If NAB had any decency....

[DynamoUltra]

They would donate $1000 to Edward's junior club. Clearly a super goal.

I would have felt dirty had we won by 3 points or under, and I think Edward's junior club should be lobbying for some moolah.

It's also good to see the last two matches we have played have been exciting, up and down football going right to the wire.

All the best next week.

[Markthirtytwo]

They would donate $1000 to Edward's junior club. Clearly a super goal.

I would have felt dirty had we won by 3 points or under, and I think Edward's junior club should be lobbying for some moolah.

It's also good to see the last two matches we have played have been exciting, up and down football going right to the wire.

All the best next week.

The green tree frogs had a bad night all round. Even the reviewer. :thumbsd:

[Ebert80]

I'm pretty Karoonda need the money too :p

[NikkiNoo]

They would donate $1000 to Edward's junior club. Clearly a super goal.

I would have felt dirty had we won by 3 points or under, and I think Edward's junior club should be lobbying for some moolah.

It's also good to see the last two matches we have played have been exciting, up and down football going right to the wire.

All the best next week.

Agree totally. From the vision that was from the camera in that forward pocket, it was clearly a supergoal.

It begs the question that if they are going to have it 'reviewed' by a third umpire, then why are they not showing them all the vision available.

If they saw the vision that we all saw, then are they going to send that umpire to an optometrist, because clearly they need their eye sight seen too?

[acg_204*]

If they saw the vision that we all saw, then are they going to send that umpire to an optometrist, because clearly they need their eye sight seen too?

I think it was more of a technical thing than an eye sight thing. From what the commentators were saying and I know I shouldn't be relying on Dwayne Russel to get anything right it was decided a six pointer because he was standing on the 50 of the fifty metre line which is classified inside fifty. Which is an absolute joke imo.

[NikkiNoo]

I think it was more of a technical thing than an eye sight thing. From what the commentators were saying and I know I shouldn't be relying on Dwayne Russel to get anything right it was decided a six pointer because he was standing on the 50 of the fifty metre line which is classified inside fifty. Which is an absolute joke imo.

I think that was their guessing at the reasoning.

They then had the quote from Vozzo which was that when Edwards kicked the ball he was inside the 50m line. The vision clearly shows that not to be case, so their eyesight needs to be looked at.

Now when I was umpiring, the line was the be all and end all of the matter, not the writing on the ground.

[topjars]

Adelaide shouldnt make a big deal about it but they should get clarification on why it was not deemed a supergoal b4 next week.

I thought the umpiring was very ordinary last night, both from a Hawks and the Crows perspective.

Some frees given against the bloke on the bottom of the pack were appalling.
The interpretation of "You didnt attempt to get the ball out!" must be weighed up by:

1. Did he actually have possesion of the ball ( I think Tippet was harshly dealt with on one occasion)
2. Did he have prior opportunity.
3. Could he get rid of it with 3 or 4 people sitting on him.

I still think they should play three blind mice over the PA as the maggots enter the areana:thumbsu:

[NikkiNoo]

Adelaide shouldnt make a big deal about it but they should get clarification on why it was not deemed a supergoal b4 next week.

I thought the umpiring was very ordinary last night, both from a Hawks and the Crows perspective.

Some frees given against the bloke on the bottom of the pack were appalling.
The interpretation of "You didnt attempt to get the ball out!" must be weighed up by:

1. Did he actually have possesion of the ball ( I think Tippet was harshly dealt with on one occasion)
2. Did he have prior opportunity.
3. Could he get rid of it with 3 or 4 people sitting on him.

I still think they should play three blind mice over the PA as the maggots enter the areana:thumbsu:

I have always understood that a holding the ball decision can ONLY be given when the tackle has been legal. When you are sitting on a players back, it is not a legal tackle, therefore that was the first infringement and it should take precedence over a holding the ball decision.


I'm still trying to figure out what Thompson did wrong when the Hawk player ran into him in the goal square and fell over! :confused:

[Nick85]

I'm still trying to figure out what Thompson did wrong when the Hawk player ran into him in the goal square and fell over! :confused:

Ditto

[maccas_no1]

Adelaide shouldnt make a big deal about it but they should get clarification on why it was not deemed a supergoal b4 next week.

I thought the umpiring was very ordinary last night, both from a Hawks and the Crows perspective.

Some frees given against the bloke on the bottom of the pack were appalling.
The interpretation of "You didnt attempt to get the ball out!" must be weighed up by:

1. Did he actually have possesion of the ball ( I think Tippet was harshly dealt with on one occasion)
2. Did he have prior opportunity.
3. Could he get rid of it with 3 or 4 people sitting on him.

I still think they should play three blind mice over the PA as the maggots enter the areana:thumbsu:

Agree it was terrible both ways think it was late in the 3rd quarter where Van Berlo clearly just about ripped a Hawthorn players head off yet was play on, and some for us that were clear free kicks that were not picked up either, and yes Edwards opener was a 'super goal' got his boot on the ball in the bottom part of the '0' of the '50' painted on the turf.

[maccas_no1]

I have always understood that a holding the ball decision can ONLY be given when the tackle has been legal. When you are sitting on a players back, it is not a legal tackle, therefore that was the first infringement and it should take precedence over a holding the ball decision.


I'm still trying to figure out what Thompson did wrong when the Hawk player ran into him in the goal square and fell over! :confused:

Same, did anyone pick up what the umpire indicated the free was for? If it was in the back wants his head red, it was a clear shepard that was within 5m of the ball, no problem in my book:thumbsu:

[brucetiki]

1. If 'Bozo' Vozzo said Edwards was 'clearly' inside 50, he has to be dumped for next week and Rd 1 of the premiership season and have his vision checked before being appointed another AFL game. This was quite a major mistake for somone of Bozo's experience.

2. When they did have the TV umpire in 2004, didn't they have to remove the 50 from the arcs to prevent situations like last night after Adelaide were not awarded a Supergoal because the player was on the '50', and they didn't know if it was 6 or 9.

3. NAB should donate to Edward's club, but they're a bank so it may dip too much into their profits :D

[ams4crows]

but isn't it 50 'Meters" so the line is 50 meters but the numbers well some of the number is less than 50 and some is more!

[raikkonen]

SAw it just then on ST, and that was clearly otuside 50metres, which was my initial reaction last night when I saw it at the ground. I remember thinking in the last quarter when Franklin kicked that goal "I would hate to lose this game by less than 3 points...."

[James_37]

I'm still trying to figure out what Thompson did wrong when the Hawk player ran into him in the goal square and fell over! :confused:

Unfortunately I think it was a case of the umpire putting 2 and 2 together and getting 7. He saw contact in the goalsquare, the Hawthorn player(as Hawthorn players do tend to do a bit) went to ground, therefore it must have been in the back. The umpiring was appalling(went both ways at least), no doubt about it, its a bit like they've been given a whistle and hence feel obliged to use it, especially when there's a little contact, legal or otherwise.

[Ticktak]

Yes, the umpiring has been terrible this pre-season so far. If anyone saw the St Kilda v Ess game it was just as bad. I would of hated to be supporting the Hawks on the weekend because although it was bad for both teams I really think they were worse off than us. I just had to shake my head a few times a say "gee we'll take it but that was a terrible decision".

I really hope our boys are aware and smart enough to understand what the umpires will do come round 1. If we can be smart by just not giving them options to pay a 50m against us or their other stupid little interpretations we will be right. However the umpires will be under instruction to go out and make examples of people just to get their point across in the early rounds. If we are smart it really could mean the difference between a win or a loss.

[FlyingCrow]

I believe that the edge of the numerals "50" is considered part of the line. As Edwards was stand on the numerals he is deemed to be within the the 50 metres. Thus no supergoal. The 50 arcs are not alwys 50 metres out. Look at the SCG it is only about 45m. Thus this rule could never be in play during H and A. Where there is percentage involved.

Its stupid anyway.

[Synergy12]

What everyone (including the commentators) seems to have overlooked, is that Edwards took possession of the footy inside 50, he then swung around exiting the 50 before kicking outside 50.

Unfortunately, not a supergoal.

[crowsup]

What everyone (including the commentators) seems to have overlooked, is that Edwards took possession of the footy inside 50, he then swung around exiting the 50 before kicking outside 50.

Unfortunately, not a supergoal.
That is true only if it is a mark and has been paid as a mark taken iside the 50s.