3AW discussing whether the Cats were robbed right now

[samoht]

Listen in.

someone should ring and remind them of the following -

FREE KICKS INSIDE 50

GEELONG : 5
ST.KILDA : 0

50 METRE PENALTIES

GEELONG : 3
ST.KILDA : 0

SCORES FROM FREES OR 50 MTR PENALTIES

GEELONG : 7
ST.KILDA : 0

[chook23]

Listen in.

someone should ring and remind them of the following -

FREE KICKS INSIDE 50

GEELONG : 5
ST.KILDA : 0

50 METRE PENALTIES

GEELONG : 3
ST.KILDA : 0

SCORES FROM FREES OR 50 MTR PENALTIES

GEELONG : 7
ST.KILDA : 0

the seven scores what total?

[samoht]

5 of those 7 scoring frees were inside 50's - so potentially scores 5 goals at least.

[spert]

All the country critters from Geelong will be moaning about umpiring as usual..maybe they should have a look at a replay to see what they got away with.

[fingers]

Just watching the replay now. They have nothing to complain about. nothing.
FK'EM

[meher baba]

At the risk of putting myself in the same cart as plugger66, I reckon that the dodgy decisions were more or less even during the game.

We benefited significantly from at least 3 that I can recall: a missed contact with the post that preceded Gardi's first goal, a pretty dubious push in the back converted by Kosi and the infamous non-advantage decision.

Personally, I thought the 50 on CJ against Ablett was there, albeit extremely pedantic.

I don't know how anyone can think that the Varcoe free in the first quarter wasn't a free: I wouldn't like late head-high contact to be considered legal in AFL. We'd have to put players in helmets.

Yes, there was some other stupid decisions against us, but - all in all - I think these evened out in terms of the scoreboard.

People who think otherwise are having themselves on in thinking that Geelong are worse than they are.

That said, I do think that the umpires are very lenient in enforcing the holding the ball rule against Geelong. But then, the umps have always tended to let players "stand in the tackle" (to use a rugby term) for quite a time as long as they end up disposing the ball more or less correctly. Nathan Buckley got the benefit of this for years.

But, if I were Ross Lyon, I might consider asking the AFL to have a look at it.

[ROLS-LEE]

dont ask the umpires or the afl to look into anything. We dont need any distractions, or another HEAD debarkle

[Leo.J]

IMO the problem was the decisions the umpires missed, how Geelong disposed of the ball during tackles, and especially holding in our F50.

All that said we won, and we're on top.

At the end of the season it's not going to matter, no one will remember the poor umpiring, we just need to put ourselves in a position so that we can repeat what we did yesterday on the MCG deep in september

[Leo.J]

...Personally, I thought the 50 on CJ against Ablett was there, albeit extremely pedantic...

If that was considered a hold yesterday, then Reiwoldt and Kosi would have kicked 5 goals each from free kicks.

Has the knocking the arms in a marking contest free been taken out of the game?

[undecided]

Geelong also got more holding the ball free kicks. They seem to be able to hold the ball aslong as they want

[degruch]

At the risk of putting myself in the same cart as plugger66, I reckon that the dodgy decisions were more or less even during the game.

We benefited significantly from at least 3 that I can recall: a missed contact with the post that preceded Gardi's first goal, a pretty dubious push in the back converted by Kosi and the infamous non-advantage decision.

Personally, I thought the 50 on CJ against Ablett was there, albeit extremely pedantic.

I don't know how anyone can think that the Varcoe free in the first quarter wasn't a free: I wouldn't like late head-high contact to be considered legal in AFL. We'd have to put players in helmets.

Yes, there was some other stupid decisions against us, but - all in all - I think these evened out in terms of the scoreboard.

People who think otherwise are having themselves on in thinking that Geelong are worse than they are.

That said, I do think that the umpires are very lenient in enforcing the holding the ball rule against Geelong. But then, the umps have always tended to let players "stand in the tackle" (to use a rugby term) for quite a time as long as they end up disposing the ball more or less correctly. Nathan Buckley got the benefit of this for years.

But, if I were Ross Lyon, I might consider asking the AFL to have a look at it.

Plugger, you posting under two identities these days?

