Autopsy Round 8, 2026: Hawks bottle it

[MasterSamurai]

Dimma too inconsistent as a frwd, sis not much better.
We were extremely unlucky that they kicked 13.0 in three qtrs of football which is unheard of. We kicked 9.12 in the same three qtrs. Just absolute trouncing in numbers only unfortunately. Other than dear, Meek, Weddle, Finn , scrim and Gunston, the rest did well enough to get a pass for effort at the very least.

 

[The Gulden Child]

We got torched enough on ground balls in D50. Taking Hardwick out and Weddle in would be grim watching

I would prefer Hardwick to Weddle forward ideally.

Every time we have a shot on goal this year it genuinely feels 50/50. Hardwick is such a good kick for goal. He is probably my favourite Hawk.

Weddle seemed pretty solid at ground level until he has lost his grippo this year, whereas Hardwick is consistently super clean with his hands. Could do with 2 of him.

I agree with your comment btw and hope Weddle can find some form.

 

[Hawked Wings]

I didn't think it was at the time, but looking back at the replay of it several times I am now even more sure it wasn't touched. There's certainly nothing definitive in the footage shown that should have allowed the ARC to overturn the umpire's call. A score review wasn't even requested.

Clear deviation mate

 

[seysearles]

His hand is so close to his boot it's impossible to tell what the initial trajectory of the ball was to say it deviated. The kick itself was just throwing a boot at it too so a chaotic spin is to be expected.

Anyway I've said it so many times before, they should just change the rule to be a goal if it's kicked by the scoring team and goes through regardless if it touches an opponent or snicks the post on the way through. It would eliminate 99% of these ridiculously contentious score reviews. And it would stop robbing us of amazing goals like the one Gunston kicked against Geelong that was overruled for somehow hitting the back of the post after crossing the goal line.

There was some dickhead on the game day thread asserting with authority that it "was touched". On what basis i have no idea. The Fox footage showed no such thing. The goal umpire called it a goal and the footage was not even close to being definitive. The ball was turning quite wildly when it passed Maynard's hand and there is no way to tell if the trajectory was from a touch or just the way it was travelling. It was an ATROCIOUS shit decision.

 

[Bedi]

That was a mess from the coach to the boot studder. Very poor performance .

FYI, that was not the boot studder. That was our physio Bart Lambart who's been instrumental for our sustained success over past 20 years. Made Ashley Browne's Top 100 list of all time Hawks in the footy record's Hawthorn centenary edition. Also featured in the Hawks museum. Very, very highly regarded by anyone who has crossed paths with him

 

[HedgeFund]

I don’t see how this is true at all last year when they all played we were a top 3 defence and was our CLEAR strongest part of the ground. And we are a top 3 defence again this year.

When we played all 4 last season, we went 9-7

When we played only 2 or 3, we went 8-2

Just saying…..

 

[Bedi]

Frenchie was good. Needed that pressure game.

Reckon it was close to the best game he's played for us

 

[Bedi]

Horrible game. I think we were out-coached and we under performed. But we still managed a draw. Our poor kicking and the fact that the Pies were kissed on the d*ck scoring-wise exacerbated our poor performance.

The positive is that we never gave up and kept trying.

In the scheme of things I think we will learn a lot more from this than had we won. It's a long season and the end game - finals - is all that matters. I would much rather we have a seasoned team with hard earned lessons competing in September than one that waltzed in without much hardship.

I really dont think we were outcoached personally. I put it down simply to we just ****ed up with our goal kicking, all while Coll were kicking them out of their arses. Just not our night.

 

[BigTonkaTroy]

Play Hardwick forward. Weddle back and leave him there a bit. Hardwick is a great shot on goal.

Yeah let’s not play our best lockdown small defender forward.

 

[badboybobba]

Yeah let’s not play our best lockdown small defender forward.

He’s the best small defender in the league by a country mile, surely that experiment is over

 

[unitedhawk2]

Those who didn't understand why Meeky got penalised for leaping over the centre-line without touching the ball should watch the Dogs ruck being penalised for exactly the same offence with 11:19 left in the third quarter against Freo.

 

[Dipper]

Last year football had different rules. Last year Ned Reeves was a VFL ruckman. Last year the 4 tall defenders yielded different results.

I don’t know where you saw us being a top 3 defence, but we certainly aren’t top 3 for average points against.

I don't know if you ever look at the Squiggle but I find a pretty good indicator of how sides are travelling.

Squiggle 2026

live.squiggle.com.au

At first I was surprised to see us have a reasonable uptick on our attack and only a small knock on our defence after the Pies game but then I remembered that it rewards for the shots on goal that you have and keeping oppo shots down, rather than purely on scores (and it takes the oppo strength on each into account)

Anyway it currently has us at #1 for attack and #4 for defence.

It tipped us to win 86-67 which I guess wasn't a million miles off the expected scores in the end.

 

[Matilda05]

Those who didn't understand why Meeky got penalised for leaping over the centre-line without touching the ball should watch the Dogs ruck being penalised for exactly the same offence with 11:19 left in the third quarter against Freo.

Yep stupid rule though, ruck leaps at ball expecting other ruck to also leap, assumption both bodies will clash at the centre line. If one ruck chooses not to jump and stays down, the one leaping ruck is now penalised for drifting over the line that wouldn't happen if both jumped... also this is without the off centre variation of the umpire's throw

 

[unitedhawk2]

Yep stupid rule though, ruck leaps at ball expecting other ruck to also leap, assumption both bodies will clash at the centre line. If one ruck chooses not to jump and stays down, the one leaping ruck is now penalised for drifting over the line that wouldn't happen if both jumped... also this is without the off centre variation of the umpire's throw

The opposite perspective on that is that the ruck who chooses to stay down is giving his opponent free access to tap the ball to advantage.

