SA Footy

I checked and yep... we've still got the 4 points

MW wrote:I checked and yep... we've still got the 4 points

Exactly, so just say "It was deliberate" instead of bullshitting everyone!

How do people feel though about it being deliberate if it did touch the Melbourne players hand.

For mine if you do not have the last touch you cannot be responsible for the 'deliberate' ruling regardless of how little the touch was.

Obviously we can argue about whether it was touched until the cows come home but im talking more about the hypothetical of that situation.

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:I checked and yep... we've still got the 4 points

Exactly, so just say "It was deliberate" instead of bullshitting everyone!

I didnt realise people cant see the touch by Spargo and thats the reason for calling it deliberate. If that's the case then I cant help you all

whufc wrote:How do people feel though about it being deliberate if it did touch the Melbourne players hand.

For mine if you do not have the last touch you cannot be responsible for the 'deliberate' ruling regardless of how little the touch was.

Obviously we can argue about whether it was touched until the cows come home but im talking more about the hypothetical of that situation.

No apparently the ruling by the AFL implies there was no touch from what I've been told.

MW wrote:

Booney wrote:

MW wrote:I checked and yep... we've still got the 4 points

Exactly, so just say "It was deliberate" instead of bullshitting everyone!

I didnt realise people cant see the touch by Spargo and thats the reason for calling it deliberate. If that's the case then I cant help you all

I didn't realise the umpire could see through players in slow motion from the blindside to not call it deliberate, if that's the case then I can't help you all.

singing from the same hymn book mate

MW wrote:

whufc wrote:How do people feel though about it being deliberate if it did touch the Melbourne players hand.

For mine if you do not have the last touch you cannot be responsible for the 'deliberate' ruling regardless of how little the touch was.

Obviously we can argue about whether it was touched until the cows come home but im talking more about the hypothetical of that situation.

No apparently the ruling by the AFL implies there was no touch from what I've been told.

Understand that but I guess I was working on the hypothetical 'IF' he did touch. On social media yesterday there were some heated discussion around whether it could still be deliberate had the Melbourne player touched it.....personally I'm of the opinion that if the Melbourne player had the last touch regardless of how small, light whatever it could not be deliberate then.

Totally agree mate.

whufc wrote:

MW wrote:

whufc wrote:How do people feel though about it being deliberate if it did touch the Melbourne players hand.

For mine if you do not have the last touch you cannot be responsible for the 'deliberate' ruling regardless of how little the touch was.

Obviously we can argue about whether it was touched until the cows come home but im talking more about the hypothetical of that situation.

No apparently the ruling by the AFL implies there was no touch from what I've been told.

Understand that but I guess I was working on the hypothetical 'IF' he did touch. On social media yesterday there were some heated discussion around whether it could still be deliberate had the Melbourne player touched it.....personally I'm of the opinion that if the Melbourne player had the last touch regardless of how small, light whatever it could not be deliberate then.

Agreed .... can't be called for insufficient intent if another player touches it. AFL review determined that Spargo didn't touch it.

Just like JJ's goal didn't hit the post

whufc wrote:How do people feel though about it being deliberate if it did touch the Melbourne players hand.

For mine if you do not have the last touch you cannot be responsible for the 'deliberate' ruling regardless of how little the touch was.

Obviously we can argue about whether it was touched until the cows come home but im talking more about the hypothetical of that situation.

Still deliberate

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:Agreed .... can't be called for insufficient intent if another player touches it. AFL review determined that Spargo didn't touch it.

I'm puzzled by the argument that Spargo touched it, I've got very good vision and I can't be sure either way in slow motion and zoomed in.

Booney wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:Agreed .... can't be called for insufficient intent if another player touches it. AFL review determined that Spargo didn't touch it.

I'm puzzled by the argument that Spargo touched it, I've got very good vision and I can't be sure either way in slow motion and zoomed in.

I'm not sure he touched it.
But it can be insufficient intent if it brushes an opposition player who had little to know impact on the trajectory of the ball.


Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

I'm stunned the AFL haven't clamped down on the defensive punches to the boundary line in a contest as Deliberate


Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:I'm stunned the AFL haven't clamped down on the defensive punches to the boundary line in a contest as Deliberate


Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

Because you are allowed to do that... In a marking contest you are free to punch/spoil the ball as deliberately as you like towards the boundary.

Booney wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:Agreed .... can't be called for insufficient intent if another player touches it. AFL review determined that Spargo didn't touch it.

I'm puzzled by the argument that Spargo touched it, I've got very good vision and I can't be sure either way in slow motion and zoomed in.

I'm puzzled why anyone would go to the trouble of finding slow motion, zoomed in vision of the incident!

mots02 wrote:

Booney wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:Agreed .... can't be called for insufficient intent if another player touches it. AFL review determined that Spargo didn't touch it.

I'm puzzled by the argument that Spargo touched it, I've got very good vision and I can't be sure either way in slow motion and zoomed in.

I'm puzzled why anyone would go to the trouble of finding slow motion, zoomed in vision of the incident!

Closet Crows fan perhaps??

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk

mots02 wrote:

Booney wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:Agreed .... can't be called for insufficient intent if another player touches it. AFL review determined that Spargo didn't touch it.

I'm puzzled by the argument that Spargo touched it, I've got very good vision and I can't be sure either way in slow motion and zoomed in.

I'm puzzled why anyone would go to the trouble of finding slow motion, zoomed in vision of the incident!

It was the evidence all the Crowies were using across the socials, didn't have to look at all, rolled across my feed.

the butt hurt over this decision still is tremendous!