by The Sleeping Giant » Sun May 02, 2010 12:58 pm
by Freo HeaveHo » Sun May 02, 2010 1:01 pm
by Adelaide Hawk » Mon May 03, 2010 6:46 am
smithy wrote:Adelaide Hawk wrote:Big Phil, if the umpire instructs you to throw it back and the player isn't looking, you still throw it back to him. If it hits him on the body, there's no 25 metre penalty. The player doesn't have to be looking.
How is the player expected to throw the ball back to the player and hit him on the body if his back is turned and can't see where the player is ?
If he just hurls it back over his head in hope and it lands anywhere it's a penalty also.
by smithy » Mon May 03, 2010 3:04 pm
Adelaide Hawk wrote:smithy wrote:Adelaide Hawk wrote:Big Phil, if the umpire instructs you to throw it back and the player isn't looking, you still throw it back to him. If it hits him on the body, there's no 25 metre penalty. The player doesn't have to be looking.
How is the player expected to throw the ball back to the player and hit him on the body if his back is turned and can't see where the player is ?
If he just hurls it back over his head in hope and it lands anywhere it's a penalty also.
Are you for real? It wasn't the player with the ball who had his back turned, it was the player he was throwing it to. Geez some people on this forum are thick.
by SANFLnut » Mon May 03, 2010 3:43 pm
by Big Phil » Mon May 03, 2010 3:58 pm
by heater31 » Tue May 04, 2010 10:09 pm
SANFLnut wrote:
Would love to see the umpires actually police players walking forward on the mark like they were supposed to be hot on this year too!
by Big Phil » Tue May 04, 2010 10:21 pm
heater31 wrote:SANFLnut wrote:
Would love to see the umpires actually police players walking forward on the mark like they were supposed to be hot on this year too!
The Gowans boys would be in a bit of strife if this was the case......
by heater31 » Tue May 04, 2010 10:28 pm
Big Phil wrote:heater31 wrote:SANFLnut wrote:
Would love to see the umpires actually police players walking forward on the mark like they were supposed to be hot on this year too!
The Gowans boys would be in a bit of strife if this was the case......
So would plenty of players from other clubs mate, including the Panthers, pretty unfair to single out the Gowans' boys...
by bayman » Mon May 10, 2010 10:18 pm
by bayman » Tue Jun 01, 2010 12:30 am
by holden78 » Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:05 pm
Big Phil wrote:I can assure you that Shane Harris and the umpire fraternity are aware of this 'supposed incident' and Shane has noted this down and will asses the situation when he reviews the tapes of each game during this week...
by CUTTERMAN » Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:59 pm
by Dutchy » Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:22 pm
CUTTERMAN wrote:I've done a quick tally of frees for and against for each team up to R11. Pretty sure it's correct but happy to be corrected.
Frees for-
NA 230, PA 219, NW 217, CD 207, WWT 207, GL 198, SA 196, WA 195, ST 189.
Frees against-
NA 230, WWT 226, ST 219, SA 218, PA 208, CD 193, NW 193, WA 189, GL 182.
Differentials-
ST -30, WA +6, SA -22, NA 0, CD +14, NW +24, GL +16, WWT -19, PA +11.
High-low NW +24, ST -30.
by Wedgie » Tue Jun 08, 2010 8:02 am
Armchair expert wrote:Such a great club are Geelong
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |