Autopsy 2nd Prelim Final - Hawthorn v Port Adelaide

[SA HAWK]

Absolutely.

It's interesting though that Port were awesome according to all and sundry (and they were and have been all finals) yet we withstood everything they had to offer and then powered away. Granted they made a late charge (which we withstood.......just) which might have been to some degree because we relaxed a bit thinking we had done enough..... Yet we are seen as needing to play a lot better?

Perhaps we do. But we did just beat the hottest team in the comp right now in white hot form who threw absolutely everything at us.

We weren't as composed as usual at times but the resilience to absorb and overcome Port shouldn't be underestimated IMO.

We do need to play better.

Bruest, Gunston, Shiels & Ceglar need to play a lot better next week.

We have not played well in the prelim after the week off 3 years in a row.

 

[MinerBoy]

Read the ******* rulebook.

Gibson watching the ball only and all the way and makes no contact with Monfries at all. Monfries, perfectly legally, leaps into Gibson.

That doesn't entitle him to a free kick.

 

[Off The Couch]

No it didn't. Read the neutrals....
You cite monfries but it was 100% correct... all credibility gone from that point.

Poor kicking cost you the game not the umps
I thought there were some questionable decisions for both sides but that's easy for me to say because the hawks won. The amusing thing is if we had lost by two points and whinged about the ones that were missed, everyone would of been calling the hawks whingers. Our posters are on a hiding to nothing in here - if you want to think you were robbed by umps then hang your hat on it but for mine I thought it was an unbelievable game from two very good teams and port are well placed for season 2015.

 

[Malibu#27]

Poor kicking cost you the game not the umps
I thought there were some questionable decisions for both sides but that's easy for me to say because the hawks won. The amusing thing is if we had lost by two points and whinged about the ones that were missed, everyone would of been calling the hawks whingers. Our posters are on a hiding to nothing in here - if you want to think you were robbed by umps then hang your hat on it but for mine I thought it was an unbelievable game from two very good teams and port are well placed for season 2015.

At what point have I blamed the umps. Its your compadre having a cry about an obvious free to monfries....
If he wants to come on here and invent rules good luck to him.... but he has to expect a response.

 

[Sewer de Lance]

We lost because we weren't good enough when we needed to be. Absolutely devastated, but this club is destined for great things. See you in 2015.

 

[MinerBoy]

At what point have I blamed the umps. Its your compadre having a cry about an obvious free to monfries....
If he wants to come on here and invent rules good luck to him.... but he has to expect a response.

Yeah, nah, I was responding to the fact that everyone is complaining about Port being robbed when we copped our share of shockers. As the Monfries one was.

No rule invention. Just a poor decision.

 

[Malibu#27]

Yeah, nah, I was responding to the fact that everyone is complaining about Port being robbed when we copped our share of shockers. As the Monfries one was.

No rule invention. Just a poor decision.

As I said... read the rules. Hes taken monfries out with his back to the ball. You say no contact... theres clear contact.

 

[MinerBoy]

As I said... read the rules. Hes taken monfries out with his back to the ball. You say no contact... theres clear contact.

That is the rule if that happened. That isn't what happened though. He hasn't taken out Monfries at all.

the contact is clear. You are quite correct. The contact is initiated by Monfries jumping into Gibson who is 100% focussed on the ball. Monfries is entitled to do that but he isn't entitled to win a free for it though.

 

[Malibu#27]

That is the rule if that happened. That isn't what happened though. He hasn't taken out Monfries at all.

the contact is clear. You are quite correct. The contact is initiated by Monfries jumping into Gibson who is 100% focussed on the ball.

Monfries jumping at the ball.
See you later... let me know whrn youve read the rules.

 

[MinerBoy]

Monfries jumping at the ball.
See you later... let me know whrn youve read the rules.

What you say doesn't refute anything. Monfries did jump at the ball and in the process jumps into Gibson.

Gibson never took him out. Gibson 100% watches the ball and is jumped into. That's fine, but it ain't a free kick.

It's plain as ******* day mate.

 

[Roosurgence]

umps helped hawthorn at several crucial times.

unlucky port. go one step further next year lads

At the end of the day that was one of the worst umpired games in a long time and they were s**t both ways.

Stevic was paying absolute soft rubbish in the first half.

The Gunston down field in the 2nd wow and the Monfries free another howler!

Port were probably the better side tonight but wasted their opportunities, led by Roughead the Hawks made the most of theirs.

Great game to watch, just a pity the morons officiating it couldn't do their job.

 

[Slawk]

So if I'm right the gist of this thread is a team started the game kicking 3.9, found themselves 28 points behind the reigning premiers with 10 minutes to go, and the only reason they lost is because they could've had a ball up with a minute to go?

 

[Roosurgence]

We do need to play better.

