Non-Lions Footy Discussion

[Lace Out]

Port would have stolen it,Hawks deserved the win.

 

[PertRoosOsborne]

I too thought he deserved a free in the incident prior to actually getting a free for something I was staggered was paid.

Agreed...

I recall earlier in the match that Gray scored a goal on the back of a Schultz? throw

On another occasion I recall a port player being tackled and placing the ball over his head on the ground (ala union) for a teammate to take the ball and run off.....IMO the hawks were screwed by the umps all day

 

[Cousin Jed]

Port would have stolen it,Hawks deserved the win.

I dunno - they had a lot more scoring shots

 

[PertRoosOsborne]

I dunno - they had a lot more scoring shots

Yeah the first quarter inaccuracies were lethal.

 

[Lace Out]

I dunno - they had a lot more scoring shots

You could be right - I didn't see much of it

 

[Big Sauce 21]

gee I hate Port. Enjoyed them getting close but getting nothing.

 

[Simbatheking21]

hopefully the Hawks win. Always respected them. Great team with a great captain.

Plus, the whole buddy franklin thing of "going to Sydney for premierships" will be a laugh if the Hawks win, next saturday.

 

[luthor]

Plus, the whole buddy franklin thing of "going to Sydney for premierships" will be a laugh if the Hawks win, next saturday.

I thought he went for the $$

 

[Simbatheking21]

I thought he went for the $$

oh... and that

 

[Matt_BL]

Tom Rockliff should become our next Robbie Gray. If we have the midfield depth, last week an this week Gray has played close to the perfect game in each.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Port really are a great blueprint for our club going forward. A rabble that is now a legitimate premiership threat. They'll be going hard after Ryder because a guy like him can really give them something. Glad Port lost in the end because I think the Swans would have torched them. I think the Hawks are a better chance at beating the Swans.

 

[MSB ROYS]

I thought he went for the $$

And the lady...

 

[karix]

IMO the hawks were screwed by the umps all day

Dunno about that. The umpires gave Hawks momentum with the 100m down the field free kick for holding, and then the 50m free kick when Polec slapped the ball out of the Hawks hands.

The first one was very questionable, 100m off the ball, at least 2 kicks away, you can't tell me that Gunston was leading towards the kicker. The second one was there, but pretty harsh considering that the play with the ball wasn't slowing down in a straight line, he was curling off to the side and looked like he might've played out. Had to be paid though.

After those 2 goals they found their flow and confidence and took control of the game. Massive turning point, especially the first one, the entire flow of the game changed on that umpires call.

Other than those 2 incidents I thought there were good and bad calls both ways which mostly evened out.

 

[Skoob]

I'm not sure that the umpiring went one way or the other, it was typically inconsistant with both sides being gifted and/or ripped off at different times.
I wouldn't say Port were robbed of a win, with that last HTB decision, but they were certainly robbed of the chance to win it. It was a terribly incorrect call on a rule that has been largely ignored all year, showing they really don't understand it.
As would have been pointed out, you can't blame the loss on that one decision, but it was just plain wrong at a critical decisive moment.
50 odd seconds to go, and the game was killed by a wrong decision. No sense of occasion.

 

[PertRoosOsborne]

I can't remember the specifics but I recall thinking during the last quarter that some soft frees had been paid to port that brought them back into the game.

I was definitely wearing pro Hawthorn (anti port) red wine goggles!

 

[chopperduck]

I dont really have a problem with that HTB decision, he did dive on it so I think it was there.

The separate issue is the overall umpiring of some rules, including diving on the ball. That rule is in place to prevent players simply diving on the ball to kill the contest and deny the opposition the ball whilst making no attempt to actually win possession yourself. I do not believe current ways of umpiring that rule is consistent with why that rule exists.

In that instance, the Port player was clearly trying to win the ball, not kill the contest, and because he was set upon so quickly, he never had a chance to get rid of the ball, whether he wanted/intended to or not. Why penalise bloke cracking in the hardest and going for the ball? Ping them if they dive on it and dont get rid of it, but some form of reasonable prior op still needs to be given. We dont want to encourage players to simply stand around a contested ball or just keep flicking or fumbling it amongst all that congestion. If they have tried to win the ball and get tackled, dont stuff around, get in there and throw the ball up to get play going again instead of letting 20 players trip and fumble over the ball and each other with no realistic way of winning clear possession.