Everyone likes to have the sage-like alternate view that will stun and amaze the punters, but I could agree with you less...neither could most of us, so it seems. Not to say weight of numbers = correct opinion, but in this case it is.

Hit the post goal was a goal anyway, as it wasn't touched until after the line (watch the replay), non-advantages were about 1 to 3 Geelong to St Kilda, two of them killing our first quarter charge toward what looked like an iminent 10 goal smashing.

CJ 50m penalty = ridiculous in anyones book.

Varcoe 50m = ridiculous to anyone by a Cats supporter.

Extended holding the ball allowance granted to Geelong all day.

Holding on Hayes unlimited for almost the duration of the game (finally paid one in the last quarter).

Scarlett sraggs ignored, unlimited for the duration of the game.

Additionally, it was not the Cats decision to play bad at the start of the game, we won clearances, applied pressure and were smashing them until said dubious free kicks arrived.

Harley had a bad day because he wasn't good enough. GAblett would have been lucky to get a dozen possessions if they'd only pay holding against him.

Geelong won't get much better, neither will we, but the Cats were VERY lucky free kicks afforded them many scoring opportunities and saved them from a 6 goal defeat.

[st.byron]

At the risk of putting myself in the same cart as plugger66, I reckon that the dodgy decisions were more or less even during the game.

We benefited significantly from at least 3 that I can recall: a missed contact with the post that preceded Gardi's first goal, a pretty dubious push in the back converted by Kosi and the infamous non-advantage decision.

Personally, I thought the 50 on CJ against Ablett was there, albeit extremely pedantic.

I don't know how anyone can think that the Varcoe free in the first quarter wasn't a free: I wouldn't like late head-high contact to be considered legal in AFL. We'd have to put players in helmets.

Yes, there was some other stupid decisions against us, but - all in all - I think these evened out in terms of the scoreboard.

People who think otherwise are having themselves on in thinking that Geelong are worse than they are.

That said, I do think that the umpires are very lenient in enforcing the holding the ball rule against Geelong. But then, the umps have always tended to let players "stand in the tackle" (to use a rugby term) for quite a time as long as they end up disposing the ball more or less correctly. Nathan Buckley got the benefit of this for years.

But, if I were Ross Lyon, I might consider asking the AFL to have a look at it.

On balance, IMO Geelong had a better run from the umps than we did.
After watching the replay knowing the result and being a bit more objective about the umpiring. I thought there were a few frees to the Cats that were missed as well.

[joffaboy]

We won - they lost.

Build a bridge whingers.

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

What a JOKE. They clearly had the better of the umpiring over the course of the match (as all the stats show), yet they're focusing on one incident in the last 3 mins (which was a set shot from the boundary, 50 metres out- hardly a gimmie!). Geelong wouldn't have been that close had it not been for the armchair ride they received, especially in the latter part of the first, when we were 5 goals up and they didn't look like scoring.
And how do you get "robbed" of a game, when you've NEVER BEEN IN FRONT?
It's laughable. Talk about "sore losers".

[savatage]

Umpires kept them in the game early. It really got them out of the s*** because they were clearly outgunned by us. Better side won, end of story.

[mbogo]

Hilarious - they just do not get it, do they?
We were the better side on the day - end of story!

[joffaboy]

Hilarious - they just do not get it, do they?
We were the better side on the day - end of story!

They were robbed in the GF last season too apparently.

Hawthorn feel so bad that they are going to give Geelong the 2008 Premiership so they are vindicated with their whinging

Old saying winners are grinners and losers can please themselves

two big grins

[stinger]

At the risk of putting myself in the same cart as plugger66, I reckon that the dodgy decisions were more or less even during the game.

We benefited significantly from at least 3 that I can recall: a missed contact with the post that preceded Gardi's first goal, a pretty dubious push in the back converted by Kosi and the infamous non-advantage decision.

Personally, I thought the 50 on CJ against Ablett was there, albeit extremely pedantic.

I don't know how anyone can think that the Varcoe free in the first quarter wasn't a free: I wouldn't like late head-high contact to be considered legal in AFL. We'd have to put players in helmets.

Yes, there was some other stupid decisions against us, but - all in all - I think these evened out in terms of the scoreboard.

