It's not the mistakes........it's this........

[BruceFromBalnarring]

http://www.afl.com.au/video/2016-04-26/crows-not-denied

Four decisions, three embarrassingly political responses.

1. Why not just say "Umpire didn't see the fake handball. If he had, he would have paid a free."

2. Why not just say "Umpire saw the jumper hold but didn't understand at the time Buddy's intent was to save the Eagle from smashing his head open. If he had, he wouldn't have paid the free."

3. Why not just say "Umpire didn't see how the Tiger was restricted in coming forward to take the mark. If he had, he would have paid a free the other way or play on."

Emotion aside, most of us can cop errors. It's when Kennedy and Ball stare at a camera and say errors aren't errors that it just gets embarrassing. And insulting. And leads the emotional to wonder what the * is going on......

 

[Pea Nut]

That makes me so angry !!! When will they actually be held to account ?? They just lie and make s**t up and sweep stuff under the rug and that is supposed to be acceptable ?? What a joke !!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

I don't want this to be a thread so much about the Smith decision and Adelaide being robbed. They were robbed, but it was more an accumulation of decisions over 5 minutes rather than that specific one. The specific decision, error as it was, was an understandable error taken in isolation.

What is pathetic is how they refuse to ever own errors. The narrative should be that mistakes are made, no one is perfect, least of all the players. We all move on. Now whether a series of decisions get made which seem to benefit one side in particular is another story, but again, for another thread.

This is about the bullshit, and the consequent disrespect for the umpiring fraternity.

 

[Wil79]

The error was not pinging sloan for a high tackle. I'm more bewildered that they didn't comment on that. It's clearly visible in the replay.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

The error was not pinging sloan for a high tackle. I'm more bewildered that they didn't comment on that. It's clearly visible in the replay.

The holding the ball occurred before the tackle slipped high.

Don't defend the indefensible. You got very lucky. Again.

 

[Wil79]

The holding the ball occurred before the tackle slipped high.

Don't defend the indefensible. You got very lucky. Again.

Rubbish. He'd had the ball for a fraction of a second. Watch it in normal speed.

 

[The Matador]

Rubbish. He'd had the ball for a fraction of a second. Watch it in normal speed.

you're delusional. there is a reason that supporters from the rest of the league has been up in arms about it, not just crows fans. hawthorn have been gifted a win by the umpiring panel/fan club for the third time.

 

[Wil79]

you're delusional. there is a reason that supporters from the rest of the league has been up in arms about it, not just crows fans. hawthorn have been gifted a win by the umpiring panel/fan club for the third time.

Not delusional at all. It is about the disposal. The high tackle was before the disposal (in any case, the ball was stripped out).

 

[smeltitdeltit]

i want to know why the ball was down there in the first place!!!!! why wasnt the bounce recalled? what a fckn joke . its an outrage!!!

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

Not delusional at all. It is about the disposal. The high tackle was before the disposal (in any case, the ball was stripped out).

Where's the proof of the high tackle? I can't see it in the footage.

 

[djboonie]

My question is. Where did Charlie Cameron go?

This is one of the worlds great mysteries...

 

[The Matador]

Not delusional at all. It is about the disposal. The high tackle was before the disposal (in any case, the ball was stripped out).

Obviously delusional and clueless. Smith pinning the ball to his own chest and then pretending to punch the ball without an opposition player laying a finger on him would constitute prior opportunity, then just going limp to ensure the ball was stripped would constitute incorrect disposal. That is holding the ball on two counts.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

My question is. Where did Charlie Cameron go?

This is one of the worlds great mysteries...

Clear evidence of time travel.

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Where's the proof of the high tackle? I can't see it in the footage.
View attachment 240044 View attachment 240045

 

[djboonie]

Clear evidence of time travel.

Predestination....

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

View attachment 240049

Fair enough. Hadn't seen that shot, but he's got him around the waist here, which is prior to that and is copping some high contact of his own. So holding the ball and high contact against Smith, both happen prior to Sloane's high contact.

