Brereton and Walls on SEN

[TheWoodenSlug]

From the Giesch himself:

"By the time he (Duncan) took the ball and took one step to turn to kick and another step to balance to kick, he was tackled by Rioli," he said.

"In that case we've deemed that he hadn't had a prior opportunity. Had he taken three or four paces, that would've been different. So, we are comfortable with the play-on call there."

 

[Senatorguesty]

From the Giesch himself:

"By the time he (Duncan) took the ball and took one step to turn to kick and another step to balance to kick, he was tackled by Rioli," he said.

"In that case we've deemed that he hadn't had a prior opportunity. Had he taken three or four paces, that would've been different. So, we are comfortable with the play-on call there."

Although I can agree why it wasnt a free (I also think it was tho) I wouldnt listen to anything he says. He'll find a way, ANY way to say the umpire was correct.

 

[fpm84]

Although I can agree why it wasnt a free (I also think it was tho) I wouldnt listen to anything he says. He'll find a way, ANY way to say the umpire was correct.

But he did say that the free kick to Harry O'Brien in the dying seconds on Saturday night was incorrect. It cost St Kilda a draw, too.

 

[Senatorguesty]

But he did say that the free kick to Harry O'Brien in the dying seconds on Saturday night was incorrect. It cost St Kilda a draw, too.

Well even he couldnt defend that decision surely!
It may also cost us top 4... dont forget that one aswell.

 

[Hoffy95]

From the Giesch himself:

"By the time he (Duncan) took the ball and took one step to turn to kick and another step to balance to kick, he was tackled by Rioli," he said.

"In that case we've deemed that he hadn't had a prior opportunity. Had he taken three or four paces, that would've been different. So, we are comfortable with the play-on call there."

So on Giesh logic, you could stand there with the ball for 5 minutes, not take a step, get tackled, play on.

The only way it wasn't holding the ball is if the ball was deemed to have been knocked out in the tackle. Probably should have gone down this path as this was at least a reasonable argument.

 

[fpm84]

So on Giesh logic, you could stand there with the ball for 5 minutes, not take a step, get tackled, play on.

The only way it wasn't holding the ball is if the ball was deemed to have been knocked out in the tackle. Probably should have gone down this path as this was at least a reasonable argument.

Agree, Duncan definitely had prior opportunity. Whether Rioli knocked the ball out of his hand is another question. But you know what, I'm happy to take the lucky break - watching the replay, at least three Hawthorn goals were the result of questionable umpiring decisions (shocking in the back to Lewis in Q1, Hale 'mark' when he's the third player to touch the ball in Q2, Rioli 'mark' when Mackie pushed squarely in the back by Hodge). Not to mention the Burgoyne throw in our goal square that wasn't seen by the umpire... a lucky decision that went our way in the final 2 minutes doesn't make up for everything that happened before it, but it helped.

 

[Senatorguesty]

Agree, Duncan definitely had prior opportunity. Whether Rioli knocked the ball out of his hand is another question. But you know what, I'm happy to take the lucky break - watching the replay, at least three Hawthorn goals were the result of questionable umpiring decisions (shocking in the back to Lewis in Q1, Hale 'mark' when he's the third player to touch the ball in Q2, Rioli 'mark' when Mackie pushed squarely in the back by Hodge). Not to mention the Burgoyne throw in our goal square that wasn't seen by the umpire... a lucky decision that went our way in the final 2 minutes doesn't make up for everything that happened before it, but it helped.

This exactly.
The ball was maybe knocked up by Rioli directly or by the tackle (in which case its holding the ball) but in all honesty I'd rather see 1 or 2 like that be let off and the game decided by the players and NOT the umpires.
The real question is what the hell was Duncan doing taking so damn long to dispose of the footy! I love Mitch, think he has taken the next step this year and will become an elite mid so I'm not smacking him for it and I'm sure they/he will look at it and learn from it.