People who think otherwise are having themselves on in thinking that Geelong are worse than they are.

That said, I do think that the umpires are very lenient in enforcing the holding the ball rule against Geelong. But then, the umps have always tended to let players "stand in the tackle" (to use a rugby term) for quite a time as long as they end up disposing the ball more or less correctly. Nathan Buckley got the benefit of this for years.

But, if I were Ross Lyon, I might consider asking the AFL to have a look at it.

as i said in another post on your reality check thread...
i don't agree, mb..........we should have won by three or four goals.......take the one off them where gardiner slipped over on a very slippery dome surface......add the one we fluffed in the first burst of brilliance,,,,where we had two players forward of the ball on their own near the goals but fumbled for a rushed behind and the two easy shots in the last few hectic minutes....schneider and dal....both gettable and usually would have sailed through the middle....add the flowering disgraceful umpiring....12 to our 5 at half time.....the gifted goal to ablett from a disgracefully charitable 50 metre penalty......a more even performance from milne and a bit of justice to roo for blatant shoves in the back........as in the words of that song i detest...the premiership's a cakewalk mate........injuries are the only thing that could stop us now.....
...

[samoht]

Anyway the stat that counts is St Kilda won.

Also we know it was well deserved - because we unlike the media read the damning free kick stats and aren't biased (against St kilda at least).

[spert]

Strange umpiring all day. But I must say Ablett for all his talent is an arrogant sook. He got more and better tagging than he has had for a long time, and no doubt like the rest of Geelong, they forgot that at some stage they will lose a game and couldn't handle it...not good in defeat.

[howlinwolf]

It's fantastic to hear the beleating from the cats about that advantage call.

This shows how insecure they really are.

They know there is a serious challenger like Hawthorn last year and are
clutching at excuses.

Any unbiased observer would have seen they got the better end of the umpiring at the end of the day.

All things being fair with the umpiring they would not have been close enough for that advantage call to be called for an excuse for the loss.

Suck it up Matty Scarlett ! You say it doesn't matter but we know better.............. It hurts the ego.

[Saint Bev]

Strange umpiring all day. But I must say Ablett for all his talent is an arrogant sook. He got more and better tagging than he has had for a long time, and no doubt like the rest of Geelong, they forgot that at some stage they will lose a game and couldn't handle it...not good in defeat.

The umpiring against St Kilda was terrible. But I totally agree, Ablett is a sook. He gets an armchair ride anyway and still not happy. Check his stats, 8 kicks I think, not so fantatic.

[crackers35]

FREE KICKS INSIDE 50

GEELONG : 5
ST.KILDA : 0

This is not correct.
We got one free kick inside 50..........out of bounds on the full!
C(he)ats can't complain. We were lucky to win after that umpiring display.

GO THE MIGHTY SAINTERS!

[kosifantutti23]

It's fantastic to hear the beleating from the cats about that advantage call.

This shows how insecure they really are.

They know there is a serious challenger like Hawthorn last year and are
clutching at excuses.

Any unbiased observer would have seen they got the better end of the umpiring at the end of the day.

All things being fair with the umpiring they would not have been close enough for that advantage call to be called for an excuse for the loss.

Suck it up Matty Scarlett ! You say it doesn't matter but we know better.............. It hurts the ego.

I just watched One Week at a time where they showed a different view. The free was paid, not 40m out as many have claimed but closer to 50m, Rooke picks the ball up and handpasses to nobody.

It looked like a skill error by Rooke to me, but maybe they can blame the umpires for every mistake they make.

[Milton66]

Hilarious - they just do not get it, do they?
We were the better side on the day - end of story!

They were robbed in the GF last season too apparently.

Hawthorn feel so bad that they are going to give Geelong the 2008 Premiership so they are vindicated with their whinging

Old saying winners are grinners and losers can please themselves

two big grins

Winners are grinners, and Cat supporters can go home and do whatever it is they do with their relatives.

The holding the ball decisions were a disgrace IMO.

They can make all the excuses they want AFAIAC concerned. They wanted to shoot down a challenger and they failed. Full stop!

Scarlett is a tool for his after game comments. Ablett is a sook.

You know the loss really hurt supporters when they start telling you how they won a flag etc.