 

[Wil79]

View attachment 240053
Fair enough. Hadn't seen that shot, but he's got him around the waist here, which is prior to that and is copping some high contact of his own. So holding the ball and high contact against Smith, both happen prior to Sloane's high contact.

Looking at stills and slow mo is one thing, seeing it at full speed is another. It's fair to say it was a difficult call for the ump.

Now I would never, ever suggest that Bigfooty posters are one eyed , but I imagine most supporters would be aggrieved if THEIR TEAM was pinged in this situation and lost the game because of it.

Looking forward to round 6

 

[smeltitdeltit]

Where's the proof of the high tackle? I can't see it in the footage.
View attachment 240044 View attachment 240045

View attachment 240053
Fair enough. Hadn't seen that shot, but he's got him around the waist here, which is prior to that and is copping some high contact of his own. So holding the ball and high contact against Smith, both happen prior to Sloane's high contact.

Sloane ran into smith to lay the tackle, Smith didn't try to fend off etc etc, so it can't be high to Sloane, otherwise don't bother tackling just run head first into the player with the ball!

From the time Smith caught the ball at full stretch to the ball coming free was shy of two seconds. The point that Sloane initiates the tackle is about half way through, his tackle is legal for less than 100 milliseconds, before slipping high. Pedantic I know, but seeing as we're viewing the footage in slow mo and all.

Now, why was the ball even there in the first place? Why wasn't the centre bounce recalled?
Why is absolutely nobody whinging about that? Well that's because it doesn't suit their narrative.

 

[Wil79]

View attachment 240053
Fair enough. Hadn't seen that shot, but he's got him around the waist here, which is prior to that and is copping some high contact of his own. So holding the ball and high contact against Smith, both happen prior to Sloane's high contact.

Except Sloan initiated the contact, so they were never going to call high contact on Smith whose arm did not move.

 

[Admiral Ackbar]

The more I watch the more obvious it becomes that it is a free kick. I mean he had all the time in the world to dispose of it.

 

[Pea Nut]

Now, why was the ball even there in the first place? Why wasn't the centre bounce recalled?
Why is absolutely nobody whinging about that? Well that's because it doesn't suit their narrative.

It certainly should have been recalled, but it wasn't the Adelaide ruckman that got a tap to advantage, the bounce gave Hawthorn a huge advantage and Jacobs had no chance of getting anywhere near it. It was your ruckman who punched it straight towards three crows players coming off the back of the square.

 

[Wil79]

The more I watch the more obvious it becomes that it is a free kick. I mean he had all the time in the world to dispose of it.

Just goes to show Hawthorn supporters can be wrong too

 

[smeltitdeltit]

It certainly should have been recalled, but it wasn't the Adelaide ruckman that got a tap to advantage, the bounce gave Hawthorn a huge advantage and Jacobs had no chance of getting anywhere near it. It was your ruckman who punched it straight towards three crows players coming off the back of the square.

I know. I'm sure McEvoy copped a pasting for it.
But irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[Theprofessional]

Jeez that Richmond one is rough- he did get his hands on it?

All those decisions imo are wrong. Faking a handpass? He didn't want to get rid of it so he tucked his arm in and faked handpass and drew contact.

Buddy one is arguably there but so so so soft, he held him for a bit let go than grabbed him before he went into the fence? Jesus. Some terrible answers as well

 

[Pea Nut]

I know. I'm sure McEvoy copped a pasting for it.
But irrelevant to the conversation.

C'mon ?? Is it irrelevant, or does it not 'suit the narrative' ?? It can't be both. It is relevant for either 1 of two reasons. The umpires are completely incompetent and inept and are not up to umpiring AFL standard, or they saw the bounce give the Hawthorn ruckman a huge advantage and let it go. There is an argument for both. You choose.

I still don't think that the Smith HTB decision was the biggest problem in that game anyway, as bad as it was. The decision against Tex when going back with the flight to attempt a mark, that is as soft as they come, and an absolutely ridiculous decision. And not paying the pack mark that Lynch took, that was the killer. That decision seriously shifted the momentum. That mark gets paid 100 times out of 100.