BigKev wrote:
Still trying to understand the rules. I know you can't block an opponent out of contest, but my understanding was that you could protect the drop zone of the ball. Gibbons probably thought the same thing. Not sure now how this works with sheparding a goal through, which has always seemed to be ok.
What a difference two goals in junk time makes. If WC had of scored them instead of us it starts to look like a thrashing. Hopefully someone reminds them before the weekend that % is important for them.
I saw nothing that dampens my enthusiasm for giving Teague the job.
Don't bother BigKev...
The only thinking is "Mcgovern would probably get that ball, Gibbons must have blocked"
The fact that he protects the drop zone and DOES NOT move is forgotten...
Reverse the players and it's 'unrealistic attempt'.
Umps are paying 'Carlton aren't that good' frees....
In terms of blocking, have a look at Weitering being held by Kennedy (his only objective) both to allow Darling to mark AND to try and get the ball over the line....
Again, reverse the players and it goes the other way....
NFI umpires using bias and what they think must have happened rather than actually F$&+ING watching...
When you pay what you THINK has happened, the 'better' team will get the bulk of the frees....
Conversely, Caz falls over in the ruck, therefore he must have been pushed over... He's pretty solid you know...!?,!?
We got the free,, my question would be be to the guy standing 2 meters directly in front 'what did you see... NOT WHAT DO YOU THINK HAPPENED'
Been happening all season...
Cheers
Nailed it. This assuming by umps is wrong and the weaker team suffers more.
In a fast and complicated game you can understand umps being tempted to assume...but it tips me over the edge.