The Fate of Eric Reginald Hipwood III

[dogwatch]

I’ve created a monster. No, Dogwatch did.

Ahh, we’re back to disagreeing again.

 

[Wocka]

 

[Outback Footy]

Perfect example of the need for in match video review. And red cards.
Stop play when hipwood has the mark to send it "upstairs", review comes down, reverses the mark, awards gardy a free kick and a red card for hipwood. Lions down to 17 on the field for the rest of the game (at worst only 3 on the bench). This shit needs to be penalised and wasnt. That would have changed the game.
Stewart on Prestia another example where "upstairs" and a red card option would have changed the result. Cats stole a goal when Tiges were 17 on 18 and won by less than that. With Stewart BOG FFS!

 

[Doggies_13]

Hipwood arguing Gardner made illegal contact with him and caused the contact with the umpire

 

[Next Waiting]

I’ve created a monster. No, Dogwatch did.

Or a plan so cunning (adj) that you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel (Edmund Blackadder)

 

[Libba39]

ABC reporting decision in hipwoods favour.

Tend to agree based on the additional footage.

 

[dogwatch]

ABC reporting decision in hipwoods favour.

Tend to agree based on the additional footage.

So how many weeks did Gardner get?

 

[doggies ftw]

So how many weeks did Gardner get?

I’m fine with it being no weeks as I just don’t think you can prove intent (even though I think it’s pretty clear Hipwood knew what he was doing)

But I did lol at his defence that Gardner initiated an illegal Shepard that should have been a free kick against lmao, flipping come on

 

[dogwatch]

AFL should be grateful we lost by 7 goals. If it had only been 1-2 goals then Hipwood's free shot at goal arising from his committing an offence serious enough to be fined would probably have resulted in some people asking some awkward questions.

It seems the AFL isn't at all worried about the injustice to Gardner and the Dogs that resulted in an easy goal. Or the fact that such an act could influence a match result (just not this particular one). Their only concern seems to be that something caused an umpire to fall over mid-game.

 

[Sentinel]

Perfect example of the need for in match video review. And red cards.
Stop play when hipwood has the mark to send it "upstairs", review comes down, reverses the mark, awards gardy a free kick and a red card for hipwood. Lions down to 17 on the field for the rest of the game (at worst only 3 on the bench). This s**t needs to be penalised and wasnt. That would have changed the game.
Stewart on Prestia another example where "upstairs" and a red card option would have changed the result. Cats stole a goal when Tiges were 17 on 18 and won by less than that. With Stewart BOG FFS!

Strongly disagree.

In my opinion the Hipwood incident is actually a good case against introducing a red card (the Stewart incident on the other hand is an argument in favour of introducing it). I don't believe Hipwood meant to push Gardner into the umpire, I think he meant to give him a bit of a push to lead off him but the full result wasn't intended. From the first angle it looked to be more intentional until the reverse angle gave more context. A fine was appropriate given Hipwood's actions did result in umpire contact, and he was lucky to get a shot on goal from it but such a case is extremely rare and unlucky for us to be on the end of it - but how often does that really happen?

Would a quick review of an incident like that have all of the camera angles and be able to take into account the context that is provided in a tribunal hearing, in order to provide a decision about a highly dubious red card (which would definitely not be deserved in my opinion)? And do we really want a VAR type system constantly reviewing on-field umpiring decisions, given the farce that often is the ARC goal review?

 

[pz5151]

If I saw this incident and the Toby Greene

4

Toby Greene

Age

31

Ht

182cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.7

5star

K

12.5

5star

HB

10.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.0

5star

G

1.2

4star

D

17.5

4star

K

9.5

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.8

4star

T

1.0

2star

G

2.3

5star

D

26.6

5star

K

12.4

5star

HB

14.2

5star

M

4.8

5star

T

3.6

5star

G

0.0

1star

and was told one was a 6 week suspension and the other a fine, I would've said that seems fair...just not this way around.

 

[Outback Footy]

Strongly disagree.

In my opinion the Hipwood incident is actually a good case against introducing a red card (the Stewart incident on the other hand is an argument in favour of introducing it). I don't believe Hipwood meant to push Gardner into the umpire, I think he meant to give him a bit of a push to lead off him but the full result wasn't intended. From the first angle it looked to be more intentional until the reverse angle gave more context. A fine was appropriate given Hipwood's actions did result in umpire contact, and he was lucky to get a shot on goal from it but such a case is extremely rare and unlucky for us to be on the end of it - but how often does that really happen?

Would a quick review of an incident like that have all of the camera angles and be able to take into account the context that is provided in a tribunal hearing, in order to provide a decision about a highly dubious red card (which would definitely not be deserved in my opinion)? And do we really want a VAR type system constantly reviewing on-field umpiring decisions, given the farce that often is the ARC goal review?

Do you think the push in the back deserved a free?

 

[Sentinel]

Do you think the push in the back deserved a free?

Borderline. By the letter of the law contact is prohibited off the ball like that but the same thing happens many times per game without free kicks being rewarded - forwards and defenders are always trying to gain positional advantage.

It was just the umpire collision which made the contact between Hipwood and Gardner look worse (in isolation). If the umpire wasn't there nobody would have looked twice at what Hipwood did, I don't think it would have sent Gardner sprawling otherwise.

 

[josh the gent]

What a ludicrous result.

Without question Hipwood meant to push him into the umpire!

