in the back once or twice?

[BackFromUSA]

My opinion is that TWO in the back decisions were paid against Cam Mooney in that passage of play and two free kicks paid by two umpires.

I believe one paid in the back to Zac Dawson in the marking contest against Mooney and then immediately after in the back to James Gwilt against Mooney.

That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.

Check out the video.

[saintbrat]

I heard that early on in discussions-

[Sainterman]

I think you might be right. That is why Dawson took the kick because his was the first one paid.

Gee, all the whinging and there were 2 of them in a row!

Suck it up Cats!

[bergholt]

That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.

haven't watched it again, but i thought zac took the free kick because it was "down-field".

jimmy wasn't infringed against by the time he'd got rid of the ball. however, when he landed on the ground and mooney landed on him, that was an infringement. because it's an infringement after the disposal, it's paid at the point the ball went to, to the closest player. usually this only happens with kicks, but in this case it was a handball so it's less obvious.

it's a shame though, and that there wasn't fifty, because jimmy kicking from 70 would have been a good chance of pinpointing someone.

[vacuous space]

because it's an infringement after the disposal, it's paid at the point the ball went to, to the closest player. usually this only happens with kicks, but in this case it was a handball so it's less obvious.

They aren't supposed to pay a free kick backwards of the infringement. Ever. If they did, they mucked it up.

[saint3d]

it's a shame though, and that there wasn't fifty, because jimmy kicking from 70 would have been a good chance of pinpointing someone.

The guy in row A perhaps.

[Life Long Saint]

The whistle didn't sound until after the Gwilt push...The Dawson incident didn't seem to be a push with the hands...rather a body on body contest.

[Flag for dad]

I absolutely agree, thought the same thing. In fact I posted this yesterday

Watching the replay on fox in the wee hours, (I mean hell, who could sleep?) It looked a lot more likely that it was a free against Zac Dawson before the ball got near Gwilt - considering the way Dawson's body arched and fell to the ground. Maybe that would explain why he took the kick not Gwilt?

However, everything online suggests it was a free to Gwilt?

Anyone seen it? Thoughts?

Great minds think alike eh?

[saintbrat]

just to highlight the fact they had been given all night
Schnieds had a free for the same about 1 min into the game..

[Magnifisaint 35]

In the sydney carlton game a free for landing in the back was payed 10 minutes into the 2nd quarter. they raised the James Gwilt free and Tom Harley who im getting a bit of respect for with non biased calling stated "no body complains when its 10 minutes into the second quarter but when its in the dieing minutes its a talking point"

[Iceman234]

In the sydney carlton game a free for landing in the back was payed 10 minutes into the 2nd quarter. they raised the James Gwilt free and Tom Harley who im getting a bit of respect for with non biased calling stated "no body complains when its 10 minutes into the second quarter but when its in the dieing minutes its a talking point"

Notice when they cancelled the incorrect interchange decision in the first quarter and a comment was made about it being rare in AFL that a decision would be cancelled in such a way when they realise they got it wrong.

Bruce commented that "Cam would be shaking his head down at Kardinia Park seeing that"

[Magnifisaint 35]

yes i heard that! the only thing cameron mooney and geelong should be shaking there heads about is that they were lucky mooney didnt give away the 50m penalty

[Thinline]

just to highlight the fact they had been given all night
Schnieds had a free for the same about 1 min into the game..

2.30 into the 2nd quarter Hayes was paid one as well.

[saintsareprettygoodhey]

In the sydney carlton game a free for landing in the back was payed 10 minutes into the 2nd quarter. they raised the James Gwilt free and Tom Harley who im getting a bit of respect for with non biased calling stated "no body complains when its 10 minutes into the second quarter but when its in the dieing minutes its a talking point"

Tom Harley is a pretty good commentator, though he does make the odd WTF call.

[Griggsy]

I also like Harleys commentary, seems more professional and composed in the box than the experienced guys.

On the topic though, yes 2 frees were there. Much like Geelongs 1st goal to Stokes where Gilbert was pushed in the back under the ball by Mooney (again)

[spert]

The ump paid a free to Lenny earlier in the game which was identical to Gwilt's free, so what's the problem Cats. Geelong's typical lack of grace in losing is pretty par for the course under Bomber..Lyon shows much more quality in that area

[ausfatcat]

The whistle didn't sound until after the Gwilt push...The Dawson incident didn't seem to be a push with the hands...rather a body on body contest.

and the umpire clearly stated that Mooney fell into his back

[Richter]

I also like Harleys commentary, seems more professional and composed in the box than the experienced guys.

On the topic though, yes 2 frees were there. Much like Geelongs 1st goal to Stokes where Gilbert was pushed in the back under the ball by Mooney (again)

Live I thought it was too, but on the replay it showed that it was just body on body contact.

