Bombertalk

I didn't think they were too bad. Slattery needs to learn how to attack the ball/player without giving away a free and NLM needs to stop hitting players arms in marking contests.

As always, there were a couple that were missed...but that was for both sides.

gringo wrote:I didn't think they were too bad. Slattery needs to learn how to attack the ball/player without giving away a free and NLM needs to stop hitting players arms in marking contests.

As always, there were a couple that were missed...but that was for both sides.

Totally agree.

From where I was sitting, the game was well umpired. They were reluctant to blow the whistle when packs formed and gave it every opportunity for the ball to come out. There were a few free kicks where I cringed, but really, they were there when I looked on the scoreboard.

gringo wrote:Slattery needs to learn how to attack the ball/player without giving away a free and NLM needs to stop hitting players arms in marking contests.

True and true. Persistently infringing on the opponent was my big knock on Slattery earlier in the year - as of about 6 weeks ago, he was ranked 4th in the entire league for free kicks against, which was ridiculous considering how infrequently he's involved in contests compared to, say, a ruckman or CHF. He has improved markedly in this area over the last 6 weeks or so, but yesterday he fell back into bad habits with 2 free kicks against and lucky not to give away a few more. NLM had "one of those games" he is particularly prone to having when the team can least afford it, i.e. when we're losing.

Thought they were shithouse yesterday, without favouring either side. Johnson dives on the ball, hits Slatterys knee and its too high (1st quarter), yet in the final term, I think Hille did the same thing and it was holding the ball?

Filthy wrote:

jimmyc1985 wrote:

gringo wrote:Slattery needs to learn how to attack the ball/player without giving away a free and NLM needs to stop hitting players arms in marking contests.

True and true. Persistently infringing on the opponent was my big knock on Slattery earlier in the year - as of about 6 weeks ago, he was ranked 4th in the entire league for free kicks against, which was ridiculous considering how infrequently he's involved in contests compared to, say, a ruckman or CHF. He has improved markedly in this area over the last 6 weeks or so, but yesterday he fell back into bad habits with 2 free kicks against and lucky not to give away a few more. NLM had "one of those games" he is particularly prone to having when the team can least afford it, i.e. when we're losing.

In Hanks defense and if you haven't seen Foxtel yet, you'll see the most ridiculous free given against him in the 1st. Johnson dove on the ball and rolled into Hanks stationary legs. Result: goal. Poor bastard wasn't even moving and got screwed over.

And if anyone thinks 25-15 is fair or good umpiring, you were watching a different game to me. Our forwards were continually manhandled all day and got one free I think. Up the other end NLM farted next to Morton and it was a free against.

Yeah, i was forced to watch the game from home yesterday and that free to Johnson was pure crap. But he also got away with a few 50-50s and could've easily finished with 3 or 4 free kicks against.

In Hanks defense and if you haven't seen Foxtel yet, you'll see the most ridiculous free given against him in the 1st. Johnson dove on the ball and rolled into Hanks stationary legs. Result: goal. Poor bastard wasn't even moving and got screwed over.

I saw another one like that in I think the third quarter. The Shitemond player threw his head at a player's knee and was awarded a free. The umpires need to get onto that. Its basically a kamikaze action to draw the free. Hird used to do it at times but being the champ he is he was much more subtle.

Any player that initiates high contact on himself should not be rewarded under any circumstances. Whether its ducking, falling forward in a tackle, diving under legs causing a fall, etc. Surely the umpires don't need to be told that. Week after week you see players keep their heads down after taking possession in order to run into a high tackle.

Filthy wrote:


Goals from frees Tenthmond 3 Us 0.

They would have also got 3-4 more from free kicks paid further down the ground.

What difference does a make whether a goal was kicked from the free kick FILTHY? The rules are the rules and they are interpreted the same all over the ground. The fact we choose to give away free kicks in front of goal is our own fault, not the umpires.

I know you're pissed off about the loss, as we all are, but the umpires were the last reason we lost. I suggest you direct your considerable football nous towards more constructive posts in the future.

Why did they pay approximately 970 free kicks for holding the ball in the first 3 quarters but swallow their whistles in the last? Surely I wasn't the only one to notice the dramatic change in interpretation.

I'm with Filth on the Maggots on Saturday. We lead in Clearances, Contested ball and uncontested ball all day but couldn't get a free kick. If you put your head over the pill you should be rewarded.

When was the last time we got a holding the ball decision? How come if a player goes for a run and then gets tackled it is automatic they pay holding the ball even if he handballs the moment he gets tackled?

They cost us 6-8 goals on Saturday.

BERT wrote:I'm with Filth on the Maggots on Saturday. We lead in Clearances, Contested ball and uncontested ball all day but couldn't get a free kick. If you put your head over the pill you should be rewarded.

When was the last time we got a holding the ball decision? How come if a player goes for a run and then gets tackled it is automatic they pay holding the ball even if he handballs the moment he gets tackled?

They cost us 6-8 goals on Saturday.

It was the same for both sides.

Funny, I didn't make it to the game and so listend to AM radio. Dont remember who called it, but either the caller's were Bomber supporters (and i doubt it) or the umpiring on many occasions was discracefully biased. Cant tell you how many times they discussed descsions questioning how/where a free kick came and later questioning consistancy when a bomber was clearly infringed or laid a tackle with no reward. The callers were vocally appalled at many descisions that went richmonds way.

But meh, I said it before and ill say it again, not interested in the end result of the game this year, just the way our boys play, and they did very well considering what they were up against with injuries, umpires and even the time keeping (impires delay in calling time on cost us valuable seconds).

Let it be NOTED that it was the UMPIRES' Fault AGAIN over Lost seconds.NOT the Timekeepers.

Declaration - Your's Truly is a Member of the WAFL Timekeepers' Association.

Filthy wrote:Amongst all the furore about certain players "performances", the maggots have escaped our attention.

Frees 25-15 their way. Thats another player on the ground.

Goals from frees Tenthmond 3 Us 0.

And some of them were just unbelievable...Mal in the last slides into a contest one way and the Tenthmond guy the other way both eyes for the ball...result free to them. Up the other end Lloyd, Lucas and Neagle had to gang raped before they even got a look in.

As with our injuries, it just gets worse every week.

the mal free kick was mind boggling

Got a good run today, for once.

Few lucky ones undoubtedly. Filth fans will disagree but I thought the contentious frees which went our way were all there.

I loved the umpires today! yes I know... how can you be angry at them, they gave us such dodgy free kicks but we will take them. Hilarious watching pies fans go beserk! SUCK ON THAT C**TS!

The Man from Bomberland wrote: Filth fans will disagree but I thought the contentious frees which went our way were all there.

Of course you did...you barrack for Essendon!

F111 wrote:

The Man from Bomberland wrote: Filth fans will disagree but I thought the contentious frees which went our way were all there.

Of course you did...you barrack for Essendon!

Hah I can be impartial, technically they were there. A couple of iffy in the backs though.