30 minutes into the second quarter, Daniel Chick marks cleanly on members' wing. He is then met by Nathan Buckley, contacting him late, high, and with a forearm/elbow across the back of his head. Chick has his hands in the air, his back to his opponent, and is completely unprotected and open for a whack.
Now, Buckley is a professional footballer, and also as captain of Collingwood, he is duty bound to exert a physical presence on the field, and to make his opponents "earn" their possessions. I accept this as part of football, and am somewhat disappointed on occasions when my team doesn't make opponents "earn" their marks like Essendon seem to do with impunity.
However, not only has Daniel Chick taken the mark before the contact, he is pushed in the back, taken high and has had the ball knocked out of his hands. For mine, a clear fifty metre penalty - the precedent was set in the first quarter with Mark Graham on Josh Fraser: a very similar incident where the mark was paid, the fifty was paid and Collingwood got a gift goal.
BUT
Not only is there no 50 metre penalty paid, the umpire (Sheahan, surprise surprise) doesn't even pay the mark OR the free kick. "Play on" he whines pitifully.
Alright, bad decision - we get more of those than most, but we're used to it.
Chick is dirty on the world, he's just been sniped from behind after marking, and got no reward. He's a proud tough bloke, and he's now angry as well. The very next piece of play sees him within striking distance of Brodie Holland with the ball! Remember that phrase: with the ball.
Chick goes in hard, perhaps recklessly, but his attack on the man is legitimised because Holland has the ball. He hit him hard, perhaps high as well. Scumpire Sheahan - for once - makes the correct decision and pays Collingwood a free kick.
Now, what has happened here is that Hawthorn have been on the wrong end of three shocking decisions (no fifty, no mark, no free), and one correct one. Chick was upset at umpiring incompetence, but lost his cool and paid the price with a free kick for a high tackle on a man with the ball.
But the umpires - specifically that bloody walking abortion Bryan Sheahan - watching the video of the game have seen fit to charge him with "unduly rough play". This is absolutely outrageous! He has laid a tackle. A crude, pretty rough tackle. But a tackle. And he's been cited on a "catch-all" charge that is specifically designed to get a guilty verdict practically every time it's brought up, simply because it covers so much territory.
Was it rough? Yes. Was it unduly rough? No possible way. Hard, but directed at a man with the ball. Was it rougher than Buckley was on Chick seconds before. No possible way. Holland wasn't unprotected, could see Chick, and was owed no protection from the umpire because the ball was in play. Chick had none of these, but was still collected. Was it rougher than Anthony Rocca breaking Brett O'Farrell's jaw? Does this need to be answered?
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I believe (hope) that umpiring inconsistencies even out in the final analysis. But I'm very tired of how Hawthorn are constantly on the wrong end of fifty-fifty decisions this year, how the same incident is a free kick to the opposition, but not to us. The free kick stats are remarkable, but they only tell half the story.
It's already arguably cost us a game (Geelong), it has indisputedly cost us percentage - the bare numbers and the number of frees in front of goal to the opposition tells us that, and now it's likely to cost us our second-best and hardest on-baller against the best midfield in the competition.
It's sh|t, and I've had enough.
Now, Buckley is a professional footballer, and also as captain of Collingwood, he is duty bound to exert a physical presence on the field, and to make his opponents "earn" their possessions. I accept this as part of football, and am somewhat disappointed on occasions when my team doesn't make opponents "earn" their marks like Essendon seem to do with impunity.
However, not only has Daniel Chick taken the mark before the contact, he is pushed in the back, taken high and has had the ball knocked out of his hands. For mine, a clear fifty metre penalty - the precedent was set in the first quarter with Mark Graham on Josh Fraser: a very similar incident where the mark was paid, the fifty was paid and Collingwood got a gift goal.
BUT
Not only is there no 50 metre penalty paid, the umpire (Sheahan, surprise surprise) doesn't even pay the mark OR the free kick. "Play on" he whines pitifully.
Alright, bad decision - we get more of those than most, but we're used to it.
Chick is dirty on the world, he's just been sniped from behind after marking, and got no reward. He's a proud tough bloke, and he's now angry as well. The very next piece of play sees him within striking distance of Brodie Holland with the ball! Remember that phrase: with the ball.
Chick goes in hard, perhaps recklessly, but his attack on the man is legitimised because Holland has the ball. He hit him hard, perhaps high as well. Scumpire Sheahan - for once - makes the correct decision and pays Collingwood a free kick.
Now, what has happened here is that Hawthorn have been on the wrong end of three shocking decisions (no fifty, no mark, no free), and one correct one. Chick was upset at umpiring incompetence, but lost his cool and paid the price with a free kick for a high tackle on a man with the ball.
But the umpires - specifically that bloody walking abortion Bryan Sheahan - watching the video of the game have seen fit to charge him with "unduly rough play". This is absolutely outrageous! He has laid a tackle. A crude, pretty rough tackle. But a tackle. And he's been cited on a "catch-all" charge that is specifically designed to get a guilty verdict practically every time it's brought up, simply because it covers so much territory.
Was it rough? Yes. Was it unduly rough? No possible way. Hard, but directed at a man with the ball. Was it rougher than Buckley was on Chick seconds before. No possible way. Holland wasn't unprotected, could see Chick, and was owed no protection from the umpire because the ball was in play. Chick had none of these, but was still collected. Was it rougher than Anthony Rocca breaking Brett O'Farrell's jaw? Does this need to be answered?
I'm no conspiracy theorist, and I believe (hope) that umpiring inconsistencies even out in the final analysis. But I'm very tired of how Hawthorn are constantly on the wrong end of fifty-fifty decisions this year, how the same incident is a free kick to the opposition, but not to us. The free kick stats are remarkable, but they only tell half the story.
It's already arguably cost us a game (Geelong), it has indisputedly cost us percentage - the bare numbers and the number of frees in front of goal to the opposition tells us that, and now it's likely to cost us our second-best and hardest on-baller against the best midfield in the competition.
It's sh|t, and I've had enough.