 

[Skoob]

I dont really have a problem with that HTB decision, he did dive on it so I think it was there.

No, no, no, no.
You have forced me to pull out the book.

15.1.1 Spirit and Intention of Awarding Free Kicks
It is the spirit and intention of these Laws that a Free Kick shall
be awarded to:
(a) ensure that a Match is played in a fair manner;
(b) provide to a Player, who makes obtaining possession of
the football their sole objective, every opportunity to
obtain possession;
(c) protect Players from sustaining injury; and
(d) a Player who executes a Correct Tackle which results
in an opponent failing to dispose of the football in
accordance with these Laws.

15.2.5 Diving on Top of the Football
Where a Player is in possession of the football by reason of
diving on top of or dragging the football underneath their body,
the field Umpire shall award a Free Kick against that Player
if they do not immediately knock the football clear or Correctly
Dispose of the football when Correctly Tackled.

I would strenuously argue that he did not dive on top of the ball. The lowest he got was on his knee briefly before regaining his feet. He was merely picking the ball up. In fact he was off his knees before picking the ball up. At no stage was he on top of the ball before being tackled.
Just no.

 

[POBT]

Oh no, Skoob has got the rule book out again. Quick, someone distract him. Hey, is that a Greg Davis article with the wrong player's name captioned under the article?!

 

[patfullfankezz]

I'm just annoyed the world "spirit" got into the rulebook.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Sack The Giesch

 

[Skoob]

Oh no, Skoob has got the rule book out again. Quick, someone distract him. Hey, is that a Greg Davis article with the wrong player's name captioned under the article?!

WHAT?

 

[Sanchez365]

Dunno about that. The umpires gave Hawks momentum with the 100m down the field free kick for holding, and then the 50m free kick when Polec slapped the ball out of the Hawks hands.

The first one was very questionable, 100m off the ball, at least 2 kicks away, you can't tell me that Gunston was leading towards the kicker. The second one was there, but pretty harsh considering that the play with the ball wasn't slowing down in a straight line, he was curling off to the side and looked like he might've played out. Had to be paid though.

After those 2 goals they found their flow and confidence and took control of the game. Massive turning point, especially the first one, the entire flow of the game changed on that umpires call.

Other than those 2 incidents I thought there were good and bad calls both ways which mostly evened out.

These incidents so much. I thought the first free kick to gunston was a joke. That kind of stuff must happen a 1000 times a game, you just don't call it 100m off the ball and give a team a shot on goal for that.

The second incident was a case.of the umpire probably should have called play on cause he was off, but didn't so had no choice but to give 50 against polec.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Disagree on both points

These incidents so much. I thought the first free kick to gunston was a joke. That kind of stuff must happen a 1000 times a game, you just don't call it 100m off the ball and give a team a shot on goal for that.

And should be penalised 1000 times a game. Holding is illegal. If you're going to do it within your opponent's scoring range, right in front of the umpire, you should be penalised for stupidity alone. Football is messy enough as it is without giving scraggers carte blanche.

The second incident was a case.of the umpire probably should have called play on cause he was off, but didn't so had no choice but to give 50 against polec.

This is where common sense should come into play. The umpire must have realised the player "took off" and Polec had reacted accordingly. Get the bloke back behind his mark and make him take his kick.

 

[Sanchez365]

Disagree on both points
And should be penalised 1000 times a game. Holding is illegal. If you're going to do it within your opponent's scoring range, right in front of the umpire, you should be penalised for stupidity alone. Football is messy enough as it is without giving scraggers carte blanche.

This is where common sense should come into play. The umpire must have realised the player "took off" and Polec had reacted accordingly. Get the bloke back behind his mark and make him take his kick.

I can't disagree with the polec situation, sending back to take his kick should have been a better outcome.

And it would be nice to live in a world where there was no off the ball holding, I agree. But we aren't in that world and to give one team a shot at goal for minimal contact 100m off the ball is ridculous. I mean its not like he tackled gunston to the ground or anything.

 

[alscotoz2]

Roughead > Franklin?

No chance. Swans by over 5 goals next week, Buddy to kick 5 and come second in Norm Smith behind...a midfielder!