seem to change frequently. Mumford was a long way back though.
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8581
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 526 times
- Been thanked: 1527 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Is he supposed to just move out of the way and let Mumford go for it?plugger66 wrote:kosifantutti wrote:Would it be a free if McEvoy wasn't there?
Yes because he blocked. Well it should be. Who knows what would be paid.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
kosifantutti wrote:Is he supposed to just move out of the way and let Mumford go for it?plugger66 wrote:kosifantutti wrote:Would it be a free if McEvoy wasn't there?
Yes because he blocked. Well it should be. Who knows what would be paid.
No but he cant block. Surely if that was allowed it would happen every single ball up.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10134
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1299 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Yeah if you where allowed to block you'd just hold Roo and Kosi out of marking contests . Oh hang on...
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- SydneySainter
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2417
- Joined: Sat 26 May 2007 6:59pm
- Has thanked: 54 times
- Been thanked: 153 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
Annoying, but correct call.
Bad management is bad management
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4888
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 330 times
- Been thanked: 467 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
When I first saw that decision I was miserable at the umpys for ruining any chance we had of winning. THEN I saw the wide angle and I was miserable at Stanley for ruining any chance we had of winning.....
Was the absolute correct call, unfortunately.
Was the absolute correct call, unfortunately.
- magnifisaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: Sun 02 May 2004 2:52am
- Has thanked: 216 times
- Been thanked: 578 times
Re: Free against in their goal square - awful decision
yes, Mumform was blocked for going for the hitoutkosifantutti wrote:Would it be a free if McEvoy wasn't there?
Posting 20 years of holey crap!