Why oh why? Just blatant.

CURLY · Post: # 1342615Post **CURLY** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 8:46pm

Richmond v WC two minutes in Hill pancakes Rance lands flat on his back . NO FREE. Just blatant.

plugger66 · Post: # 1342617Post **plugger66** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 8:52pm

Did you see that one. Amazing.

CURLY · Post: # 1342618Post **CURLY** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 8:54pm

Good to see Cox being allowed to wrestle in the ruck and Nic Nat come over the top in ruck duels. Only Hickey and McEvoy aren't allowed it seems.

sunsaint · Post: # 1342621Post **sunsaint** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 8:58pm

CURLY wrote:Good to see Cox being allowed to wrestle in the ruck and Nic Nat come over the top in ruck duels. Only Hickey and McEvoy aren't allowed it seems.

never happened

CURLY · Post: # 1342623Post **CURLY** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 9:05pm

sunsaint wrote:
CURLY wrote:Good to see Cox being allowed to wrestle in the ruck and Nic Nat come over the top in ruck duels. Only Hickey and McEvoy aren't allowed it seems.
never happened

You want money on that?

stinger · Post: # 1342624Post **stinger** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 9:06pm

CURLY wrote:
sunsaint wrote:
CURLY wrote:Good to see Cox being allowed to wrestle in the ruck and Nic Nat come over the top in ruck duels. Only Hickey and McEvoy aren't allowed it seems.
never happened
You want money on that?

i'm with you curly....

CURLY · Post: # 1342627Post **CURLY** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 9:11pm

Commentators even commented on how effective it was.

plugger66 · Post: # 1342631Post **plugger66** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 9:19pm

CURLY wrote:Commentators even commented on how effective it was.

This is your problem Curly. You see every incident as the same but they arent. The one you are talking about now is nothing like the one yesterday. I suppose that makes it hard to discuss things with you because it isnt black and white but you think it is.

sunsaint · Post: # 1342638Post **sunsaint** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 9:30pm

CURLY wrote:Commentators even commented on how effective it was.

its is a very effective ruck tactic, and completely legal under the rules

CURLY · Post: # 1342644Post **CURLY** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 9:40pm

sunsaint wrote:
CURLY wrote:Commentators even commented on how effective it was.
its is a very effective ruck tactic, and completely legal under the rules

Of course it is legal that's the point. Hickey was penalized for it yesterday.

plugger66 · Post: # 1342646Post **plugger66** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 9:42pm

CURLY wrote:
sunsaint wrote:
CURLY wrote:Commentators even commented on how effective it was.
its is a very effective ruck tactic, and completely legal under the rules
Of course it is legal that's the point. Hickey was penalized for it yesterday.

Nothing like yesterday and thats my point. You try and compare things that arent the same.

st.byron · Post: # 1342647Post **st.byron** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 9:42pm

stinger wrote:
bergholt wrote:
stinger wrote:look...i know we were shithouse in the first quarter......but 8 frees to zilch in that quarter....come on you have to be flowerering joking...
It was 140 possessions to 50 at quarter time. Pretty hard to get many frees if you haven't had the ball.

what's your excuse for the maggots for their pathetic efforts in the 2 and 3rd quarters then???....15 frees to 8 and we were breaking even

It's not about an excuse. It's about taking off the point the finger/blame glasses and sucking it up that sometimes umpires get it wrong but in the long run it comes out roughly even. And that there's a correlation between losing and being down the bottom of the ladder and the number of frees you win. Being second to the ball, having less possessions, laying less tackles, winning less contested possession - you're going to get fewer free kicks.

Come on Stinger - you must at least see beyond the kind of kneejerk blind one-eyed-ness that is Curly's fave thing. Or have you been taking the same pills as him? Joke

Some people just get so habituated into bagging the umpires that they can't watch the footy any other way. It doesn't have to be that way.

CURLY · Post: # 1342651Post **CURLY** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 9:46pm

Nothing like yesterday and thats my point. You try and compare things that arent the same.[/quote]

There was nothing different at all. Two rucks jostled the other over the top. No difference.

plugger66 · Post: # 1342652Post **plugger66** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 9:49pm

CURLY wrote:Nothing like yesterday and thats my point. You try and compare things that arent the same.

There was nothing different at all. Two rucks jostled the other over the top. No difference.[/quote]

Completely different. Hickey stood in the other ruckmans way and didnt even attempt to go for the ball. tonight the other ruckman was third man up. Curly you have to get treatment. the rule book would be a good start.

CURLY · Post: # 1342657Post **CURLY** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 9:59pm

What bulls*** plugger. The issue is I think you believe it.

plugger66 · Mon 03 Jun 2013 10:00pm

CURLY wrote:What bulls*** plugger.

Watch again. Im sure you will. You probably have a library of umpire errors in your opinion.

CURLY · Post: # 1342663Post **CURLY** » Mon 03 Jun 2013 10:03pm

plugger66 wrote:
CURLY wrote:What bulls*** plugger.

Watch again. Im sure you will. You probably have a library of umpire errors in your opinion.

Umpires can never be wrong as you have proved they just choose when their right and to whom.

plugger66 · Mon 03 Jun 2013 10:08pm

CURLY wrote:
plugger66 wrote:
CURLY wrote:What bulls*** plugger.

Watch again. Im sure you will. You probably have a library of umpire errors in your opinion.
Umpires can never be wrong as you have proved they just choose when their right and to whom.

Umpires make mistakes every week. The problem is some of the ones you point out arent mistakes.

Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.

Re: Why oh why? Just blatant.