by CENTURION » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:27 am
by FlyingHigh » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:21 am
by Dissident » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:53 am
by Dogwatcher » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:17 am
by Aerie » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:09 pm
by Aerie » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:14 pm
by Leaping Lindner » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:29 pm
Aerie wrote:A couple of other bad decisions were the two holding the balls to Fairclough and Colville which both resulted in goals to Central. Fair enough they were holding the ball, but when the umpires don't pay any others for the whole game, but decide to pay two in front of goal, that is ordinary. No doubt umpires umpire differently in September to any other month. I think the standard of umpiring this year has been terrible.
There were a couple of others which advantaged the Eagles which were ordinary as well. Currie's free against Inkster which resulted in a goal down field to Hier in the last quarter and also the relayed free when Lomas was slightly touched after he kicked the ball was not there.
IMHO the SANFL need to do a thorough examination of their umpiring and tribunal because their standard is no where near that of the players in the SANFL.
by Dogwatcher » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:48 pm
Aerie wrote:Passador got the free just outside 50. The ball spilled out to Symmons and then Gowan clotheslined him, hence the 50.
by Dogwatcher » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:55 pm
by Dissident » Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:55 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:Aerie wrote:Passador got the free just outside 50. The ball spilled out to Symmons and then Gowan clotheslined him, hence the 50.
So it hadn't been called play on? As Symmons was running in full flow when he copped the slap across the moosh (he wasn't clotheslined). If Symmons wasn't playing on or trying to play on - Gowans would have had no reason to tackle him. It was a clumsy tackle. And a player's entitled to tackle a player if they're playing on or attempting to do so - as the umpire can call advantage or bring the ball back if there isn't one. So ultimately there could've been two free kicks - but no 50.
Which means the 50 metre penalty still isn't explained - unless it was for the report.
by Dogwatcher » Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:55 pm
by Dogwatcher » Wed Sep 27, 2006 2:03 pm
by Dissident » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:29 pm
by Rik E Boy » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:30 pm
CENTURION wrote:What if, if this incident happened at the 30 minute mark of the last quarter, after Gowans was reported & after the subsequent 50 metre penalty, the Eagles kicked the winning goal. Later in the week, Gowans is found not guilty. Why is a report followed up with a 50 metre penalty? What he did was tackle the player high & not late, so why a 50? One day, this sort of situation could blow up in the SANFL's face.
by eaglehaslanded » Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:02 pm
by Mickyj » Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:40 pm
by Dogwatcher » Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:13 pm
by Aerie » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:24 pm
Dogwatcher wrote:Eaglehaslanded - take your blinkers off son. It was clumsy and was not a clothesline. It was a slap across the face. If it had been a clothesline it would have at least gone to the tribunal.
I would have felt the same way whoever the player was who'd laid the clumsy tackle.
And why oh why would someone deliberately tackle a player high in a second semi-final when a grand final appearance was on the line?
You seem to have a fixation with the Gowans boys and as I said earlier - look in your own backyard at Cicolella. If the Gowans boys get rubbed out for their actions, so does he.
by Dogwatcher » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:16 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |