Thank you. Hopefully soon our teams play off in a granny, and if either team manages to knock out Adelaide in a prelim than that's just an added bonus!In late news, the Adelaide branch of the RSPCA is about to lobby the state government to ban all Crows players from owning a dog, due to their inability to hold onto a lead.
That was one helluva gutsy win by your blokes - against all the odds, plus the small matter of the opposition having 3 extra players on the field (25-13 free kick count). All the best for the rest of the season.
Autopsy Hawthorn defeats the Crows
- Thread starter Dixie Flatline
- Start date
- Tagged users None
philreich
TheBrownDog
- Mar 2, 2014
- 58,533
- 147,412
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Knocking the Crows out of the finals would be a dream come true. By the way, the acronym CROWS stands for Can't Remember Our Winning Song.
Just imagine my anguish back in 97 when my old man the Saints supporter, and my mother the Crows supporter were going to lock horns in the grand final. I think I lived at various mates places for about 3 months afterwards.
- Banned
- #529
What made you a Hawthorn supporter ?
1984 grand final, I jumped on the bandwagon before 3 quarter time. My sister decided to go for the team my parents were going for, which happened to be Essendon! I still want to win 3 premierships against Essendon so I can claim bagging rights in the sibling rivalry!
Changa10
Premiership Player
A point.
Think you answered your own question right here. Ball needs to fully cross the LINE, not the POST.I posted this in the umps thread, thought I'd pop it here for those who still think the call last night was in any way debatable.
If it's a goal at the top, then it's a goal at the bottom. There are no two rules as far as I'm aware for how a goal is judged to have crossed the line. It's either over, or it's not.
The back of the padding is indeed on the line as the smaller image further below shows, so is the line marking incorrect? Is the padding out of position? Either way, if this is a goal at the height in the larger image, it's a goal full stop.
View attachment 384848
- Banned
- #532
Ah well right choice, despite 84 and 85 you have still seen 8 Premierships.
Have never regretted it. Was going to give up the sport in 1996 if we had merged.
Hawk_francais
Cancelled
- Sep 20, 2015
- 3,509
- 7,036
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Hearing Hodgey on the mic really makes you appreciate how inexperienced our defence is! No wonder Clarko backs Gibson in every week, at least he knows where to go.
We know that Roughy is doing the same up forward, but I'd be more interested to hear Isaac and Liam in the midfield. Burton, Hardwick and Brand are so subordinate to Hodge.
We know that Roughy is doing the same up forward, but I'd be more interested to hear Isaac and Liam in the midfield. Burton, Hardwick and Brand are so subordinate to Hodge.
abe8009
Team Captain
- Dec 2, 2009
- 305
- 677
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
How was that not holding the ball by the way. Used to be once you'd had a bounce holding the ball was called immediately after being tackled. Cameron had 2 and was still given time to crap his pants and shovel a handball forward
philreich
TheBrownDog
- Mar 2, 2014
- 58,533
- 147,412
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Was a very sad day. Thankfully it's not likely to be repeated any time soon, because they clearly won't be there this year. I've heard a rumour that Pyke will have his players on a tomato soup diet in the lead up to the finals, in the hope they don't choke in September, but I don't think it'll do the trick
.
But if the ball is higher up the post, and it goes past the post, it would be called a goal despite not crossing the line fully.
- Jul 3, 2016
- 557
- 1,134
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I didn't think Howe was that fast until I saw that, quality play!
Sent from my HUAWEI RIO-L02 using Tapatalk
ah................it still feels great
arupist
Premium Platinum
It might, but it shouldn't based on the wording of the rule.
cryptor
Brownlow Medallist
- May 11, 2008
- 23,489
- 58,794
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
One thing that I don't think you're taking into account is where the camera is. It's likely on the back of the opposite post and we don't know if it's angled back slightly or if it tries to line up directly with the same point in free space on the other goal post. Any change in angle here could make it look like it hadn't passed the back of the padding.
It's hard to say if this came into effect here because everything about the goal review system is amateur and half-assed. The camera equipment used is not at all suitable for capturing the granularity required to make these calls. I also highly doubt they've been calibrated in any way to factor in this kind of thing.
The score review system is good for correcting howlers and occasionally it can pick up a blurry finger that has been knocked back. But when it comes to determining where the ball has crossed the line in mid-air or for trying to capture any slight changes in angle off the post it is currently useless.
As others have said, thankfully it didn't effect the result. We won, so who really cares.
- Sep 27, 2012
- 28,095
- 55,436
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Bushrangers Tottenham Hotspur
Clarko will be the special guest on The Saturday Agenda on ABC radio this afternoon. Not sure exactly when but sometime between now and when the footy starts at 1.45pm.