Almost like a screen in basketball, and was a clever piece of play to free him up for an easy goal. He even admitted to looking up and seeing Zac Bailey

33

Zac Bailey

Age

25

Ht

182cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.7

3star

K

6.9

3star

HB

5.9

4star

M

3.0

3star

T

2.2

4star

CL

0.9

3star

D

12.9

3star

K

7.3

3star

HB

5.6

3star

M

3.9

4star

T

2.4

3star

CL

0.7

3star

D

13.4

4star

K

6.6

3star

HB

6.8

5star

M

3.2

4star

T

2.8

5star

CL

0.6

3star

(who was in the same line of sight as the ump - who was closer to Hipwood).

Irrespective - 100% should have been a free kick to Gardner!

With regards to punishment - i have no doubt he didn’t mean to cause the level of impact that he did. Doesn’t mean it should be graded as careless, as it was still an intentional act.

No different to Stewart on Prestia - he didn’t mean to hurt him, but he definitely meant to run through him - i.e. intentional.

Outrageous that he didn’t get a couple of weeks!!!

Honestly it feels that Brisbane used any/all good footy karma they may have been owed on Thursday night’s game.

We were clearly second-best and would have lost regardless - but - the umps made an incredible number of calls (and non-calls) favouring them after Q1…

 

[Sentinel]

What a ludicrous result.

Without question Hipwood meant to push him into the umpire!

Almost like a screen in basketball, and was a clever piece of play to free him up for an easy goal. He even admitted to looking up and seeing Zac Bailey (who was in the same line of sight as the ump - who was closer to Hipwood).

Irrespective - 100% should have been a free kick to Gardner!

With regards to punishment - i have no doubt he didn’t mean to cause the level of impact that he did. Doesn’t mean it should be graded as careless, as it was still an intentional act.

No different to Stewart on Prestia - he didn’t mean to hurt him, but he definitely meant to run through him - i.e. intentional.

Outrageous that he didn’t get a couple of weeks!!!

Honestly it feels that Brisbane used any/all good footy karma they may have been owed on Thursday night’s game.

We were clearly second-best and would have lost regardless - but - the umps made an incredible number of calls (and non-calls) favouring them after Q1…

On the missed free kick, which umpire would be calling that? The umpire who was run into obviously wouldn't have known the circumstances given he was hit from behind, and it was off the ball so which of the other 2 umpires are likely to have even seen it?

 

[D Mitchell]

Ahh, we’re back to disagreeing again.

As it should be.

 

[DognBones]

 

[flamethrower]

Who would want to be an umpire? You get ZERO support from HQ when it comes to workplace OH&S.

Hipwood knew exactly what he was doing...using the umpire to create separation from an opponent is happening far too often. It mainly happens around stoppage, but is happening on leading patterns as well.

It needs to be eliminated, and a token fine is not going to change anything. Players only change behaviour when they are threatened with suspension.

 

[dogwatch]

As it should be.

Yes it worries me when I find myself agreeing with you. Or you agreeing with me.

I feel I must have missed something.

Anyway I agree with your post. No, wait …

 

[_Mike_]

Umpire who was pushed down should have called the ball back for a free to Gardner, but for some reason acting like a deer in headlights was better

 

[D Mitchell]

Yes it worries me when I find myself agreeing with you. Or you agreeing with me.

I feel I must have missed something.

Anyway I agree with your post. No, wait …

Disagreement is the spice of life

 

[dogwatch]

Umpire who was pushed down should have called the ball back for a free to Gardner, but for some reason acting like a deer in headlights was better

He wouldn’t have known what happened. Finding himself on the ground alongside Gardner the immediate thought would have been that Gardner was at fault.

It needed the nearest other umpire to call it … if he had a clear view … and was not watching the kicker for interference after he had disposed of it.

The more obvious missed free was when a Brisbane defender walked the ball through for a rushed behind when there was no rush, no pressure and nobody within a many metres of him. Should have been a goal square free to us.

Unfortunately that one hasn’t been the AFLs “rule of the week” for a long time now, so they choose not to enforce it. Once they were red hot on it. So it’s no wonder the rugby and round ball codes mock AFL for the randomness of the application of the rules.

 

[D Mitchell]

He wouldn’t have known what happened. Finding himself on the ground alongside Gardner the immediate thought would have been that Gardner was at fault.

It needed the nearest other umpire to call it … if he had a clear view … and was not watching the kicker for interference after he had disposed of it.

The more obvious missed free was when a Brisbane defender walked the ball through for a rushed behind when there was no rush, no pressure and nobody within a many metres of him. Should have been a goal square free to us.

Unfortunately that one hasn’t been the AFLs “rule of the week” for a long time now, so they choose not to enforce it. Once they were red hot on it. So it’s no wonder the rugby and round ball codes mock AFL for the randomness of the application of the rules.

Now, what can I find to disagree with in this post ? Hmm. The first sentence looks Ok. the 2nd ? nah, he's got that right. 3rd sentence ? not having watched the game, I'd better not intervene, this bloke'll catch me out. Ah, 4th sentence its..nah, he's sort of right. I'd better not post anything.

 

[ScragCity]

Wouldn't this render the statement tautologous? To have sufficient of anything is to have enough, so this rephrasing creates a redundancy that was at least well disguised in the original text. I'd also posit that, in DW's sentence, 'quick thinking' is a phrasal adjective and not a gerund, functioning as a complement in a subordinate clause.

PS. Go Dogs

I have no idea what any of this means, but it sounds incredibly smart. I've given this post a "like," not because I agree with it, but to signal to other posters that I understand it, even though I don't.

 

[W W Biscuit]

I have no idea what any of this means, but it sounds incredibly smart. I've given this post a "like," not because I agree with it, but to signal to other posters that I understand it, even though I don't.

I’m a linguistics grad and an English teacher, so I become very excited by the nuances of grammar. To level things out, I know very little about most other things. Including football, some might say .