The Monday Soap Box - Round Four (Gather Round)

[jeemak]

Our coach takes the admirable position and says it's fine, can you imagine the shit kicking he'd have gotten if he said it was bullshit and impacted the game?

Corn Kanes would get his wank suit on and rip him apart, and everyone else would jump in on it. It's something Baines and the president needed to come out against but of course they won't (and I'm not normally someone who rips into them).

[ledge]

Our coach takes the admirable position and says it's fine, can you imagine the shit kicking he'd have gotten if he said it was bullshit and impacted the game?

Corn Kanes would get his wank suit on and rip him apart, and everyone else would jump in on it. It's something Baines and the president needed to come out against but of course they won't (and I'm not normally someone who rips into them).

Cornes isn?t associated with a club or on a committee he can say what he likes.
We?ll all it?s going to do is get us fined , if it?s an issue I?m sure the above bring it up in private with the AFL.

[EasternWest]

I was almost ready to move on from this, but seeing as it's the soapbox thread...



Depends on your definition of controlled I suppose. The ball had literally only just made contact with his hands. How many marks would be paid if simply touching both hands is the criteria?

What happens after the line is irrelevant - it's out of play. So I think we have to look at it in the same way that we would look at a defender making a spoil at the moment the ball crosses the line. Imagine there is a defender's fist exactly a ball's width behind the line. Is there any chance at all that it gets paid a mark when it's spoiled a split second after making contact with Stengle's hands? Why is the goal line different?

In fact there were several non-marks within the game (Dale on the wing was one, Geelong had a couple) that were spoiled after being in the hands for somewhere between 10-20x longer than Stengle's attempt, and play on was called.

But of course the far easier argument to make is: if everyone's debating whether it was controlled in time or not, then that is not definitive, and therefore not able to be overturned.

The arrogance from the ARC (and the AFL) is what irritates me so much here. They've called for a review themselves for the first time ever, and then overturned the decision on footage that (to me) suggests a clear behind.

On the call Richo saw how bad the decision was but then Jason 'Vanilla' Bennet starts banging on about how all of the ball must be across all of the line. DUH no one is disputing that he made contact with the ball before it crossed the line!

Always enjoy reading your thoughts mate.

[ledge]

I think if it’s that close go with the umpires call, it’s not conclusive.