Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board

David wrote:Just revolting to watch. The Freo defenders seriously lost the plot in that last minute.

Umpires win it for the scum.

David you’d lose it too if you played your heart out and then got robbed at the last gasp. damn disgusting. That ball was touched

That was the most disgraceful end to a game since the 2018 grand final. I’d be embarrassed if I was Carlton to win like that. Just disgraceful and warrants an investigation. How that maggot could miss the ball hit 2 players and then call dissent. He should be crucified.

think positive wrote:Umpires win it for the scum.

David you’d lose it too if you played your heart out and then got robbed at the last gasp. $$%^%%$ disgusting. That ball was touched

Disagree, otherwise it'd happen all the time. Umpires make mistakes but it's still incumbent on the players to accept them and not give away double frees in front of goal. Doing that in a final cost Heath Shaw his position on Collingwood's list, and while that may have been harsh, it's a terrible mistake to make. Don't get me wrong, I'm as pissed off as you are, but whichever Freo defender backchatted the umpire may well have cost his team the match, and that's pretty unforgivable.

the ball was dead after the goal, the player questioned it, nothing was done to the goal kicker, so the free should have been taken in the middle, giving Freo at least a chance.

the AFL will back it as usual, just like the ex saint player umpire that cost us that 4 points.

our umpires are damn shitful right now.

as others have said, the fix is on!!

^ Yeah, there must be something that allows a free to be paid at the spot of the kick, as we have seen double goals before and those frees aren't taken from the centre square.

there is, if the player impedes or attacks the kicker, even after the goal is kicked.

I was wondering about this too so looked it up in the rules. This is what it says:

https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/docume ... ooklet.pdf

Unless otherwise stated in these Laws, a Free Kick can be awarded at any location on the Arena and shall be taken where it is awarded or where the football is at the time, whichever is the greater penalty against the offending Team.

It makes sense to me that an act of dissent against an umpire would be considered to have happened in that same place, in the same way as if a player got pushed over after kicking a goal or some such. What I don't understand is why free kicks are sometimes taken from the middle after goals are kicked, as I think happened against us one one occasion last night. Does anyone remember why that was?

Whats most entertaining is the Blues supporters trying to justify it online. I'd like to see their arguments if it were the other way around.
Karma will get them.

There would have been no dissent if one of the 4 umpires on the field had called out the blindingly obvious. The decision to award a mark when the ball was clearly touched cost Freo the game

That is the problem with the dissent rule. The bigger the umpiring error, the more likely the players will react which only compounds the mistake.

stui magpie wrote:There would have been no dissent if one of the 4 umpires on the field had called out the blindingly obvious. The decision to award a mark when the ball was clearly touched cost Freo the game

Bucks5 wrote:That is the problem with the dissent rule. The bigger the umpiring error, the more likely the players will react which only compounds the mistake.

exactly all this! the umpire was wrong, and doubled down!

Yep the AFL wants nothing more than a Carlton premiership this year. That's why they are winning all the close ones.

Can't have Collingwood sitting equal with them. They simply have to be gifted number 17.

BTW umpiring dissent should be a fine. Make it $10,000 if they want to. But just because a player blows his stack shouldn't penalise a whole side. Get rid of the 50m penalty.

But really the umpiring is worse than it's ever been. They are literally pulling people in from the street to goal and boundary umpire now (or at least it seems that way because they can't make a decision).