Cameron Mooney of Geelong celebrates a goal while Shane O’Bree of Collingwood looks on during the AFL Round 09 match between the Collingwood Magpies and the Geelong Cats at the MCG, Melbourne.
The dramatic final minutes of Friday night’s qualifying final has been a huge discussion point in recent days. Ever since Cameron Ling slotted what seemed like the game-winning goal for Geelong, only for us all to realise that the umpire had in fact paid a free kick to St Kilda seconds earlier, the talk hasn’t stopped.
But for the Cats to bounce back from their loss, perhaps a little less talk is needed.
There was a minute left on the clock when the incident happened, and the Saints ran out the game to advance to the preliminary final. The Cats, conversely, now face a much tougher road to premiership glory, without the luxury of a week off.
As it happened, Cam Mooney, the player responsible for the push in the back, told the umpire: “You just lost us the game. Do you understand that?”
After the game was finished, the debate over whether it was a free kick or not began to rage. While many say the context – one minute to go in a final – and the wet conditions should have been factored in by the umpire, no one’s willing to suggest that it wasn’t a free to the letter of the law.
But now, as the initial anger dies down and people begin to move on, it’s curious to hear that Mark Thompson was yesterday again questioning the umpiring on the night, after already speaking out about the last-minute call in his post-match press conference.
“The free kick was probably there but the 15 other ones that they didn’t pay were probably wrong,” Thompson said.
Coupled with Mooney’s reaction, you get the sense that the Cats are more than a little bit annoyed about the umpire’s decision. It’s fair enough to an extent – there can’t be many crueller ways to lose a match – however, the Cats’ focus this week should be squarely on fixing what went wrong during the rest of the match, not what happened with a minute to go.
One such area that needs to be looked at, for example, is how the side started so slowly, and not for the first time this season.
In their four matches this year against the current front-runners, Collingwood and St Kilda, Geelong have never been more than one point up at quarter time. Even in their biggest win this season, against the Western Bulldogs, the Cats’ first 20 minutes were so below par that Ten commentator Tim Lane declared “the days of domination are over”.
Of course, in each of these games the Cats have eventually clicked into gear. And they’ve looked absolutely brilliant once that’s happened.
However, while sometimes they click into gear early in the piece (see the 101-point demolition of the Dogs), often it doesn’t happen soon enough (see Friday night and the loss to the Pies in Round 19). And it could cost them a premiership.
You get the feeling Geelong are dangerously treading the line between confidence and arrogance. It’s hard to muster up many other reasons why they haven’t been switched on from the opening bounce.
To make matters worse, it’s not as though the Cats’ issues stop there.
Some selection dilemmas still need to be sorted out. The draw they now face – with Collingwood waiting for them if they beat Fremantle – makes things more difficult.
Of course, that’s not to say Geelong won’t bounce back from this. They are the type of side you do not write off in this situation.
However, it does give you the feeling that Thompson and Co. have bigger things to worry about than an umpire’s decision that most football followers agree was correct, if only to the letter of the law.
cat man
Guest
I watched all last weekends games. I saw the same type of attempt (tackle) in ech match, most times it was not paid as a push in the back, and the Geelong game was also in the wet.50-50 at best(the umpires decision). I watched it @ 8 times just after the game and still couldn't decide.Mooney hits the ground and immediately gets up and keeps running!!
Redb
Roar Guru
Ironicially Josh, in the spirit of the game or the moment the umpire did not award a 50 metre penalty against Mooney for his direct comments to the umpire.
josh
Guest
It is a pity the umpire didn't reply to Mooney - "No, you cost your team the game" - of course, if he had there would have been an outcry and the ump would be in hot water. The players are always happy to mouth off at the umps so the umps should be able to give some back.
beaver fever
Guest
Replying to my own post ........ but anyway, i guess they changed the rules of billiards to attempt to bring Walter Lindrum back to the field, and bodyline was introduced to curb Don Bradmans run making feats, so i guess in that context KB is in good company, but he was a sneaky ugly little sucker.
beaver fever
Guest
I happened to catch a footy flashback, where Richmond was playing (1980 GF) and KB was certainly up to his old tricks, jeez i am glad they changed that rule. Trust a sneaky little rover to exploit the rules.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
heh, heh, I was a kid when KB was doing the old bounce the ball get tackled trick. Interestingly, a Carlton player got caught out on the weekend - very rare to see that these days!
beaver fever
Guest
I have to agree with MF on this, years ago, no ifs,but's, maybe's, if you were in the back just slightly the free was usually paid, no matter if the tackle was 95% great technique. The pace of the game puts the umpires under great stress IMO, and from that you get missed and bad descisions. The best rule change IMO was the dropping the ball rule, Kevin Bartlett who i believe was/is on the rules committee (ironically) was the master at dropping the ball and getting away with it when tackled, extremely frustrating for oppostion fans, that and kicking out on the full and the creation of the centre square.