However, there was another goal to Geelong in which I'm pretty sure Ling pushed one of our defenders in the back in the lead up. Haven't seen any decent replays to confirm though.

[Liam_G]

However, there was another goal to Geelong in which I'm pretty sure Ling pushed one of our defenders in the back in the lead up. Haven't seen any decent replays to confirm though.

You could be taking about the Steve Johnson goal in the 3rd quarter?

There was a bounce 30m out from the Geelong goal and just as the bounce occured, SJ gave Dempster an almighty push two hands right in the back. The ball then went over Dempster's head from the ruck contest to a now unmarked SJ, who kicked a goal. The normal camera angle didn't show it, but a replay showed it occur at the edge of the screen.

Actually, just looking at the footage now and Harley called it "body work" where as Matthew's called it as he saw it.... simply "a shove in the back".

[plugger66]

That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.

haven't watched it again, but i thought zac took the free kick because it was "down-field".

jimmy wasn't infringed against by the time he'd got rid of the ball. however, when he landed on the ground and mooney landed on him, that was an infringement. because it's an infringement after the disposal, it's paid at the point the ball went to, to the closest player. usually this only happens with kicks, but in this case it was a handball so it's less obvious.

it's a shame though, and that there wasn't fifty, because jimmy kicking from 70 would have been a good chance of pinpointing someone.

Pretty tough to be down field when it is going their way. The umpire just stuffed up.

[bigcarl]

The umpire just stuffed up.

agree

[Thinline]

That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.

haven't watched it again, but i thought zac took the free kick because it was "down-field".

jimmy wasn't infringed against by the time he'd got rid of the ball. however, when he landed on the ground and mooney landed on him, that was an infringement. because it's an infringement after the disposal, it's paid at the point the ball went to, to the closest player. usually this only happens with kicks, but in this case it was a handball so it's less obvious.

it's a shame though, and that there wasn't fifty, because jimmy kicking from 70 would have been a good chance of pinpointing someone.

Pretty tough to be down field when it is going their way. The umpire just stuffed up.

Plugger, a couple of umping quessies...

Should the umpire have paid fifty as a matter of course or is there an element of discretion in play on account of noise or other extenuating circumstances?

Should the umpire have paid an additional fifty for the demonstrative verbal abuse?

[bigcarl]

That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.

haven't watched it again, but i thought zac took the free kick because it was "down-field".

jimmy wasn't infringed against by the time he'd got rid of the ball. however, when he landed on the ground and mooney landed on him, that was an infringement. because it's an infringement after the disposal, it's paid at the point the ball went to, to the closest player. usually this only happens with kicks, but in this case it was a handball so it's less obvious.

it's a shame though, and that there wasn't fifty, because jimmy kicking from 70 would have been a good chance of pinpointing someone.

Pretty tough to be down field when it is going their way. The umpire just stuffed up.

Plugger, a couple of umping quessies...

Should the umpire have paid fifty as a matter of course or is there an element of discretion in play on account of noise or other extenuating circumstances?

Should the umpire have paid an additional fifty for the demonstrative verbal abuse?

good questions. i, too, would like an answer.

also, what happens when the goal umpire isn't sure whether the ball was touched or not? does the benefit of the doubt go to the defending side?

[plugger66]

That is why I believe Zac Dawson took the kick rather than Gwilt.

haven't watched it again, but i thought zac took the free kick because it was "down-field".

jimmy wasn't infringed against by the time he'd got rid of the ball. however, when he landed on the ground and mooney landed on him, that was an infringement. because it's an infringement after the disposal, it's paid at the point the ball went to, to the closest player. usually this only happens with kicks, but in this case it was a handball so it's less obvious.

it's a shame though, and that there wasn't fifty, because jimmy kicking from 70 would have been a good chance of pinpointing someone.

Pretty tough to be down field when it is going their way. The umpire just stuffed up.

Plugger, a couple of umping quessies...

Should the umpire have paid fifty as a matter of course or is there an element of discretion in play on account of noise or other extenuating circumstances?

Should the umpire have paid an additional fifty for the demonstrative verbal abuse?

Not for Ling because it was pretty obvious he didnt hear it but yes for Mooney but in saying that the umpire was under so much pressure he let you take the kick and you werent even supposed to be playing. Just my opinion of course.

[Thinline]

So there is an element of discretion. That's fair enough, especially given the racket. That said I wasn't aware that 'hearing it' mattered. I thought it was more a question of whether kicking it away disadvantaged the recipient of the free. Bit like when a man on the mark goes too early on the basis he thinks the marker has taken off. But there you go...