Bruest, Gunston, Shiels & Ceglar need to play a lot better next week.

We have not played well in the prelim after the week off 3 years in a row.

Ceglar might be watching if McEvoy plays well tomorrow.

 

[Malibu#27]

What you say doesn't refute anything. Monfries did jump at the ball and in the process jumps into Gibson.

Gibson never took him out. Gibson 100% watches the ball and is jumped into. That's fine, but it ain't a free kick.

It's plain as ******* day mate.

http://aflcommunityclub.com.au/index.php?id=134

 

[MinerBoy]

http://aflcommunityclub.com.au/index.php?id=134

"The player whose sole objective is to contest a mark shall be permitted to do so"

Free Kicks in Marking Contests (Laws Applicable)

15.4.5 (d) A player makes prohibited contact with an opposition player if he unduly pushes, bumps, blocks or holds an opposition player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition player, who is in the act of marking or attempting to mark the football.

You link this and it doesn't apply in any way and is of no relevance! It in fact proves that it was an incorrect decision. Gibson does none of that.

Mate just watch it again. It's clear that Monfries jumps into Gibson. Gibson did not at any point interfere with Monfries.

 

[smoovy]

Probably a game where there has been more going on tactically with match ups then I have ever seen before. Of course this was largely lost on ch 7.

At one stage Roughead was down back picking up a kick then the next moment Schulz was in Ports defence.

I think this resulted in an odd match where no team really got going. I think Hawks only hit about 70% of their potential, lucky for them Roughead was at 100%. Don't think Port were much more than 80% either.

 

[Slawk]

http://aflcommunityclub.com.au/index.php?id=134

"A player makes prohibited contact with an opposition player if he unduly pushes, bumps, blocks or holds an opposition player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition player"

Whose side are you arguing?
Which of these did Gibson do?

'Unduly' was already bolded by the way.

And why don't you find the rules for holding the man while you're at it?

 

[jack_black16]

Great game. Umpires where bad but it went both ways at times.

Hawthorne deserve to be in the grand final after all the hurdles they had this year.

Still ******* pissed though.

 

[Lightning_Rod]

Kick straight and control the controllable and the uncontrollable umpiring decisions don't mean s**t, all great teams go through heartbreak I'll back our players to take this and use it going forward, well done Hawks go on and beat the colas

 

[Malibu#27]

"A player makes prohibited contact with an opposition player if he unduly pushes, bumps, blocks or holds an opposition player or deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition player"

Whose side are you arguing?
Which of these did Gibson do?

'Unduly' was already bolded by the way.

And why don't you find the rules for holding the man while you're at it?

Clearly he blocked monfries run at the ball. The supporting text clearly states the umpire should be looking at where players come from.

It also clearly states that incidental contact is fine if your legitimately attempting to mark the ball.

" Paying free kicks for blocking infringements that interfere with marking contests and umpires to review their positioning to achieve a better balance between detecting infringements at stoppages and infringements occurring within the end zones"

 

[MinerBoy]

Anyway, bad luck Port. You honestly could have blown that game apart in the first. Credit to our guys to wrestle back momentum after you left the door ajar (just as you guys did yourselves last week).

 

[smoovy]

As a Crows supporter I pray to God there is a Port fan with his own 'Right in front of me' moment

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Just back from the game and feel, well, strange. Rapt we won but it's a downcast win due to just hanging on. Reckon we played about a half of decent footy, the rest Port were the better side, it's just that we took our chances and they didn't.

Also want to say kudos to the Port supporters tonight at the game. Much like Freo supporters last year after the GF, they were absolutely wonderful and praising of both the our team, and their well wishes for next week were sincere.

I have a feeling though that we are seeing a bloody good footy side taking shape, and think this won't be their last crack at a GF in the near future

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Clearly he blocked monfries run at the ball. The supporting text clearly states the umpire should be looking at where players come from.

It also clearly states that incidental contact is fine if your legitimately attempting to mark the ball.

" Paying free kicks for blocking infringements that interfere with marking contests and umpires to review their positioning to achieve a better balance between detecting infringements at stoppages and infringements occurring within the end zones"

LOL, WTF?? How??

Terrible decision considering Gibson was only looking at the ball and Monfries actually mistimes his jump. Disgustingly bas decision, in what was an overall poor performance from the men in lime green tonight.

 

[Miss Vanessa]

It's not how many frees you get, it's when and where you get them that's important. That dodgy free kick to Gunstan resulted in a goal. That goal turned the game around at a time when Port was dominating.

I agree, but unless I see some hard evidence showing that the Hawks received their free kicks in more dangerous positions, or that they scored more goals from free kicks etc. then I remain skeptical that the umps had any real influence on the game. I think that so often we fans just focus on one or two decisions that seem to support our perceptions of how the game was played and umpired and conveniently forget those decisions that don't support that view.