AFL Game Day R4 - 2024

[jazzadogs]

Surely a dissent free kick is just paid where the ball is? Never minding the fact that it sounds like it shouldn't have been a free kick (although Pearce also should have tried harder to refocus his teammates), but the fact it was paid in that location is really poor in my eyes.

I understand that's the rule, but it's not like he hit someone in that spot....no need for the free kick to be there imo.

[angelopetraglia]

"We've acknowledged the mistake there, but the dissent decision was correct."

Andrew Dillon addresses the controversial finish to the Blues-Dockers game.

[mjp]

"We've acknowledged the mistake there, but the dissent decision was correct."

Andrew Dillon addresses the controversial finish to the Blues-Dockers game.

Yeah, we have 4x umpires but got the most basic of all decisions wrong...handing the lead late in the game to the other team.

The umpires handed the game against the Giants to Carlton last year which seemed pretty egregious...now they hand them the game vs Freo. And the CD free kick investigation (ESPN Pod) during the week revealed that Carlton received the highest percentage of their goals from Free Kicks in the competition...

The AFL reporters are an embarrassment and have no idea what questions to ask.

[EasternWest]

The AFL reporters are an embarrassment.

Hard to be a reporter when you're part of the gang.

[angelopetraglia]

So the AFL say it wasn't a mark. Wrong call. But the dissent call was correct.

Still. Sliding doors. If the mark isn't paid then Freo win.

[soupman]

Surely a dissent free kick is just paid where the ball is? Never minding the fact that it sounds like it shouldn't have been a free kick (although Pearce also should have tried harder to refocus his teammates), but the fact it was paid in that location is really poor in my eyes.

I've always thought it was dumb that free kicks are paid where they occur when it is a vast distance from where the ball is.

The hierarchy should be that if the ball is in contention/with the offending team then it's a free kick where ever the ball is, if the team which is receiving the free is already in possession at the time then it should just be a straight up 50m penalty regardless of location of the incident.

The double shot is such a stupidly overpowered punishment, and almost always occurs in games where tension is high (thus close). And the incidents that instigate these frees are almost always incidental. The double shot ones are usually two teams pushing and shoving like dickheads and someone is unlucky to be seen slipping high, and the big downfield ones are almost always some random block (like the Max Gawn one in round 1, or maybe the Brian Lake one all those years ago).

The punishment never fits the crime, and the Jordan Clark one makes no sense that it should be directly in front of goal when the location was irrelevant and if he had've said the same thing to the umpire at the 70m mark its an entirely different punishment for the same dumb action.