On the Harry O call, likewise I'd be asking myself if I was a pies supporter (OMG I feel sick) why cant he take a simple mark....
Also I think that could cost us a top 4 spot, Collingwood have 2 games they may lose before the end of the year, losing those 2 and having us win all of ours I believe would have us on equal points (now) yet if that wasnt called and it was a draw beating the Swans would put us 2 points above the pies and into 4th.
Still unlikely really as that means they would lose this week against the swans and then lose to WCE (which I dont think they will).

 

[OldStyle2007]

This exactly.
The ball was maybe knocked up by Rioli directly or by the tackle (in which case its holding the ball) but in all honesty I'd rather see 1 or 2 like that be let off and the game decided by the players and NOT the umpires.
The real question is what the hell was Duncan doing taking so damn long to dispose of the footy! I love Mitch, think he has taken the next step this year and will become an elite mid so I'm not smacking him for it and I'm sure they/he will look at it and learn from it.

On the Harry O call, likewise I'd be asking myself if I was a pies supporter (OMG I feel sick) why cant he take a simple mark....
Also I think that could cost us a top 4 spot, Collingwood have 2 games they may lose before the end of the year, losing those 2 and having us win all of ours I believe would have us on equal points (now) yet if that wasnt called and it was a draw beating the Swans would put us 2 points above the pies and into 4th.
Still unlikely really as that means they would lose this week against the swans and then lose to WCE (which I dont think they will).

I think you'll find he had it for about 2 steps for total time of less than a second

Prior opportunity used to be around about the time you'd be thinking about bouncing the ball

Now it seems to be as soon as the player catches it.

Ridiculous. Rules should always favour the attacking side - not the defending side.

 

[Senatorguesty]

I think you'll find he had it for about 2 steps for total time of less than a second

Prior opportunity used to be around about the time you'd be thinking about bouncing the ball

Now it seems to be as soon as the player catches it.

Ridiculous. Rules should always favour the attacking side - not the defending side.

Absolutely agree, prior opportunity now seems to be the split second when you receive the ball not when you have had SOME time to consider your options. I just think with Duncan then a quick handball sideways to a free Cats player (cant remember who) would have been better, or maybe a quick kick forward. I understand why he took all of 1.1533 seconds because hitting a target was paramount.

 

[vinum coupe]

Duncan was caught in my opinion. Taking into account how the game was officiated on the night.

I would prefer that the rule was continued to be interpreted as the Duncan decision was.
But there were half a dozen holding the ball decisions paid on the night where the ball carrier had far less time.
There was no prior opportunity what so ever.

 

[Senatorguesty]

Duncan was caught in my opinion. Taking into account how the game was officiated on the night.

I would prefer that the rule was continued to be interpreted as the Duncan decision was.
But there were half a dozen holding the ball decisions paid on the night where the ball carrier had far less time.
There was no prior opportunity what so ever.

Agreed.
So really then the umpire considered when in the game the decision was made and decided to err on the side of caution, the COMPLETE opposite to that muppet that paid the free to Harry "Here to spread hope" O.

 

[CF]

Hawthorn had 8 weeks of having it their own way with little pressure put on their midfield in particular. They came out and played like that in the 1st quarter against Geelong and we know what happened. The point is (and I think this is what the media is saying) that it was a wake up call for the hawks about the difference between H&A footy and Finals Footy. Geelong put finals like pressure on them and they were caught out. I agree with Dermie/Walls that the Hawks will be better off for the experience in the long run and that makes them a very scary proposition for the rest of the year.

I still think the way to beat Hawthorn is to shut down their midfield to starve their forward line and then exploit their shorter backline. But I hate to say it that the 2012 Hawks are going to be very tough to beat in the finals because they have a good combination of stars, speed, mature bodies, and recent finals experience.

 

[footscore]

lol
great call by the Brereton + Walls

 

[dazbroncos]

lol
great call by the Brereton + Walls

nice bump....

Go Catters

 

[Turkey Tom]

They were nearly right! Too bad the game they lost was the last one that had to play.