Chris
Guest
Don't disagree that the decision was correct, I just have a broader problem with these rules that have come too easy to infringe on. Potentially the Mooney decision is a poor example of what I'm referring to, but incidents that are much more tackle and very little push, should be interpretted as tackles and not infrigements. This rotation business is "correct technique" only to work around the modern sensitivity of the rule interpretation.
Redb
Roar Guru
I've seen the incident a few times now and it was a 100% correct decision. In fact the umpire blew the whistle straight away with no hesitation.
Moonface
Roar Guru
The Cats lost because the Saints were the better team on the night.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
I disagree that it's a modern interpretation. If anything, the umps have moved away from what was a straightforward interpretation, into one that now applies inconsistently. 20+ years ago, you would never get away with falling into someone's back. The other one that has moved away from the original interpreation is this caper of grabbing the bloke round the head while he's got his head over the ball - thankfully - I've just noticed a swing back to paying what is an obvious free kick. Stay out of their backs, stay away from their heads, don't trip, don't chop, and if the ball is there to be won, make it your sole intention, but otherwise, everything else is fair game (as it has always been intended).
Mister Football
Roar Guru
I agree with Tom here. On "On the Couch" (or the next show) tonight on Fox, there was a clip of a St KIlda player catching a Geelong player from behind and rolling him to the side - correct technique. But if the Big Hairy Cat wants to bury someone by falling liberally into his back - must be a free (although I accept also that the umps are far to inconsistent here). Will Minson was involved in a similar tackle against the Pies. I was rapt that he buried Thomas, but to be honest, if he had been half smart, and being double the size of Thomas, he should have swung him round into the ground: no free, but maximum damage.
Chris
Guest
Have to agree with BigAL above. The push in the back rule, along with holding the ball, holding the man, chopping the arms, hands in the back and 50 metre penalties have all become frustrating distortions. Surely the push in the back rule originated as a basic safety concern, like kicking in danger. It's extremely frustrating to see players pinged for good tackles. This whole idea that a good tackle needs to include some kind of last minute rotation to avoid a technicality of a push in the back is just a recent function of the modern rule interpretation and is a frustration for all.
TomC
Guest
Responsibility is with the tackler. Tacklers will try and roll the player to avoid getting into his back, but if you absolutely cannot tackle someone legally, you simply have to let him go. Which sounds bad, but a big part of our game is positioning yourself between the ball and your opponent and tight rules on tackling just encourage good positioning.
BigAl
Guest
I'm glad the free was paid, but I must say this part of the game always troubles me. How is a player racing in from behind an opponent, with BOTH travelling in the same direction NOT going to give a free kick for a push in the back - the laws of physics pretty much dictate this. What else can the chasing player do ? - just try and reach out and hopefully just grab his jumper ?? - or just give up the chase ?? I reckon if the tackle is legal(ie opponent has the ball) and the player is completely claimed (as opposed to a lunging push), then no free should be paid!
MR
Guest
Being an avid Cats supporter I agree the free was there. It wasn't the free that lost them the game it was only playing half a game of footy and as stated kicking 1.7 in the last quarter. It has happened quite a few times this year and they do play great footy once they kick in to gear but why they don't do it from the first bounce is beyond me.
Mathew
Guest
If you tread the line between what's legal and goes against the rule book, you shouldn't act surprised when the umpire blows his whistle. The tackle on Gwilt was worthy of a free, I don't even know why there was a big debate about it. Oh right, it was "the context"...
Mister Football
Roar Guru
Yes, poor form by the Cats. Kick 1.7 in a final quarter and you're going to lose more games than you win.
Kurt
Roar Pro
Surprisingly weak performance from the Cats in relation to this issue. The free was there, the umpire blew his whistle probably four times trying to stop play before the goal was scored so the idea that the goal was 'disallowed' is complete nonsense. The umpire also showed a reasonable degree of restraint to not award a 50m penalty against Geelong in the circumstances. And all this from a club with two of the most protected players in the history of the game (Ablett and Selwood) who would probably have received a free, 50m penalty and had the opposing player reported had they been tackled in the same fashion.