Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't, but the trouble with a challenge system in this particular case is that Cottrell stopped after taking the mark because the umpire had not called "touched play on", therefore no reason to play on. Doc says in a challenge scenario that a ball-up would be the fair outcome, but it's not fair because Cottrell would have kept moving if he'd known it was touched. Furthermore, the spectre of a possible challenge means that players would be caught in two minds: can I be sure that the ball was not touched and that taking the set shot is the right course of action, or do I play on just in case this gets overturned? It's just a mess, I will be furious if the AFL goes down this path.

Oh FFS, marks have been paid after the ball was touched since the bloody game began.
Pack marks for example, often get touched by multiple mitts before someone nails the mark.

For me what stands out this season is blatant throwing the ball. Or is that ok now, because it
''keeps the game moving''?

_________________
The problem with Socialism is, you eventually run out of other people's money.

And while I'm at it, I reckon I've seen half a dozen marks paid while clearly over the boundary line.
Goal umpires are paid to get into position so they can make the correct decisions.
So just make a @#$%&^ decision !!!

_________________
The problem with Socialism is, you eventually run out of other people's money.

I think club29 made the right point. Be good enough that you beat any bad umpiring luck. If the Freo defenders were better they would have proper smothered the ball.

Sent from my Nokia G21 using Tapatalk

_________________
#DonTheStash

Hell, old Essendon* supporters still talk about how they were robbed in the 1968 GF. Last minute of the game, Wes Lofts belts Noonan in the head as he goes to mark close to goal; play on. Carlton win by less than a kick. According to Sheedy Essendon* still hadn't got over that loss when he started there as coach.

Yes. They chose to play a way that was always going to keep the scores close. Bad decision as Carlton win close games. Their problem started 5 days before the game. Their coach knows it. Players too.
Only whacko Freo fans and scared neutrals are bringing it all back to ball grazing a shoulder in the last minute.

the standard of umps has been very poor. i can't remember another start to the season with so many blatant out of bounds not being paid, so much pedantics around front-on challenges (spoils) and players at times being able to run 25 m without a bounce, yet the same distance in a foot pass being told to play on.

umpires have assholes for eyes, it seems... and don't even get me started on the goal reviews every 6 seconds for a ball that cleared the inside of the post or a player's hands by metres.


for as long as the game has been played there's been marks paid for passing through a half dozen sets of hands. if the dissent was never given, and we'd hung on for a 4-point win, imho there's not much being made of the cotteril mark.

and freo's gameplan is abominable and i'm happy it got what it deserved.

... tedious lateral and backwards passing, playing man-on, possession based bullshit. sure you might stop teams, but you'll never put them away - as witnessed on satdee arvy. and good teams will break your heart when it counts - as also witnessed on satdee arvy.

Technology assistance makes umpires not trust their own eyes. You see it all the time in football since VAR came along. Referees like Michael Oliver used to be among the best in the business, now he's hopeless (I'm sure his trips to Abu Dhabi for lucrative side gigs paid for by Man City owners are merely by-the-by). Referees don't make calls, hoping VAR will bail them out. And then the VAR operators don't know what to do because so many of the calls are subjective, so they retreat behind the "not a clear and obvious error" mantra, aka "inconclusive" in our code. End result is that the number of errors arguably increases. It's a bad system in a sport with infrequent scoring events, and completely unnecessary in a high-scoring sport like Aussie Rules.

The West now going with the umpire telling Alex Pearce he didn't hear what Jordan Clark said - there's some serious makey-uppey going on over this side of the country!

_________________
I'm shocked to be sitting here

I'm with you on this GE. The umps can be right under the ball, in better position than anyone on the ground, including the VAR, and they will choose to not trust their eyes and go to the VAR. Ridiculous situation that these goal umps and boundary umps are the best in the land, and being paid for their skillset and 20-20 vision, but can't make an assertive decision.

Before VAR I was a supporter of introducing technology because I thought it would be as clear as it is in cricket. I didn't expect the inaccuracy that would follow, and how much it would slow down our game.

I hate waiting around for a VAR decision after a point is kicked or ball touched because we lose the free flowing play on game the AFL wanted to promote when they introduced the kick in rule.

The game has become worse off with the VAR imo. Just not quick enough, let alone accurate enough. We are losing the excitement of a goal being kicked (and questioned ad nauseum) and slowing down the game from the kick in.

I don't mind the captain having one or maybe two Captain's call a game questioning the score, but not general play. I haven't thought about impact of two Captains calls per game.

_________________
Everyone looks good in Navy Blue

Would be good in this situation if they came out with a statement on what was said and why a free kick was paid.

I'm not really buying the stuff about Clark being upset at himself for letting Cottrell mark it and that's why the free kick was paid. There was a lot of back and forth to the umpire before he took the set shot yet no 50m penalty was given.

I find it unlikely he would've just decided after all that energy spent trying to convince the umpire the ball was touched, to then switch to a bit of self-reflection and yell out 'you @#$%&! idiot Jordan'.

Can’t believe all the blather over a bloke that got hit by the ball.

If he’d made a play on it, then fine… he could still eat a bag of dicks, but the whinge is fair play… but the bloke knew nothing about it.

Stuff happens. Good teams will keep their cool and prepare for the swings & roundabouts.

_________________
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" - Winston Churchill.

Well i was there watching the Doug Wade / Peter Barry thing and that was in the "60's . It aint new .

_________________
All my dangerous friends

One Bondi....just one. And like the NHL - you're punished if you get it wrong. i.e. if the ball didn't hit the Aish arm, then free kick against. (In the NHL it's one man down for 2 minutes). I think you'd find it'd happen far less than you think because the consequences are too great.

Anyway, I'm just of the opinion we ought to move with the times.

@#$%&! the times, just accept shit happens, always has, always will and no amount of moving with the times will change it.

_________________
This type of slight is alien in the more cultured part of the world - Walsh. Its up there with mad dogs, Englishmen and the midday sun!

Correct Dan . It aint new . I was there in the sixties watching a Cats V Blues final which was decided by a free kick paid to our fullback Peter Barry against Cats full forward Doug Wade . Uproar at the time . All hell broke loose . Faaark , i think it caused a stir in state parliament . And that was sixty years ago so as you say Dan its been going on since forever . Get over it and enjoy the bumpy ride .\

_________________
All my dangerous friends

My only complaint is it was Fremantle & not Collingwood or Richmond

Sent from my Nokia G21 using Tapatalk

_________________
#DonTheStash

You forgot Essendon* .

_________________
All my dangerous friends

Anyhow , who the hell is Jeremy Sharp ? Ollie got destroyed by a no name .

_________________
All my dangerous friends