Davo23
Brownlow Medallist
Veteran
10k Posts
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2021
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2021
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2020
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2020
Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2019
Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2019
I don't like Thursday games, but isn't it great having a "long" weekend afterwards? I'm feeling the glowing warmth of earth's warming glow and basking in a great win.
A couple of things:
1. I hear that Hodgey has acquired a new nickname; the boys are calling him "Shutup Hodgey". I wonder if it will catch on? I love Roughie and everything he brings as captain, but he's following a great, great leader, and any comparisons will be adverse. Just do your own thing, Roughie.
2. I still don't understand the Eddie Betts adulation. He's never done it against us, and we've been the best team of the last 7 - 8 years. If you want a Cyril comparison, look at Cyril in finals. Betts hasn't played many finals but he's been invisible in them.
3. And change your expectations, people. This is a young team on the up, it will take time and patience. Young players make more mistakes and have more lapses, and we have to back them to come good. The Hawks always strive to be the best and rarely let us down. We support the best sporting organisation in the world.
I've put a lot of posters on "ignore" this week. Posters saying "the Hawks are sh*t" in 999 different ways are just trolls looking for a reaction (I only hope they can see this!).
Go the Mighty Hawks!
A couple of things:
1. I hear that Hodgey has acquired a new nickname; the boys are calling him "Shutup Hodgey". I wonder if it will catch on? I love Roughie and everything he brings as captain, but he's following a great, great leader, and any comparisons will be adverse. Just do your own thing, Roughie.
2. I still don't understand the Eddie Betts adulation. He's never done it against us, and we've been the best team of the last 7 - 8 years. If you want a Cyril comparison, look at Cyril in finals. Betts hasn't played many finals but he's been invisible in them.
3. And change your expectations, people. This is a young team on the up, it will take time and patience. Young players make more mistakes and have more lapses, and we have to back them to come good. The Hawks always strive to be the best and rarely let us down. We support the best sporting organisation in the world.
I've put a lot of posters on "ignore" this week. Posters saying "the Hawks are sh*t" in 999 different ways are just trolls looking for a reaction (I only hope they can see this!).
Go the Mighty Hawks!
Changa10
Premiership Player
It shouldn't make a difference how high the ball is, it has to completely cross the goal line, which means it needs to clear the padding on goal posts.
However, I struggle to follow other interpretations of this game these days, so nothing would surprise me!
The Sizzle Factor
Debutant
- Sep 6, 2014
- 64
- 207
I posted this in the umps thread, thought I'd pop it here for those who still think the call last night was in any way debatable.
If it's a goal at the top, then it's a goal at the bottom. There are no two rules as far as I'm aware for how a goal is judged to have crossed the line. It's either over, or it's not.
The back of the padding is indeed on the line as the smaller image further below shows, so is the line marking incorrect? Is the padding out of position? Either way, if this is a goal at the height in the larger image, it's a goal full stop.
View attachment 384848
Thanks for the visuals. Clearly shows there's an issue. I thought the back of the actual post always used to align with the back of the line. Has the rule changed?
Should have been a goal in my book.
They changed the posts a few years back after a player ran into the corner of it (I think it was at VFL level)
In one of Fagan's (the Lions coach) interview he said, 'never write off the Hawks, the new & young players are still finding their way. if they gel then the whole comp LOOKOUT! (N.B. not his exact words but something to that effect).
Come on Hawks, hope this win will start something.
Come on Hawks, hope this win will start something.
The thing is, if that logic is to be correct, then the back of the whole post should be back at the same position as the back of the padding.
As it stands, there are two different goal lines depending on how high up the post you are looking.
If a ruckman decides to jump on somebody's shoulders, however unlikely, to get a touch to the ball in that exact same position horizontally, but far higher vertically, then we're judging if the line has been crossed based on the post, not the padding.
So higher up it's a goal, but lower down it's not?!
The rule as it's currently written is completely cooked. Clearly not much thought was put into it.
- Oct 5, 2008
- 8,854
- 20,601
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I posted this in the umps thread, thought I'd pop it here for those who still think the call last night was in any way debatable.
If it's a goal at the top, then it's a goal at the bottom. There are no two rules as far as I'm aware for how a goal is judged to have crossed the line. It's either over, or it's not.
The back of the padding is indeed on the line as the smaller image further below shows, so is the line marking incorrect? Is the padding out of position? Either way, if this is a goal at the height in the larger image, it's a goal full stop.
View attachment 384848
I started this thread a while ago on the 'Umpiring, MRP, Tribunal and Rules' board.
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/rules-at-exactly-what-point-does-a-goal-stand.1137267/
I never really got a definitive answer about what the rule was.
Wundo
Club Legend
Yeah I thought the same. Those late goals and all the momentum with Adelaide, combined with our dire third quarters and I thought we'd be blown away in the third, come back in the last a bit and lose by 30 or so points. Instead, we wrestled ascendancy back early in the third and just grew from there. Delightfully surprised!
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