 

[Matilda05]

The opposite perspective on that is that the ruck who chooses to stay down is giving his opponent free access to tap the ball to advantage.

And by not contesting gets a free... I'm all for not going back to allowing a ruck to jump into their opponent and not contest the ball or blatantly push their opposing ruck under the ball ie Tom Hawkins. But if you jump to contest but cross the line when the ball is not thrown up dead centre surely that's not right to be penalised?

 

[unitedhawk2]

And by not contesting gets a free... I'm all for not going back to allowing a ruck to jump into their opponent and not contest the ball or blatantly push their opposing ruck under the ball ie Tom Hawkins. But if you jump to contest but cross the line when the ball is not thrown up dead centre surely that's not right to be penalised?

The reason they got rid of the centre bounce is because there were too many off-centre bounces.

You're assuming that the reason a leaping ruckman fails to make contact with the ball is because the throw-up is off-centre.

I don't think that assumption would hold in cases in most cases.

It does raise an interesting question, though: Are umpires able to recall off-centre ball-ups in the same manner as they used to 'cancel' an off-centre bounce and throw it up instead before 2026?

 

[Matilda05]

The reason they got rid of the centre bounce is because there were too many off-centre bounces.

You're assuming that the reason a leaping ruckman fails to make contact with the ball is because the throw-up is off-centre.

I don't think that assumption would hold in cases in most cases.

It does raise an interesting question, though: Are umpires able to recall off-centre ball-ups in the same manner as they used to 'cancel' an off-centre bounce and throw it up instead before 2026?

No i am saying that its unfair to penalise a ruckman that does (or would) make contact with the ball even if they crossed the centre line when the opponent chooses not to contest.

They haven't recalled one yet as far as i know, and they ain't robots, so fair to say there has been a few already in the 50 odd games of football played already this season.

 

[unitedhawk2]

No i am saying that its unfair to penalise a ruckman that does (or would) make contact with the ball even if they crossed the centre line when the opponent chooses not to contest.

They haven't recalled one yet as far as i know, and they ain't robots, so fair to say there has been a few already in the 50 odd games of football played already this season.

If the ruckman makes contact with the ball, it wouldn't be a free, regardless of whether or not they crossed the line while leaping over an opponent who stays on the ground.

It would only be a free if they miss the ball and have leapt across the line in the process.

 

[RCAB]

There was some dickhead on the game day thread asserting with authority that it "was touched". On what basis i have no idea. The Fox footage showed no such thing. The goal umpire called it a goal and the footage was not even close to being definitive. The ball was turning quite wildly when it passed Maynard's hand and there is no way to tell if the trajectory was from a touch or just the way it was travelling. It was an ATROCIOUS shit decision.

IT WAS CLEARLY..



not touched

 

[marklar]

It would only be a free if they miss the ball and have leapt across the line in the process.

So the onus is on the jumping ruck to at least make contact with the ball?

If that's the intention of the rule, that's fine. The issues seem to arise when the non-jumping ruck causes an infringement specifically because they didn't jump, because the opposing ruck that's actually making an attempt to ruck properly can't guess the intention to avoid contact and milk a free?

 

[seysearles]

IT WAS CLEARLY..

View attachment 2599316

not touched

Even if it was touched the footage was not in any way definitive. No one questioned it in the commentary afterwards or the media since. In a drawn game I think we have the right to ask for a 'please explain' from the afl or umpires.

 

[Crankyhawk]

To be honest, I don't think ball tracking technology is going to help most of the contentious calls; touched, marked over the line, etc. It certainly would help for determining which side of the post the ball travelled and whether it went out of bounds, but other than that I can't see it helping much.

It would be much simpler and more reliable to ditch the "touched" and "hit the post" rules and make it similar to soccer - if it goes through the goals, it's a goal, no matter how it gets there.

But would the fans like it?

I would support this change. Simplifies umpiring. Also means can’t rush through the goals as well (yes I am simplifying it that far)

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

There was some dickhead on the game day thread asserting with authority that it "was touched". On what basis i have no idea. The Fox footage showed no such thing. The goal umpire called it a goal and the footage was not even close to being definitive. The ball was turning quite wildly when it passed Maynard's hand and there is no way to tell if the trajectory was from a touch or just the way it was travelling. It was an ATROCIOUS shit decision.

They've introduced the reviews in an effort to gain the absolute 100% correct decision, and yet they are turning over goal umpiring decisions with no real evidence that they got it wrong. Saw another one tonight in the Crows v Power game, video inconclusive, and yet they turned it over. I've had enough of AFL stupidity.

 

[RCAB]

Even if it was was the footage was not in any way definitive. No one had even seemed to bring that up in the commentary or media since. In a drawn game I think we have the right to ask for a please explain from the afl or umpires?

The ball didn’t deviate, it just spun in an unorthodox manner due to Gunston kicking the belly of it.

You have to wonder how many of those where the ball seems to deviate were overturned, but were never actually touched.

 

[peetoo]

That’s what annoyed me too. We seemed too stubborn to change tactics. There are any number of ways we could’ve made radical changes to the look of the forward line - clearing out the fifty, or forwards staying super deep - but we just kept on flogging a dead horse kicking to the throng of players when none of our players were taking contested marks or converting their shots.

It improved when dear and gunner did taps to our smalls rather than mark. It’s a better percentage when marks aren’t sticking