Could the doggies have won!?

[Some Idiot]

I love how people say Hawthorn's physical game got them over the line, despite the doggies winning contested possessions by a long way

 

[blackhead&boil]

The 2 decisions that stood out to me were Hodge's "360", in which he did spin 360 degrees. What shocked me about it was it was the first time I have seen that ridiculous rule paid this season, and have seen countless players from every other team get tackled in the same manner and not get pinged for it.

The other was Ozzie's "unreasonable" marking attempt in which he got 2 hands to the ball and spilled the ball to Roughy, who snagged one to bring the scores level again, but of course this was all disallowed.

They stood out in my mind. I can't wait for this round to be over so the media can mince the Giesch's balls for giving away too many free kicks/50m penalties, and wait for his next knee jerk reaction

I don't blame the umpire too much for the hodge one. I think the replay reveals that he first turned 180, then was tackled, then turned a bit more so he could handball to a team mate. I can see how he may have seen that as being spun in a full circle. I was a bit miffed later when the WB player was turned in a circle and allowed to play on, though.

the roughead OOB deliberate should never have been paid, and correctly wasn't. sure, he kicked the ball with the intention of it going OOB, but he also kicked it 30m upfield and along the boundary rather than towards it. the umpires almost never pay a forward kick as deliberate (unless it's mitchell vs brisbane). I thought that the WB walking the ball over the line when it had stopped was closer to deliberate, but again those are never paid and that one shouldn't have been either...

 

[themarkedman72]

The crowd where right to be aggrieved at the level of umpiring last night and clearly most neutrals feel similarly.

The hawks have had a fair even go the last month but last night we where on the receiving end of the Mcburney whistle of death.

The howlers are too many to list and many are already mentioned prior. This is a story.
Saying that the hawks play close to the line is dismissing what people can see with their eyes.
WAS A great game but if the dogs won it would have read
dogs best: Lake, Mcburney and Vozzo.

 

[blackhead&boil]

A question for someone with a knowledge of the rule book. Does the umpire have the ability to pay a free kick after the final siren? If Griffin had realised what was going on and decided to try and shepherd the ball through and there was an infringement such as Griffin hanging on to Ellis' jumper to stop him getting to the ball or vice versa, Ellis infringing to get to the ball, could the ump have paid a free even though the siren had sounded?

If there is a melee at half time the umps are powerless to do anything as they can't pay a free. Just wondering as it could possibly have happened had Griffin had his wits about him.

I would guess that they would only be able to pay a free while the ball is in play. in this case, until the ball has been touched by another player it is still live, so he could have paid a free if one had been there.

that's my interpretation, anyway...

 

[Igloo]

I don't blame the umpire too much for the hodge one. I think the replay reveals that he first turned 180, then was tackled, then turned a bit more so he could handball to a team mate. I can see how he may have seen that as being spun in a full circle. I was a bit miffed later when the WB player was turned in a circle and allowed to play on, though.

the roughead OOB deliberate should never have been paid, and correctly wasn't. sure, he kicked the ball with the intention of it going OOB, but he also kicked it 30m upfield and along the boundary rather than towards it. the umpires almost never pay a forward kick as deliberate (unless it's mitchell vs brisbane). I thought that the WB walking the ball over the line when it had stopped was closer to deliberate, but again those are never paid and that one shouldn't have been either...

Well if he kicked it with the intention of it going OOB, then that is deliberate. I believe that this should be paid a lot more than it is. It slows down the game, and is an easy option in close games in which teams can make sure the clock just runs down. If the free is paid more, then people wont look to the boundary as often. It would increase the excitement of close games. It doesn't matter how far they kick it, if they deliberately kick it out of bounds, then it should be paid as a deliberate out of bounds free kick

 

[Bell Ringer]

I don't blame the umpire too much for the hodge one. I think the replay reveals that he first turned 180, then was tackled, then turned a bit more so he could handball to a team mate. I can see how he may have seen that as being spun in a full circle. I was a bit miffed later when the WB player was turned in a circle and allowed to play on, though.

the roughead OOB deliberate should never have been paid, and correctly wasn't. sure, he kicked the ball with the intention of it going OOB, but he also kicked it 30m upfield and along the boundary rather than towards it. the umpires almost never pay a forward kick as deliberate (unless it's mitchell vs brisbane). I thought that the WB walking the ball over the line when it had stopped was closer to deliberate, but again those are never paid and that one shouldn't have been either...

Read the rule-book; intention is all that matters in this instance, nothing to do wth metre's gained.

Whitnall used to get done for it every now and then.

 

[flamethrower]

i am so glad i am not the only one and not being one eyed about it.. the only reason bulldogs got within 3 is they gave a 50 against franklin for... for what exactly?

happy enough for that snrub, but two of the penalties were clearly wrong.

Muston attempting to close down ? on the goal line, mark taken 1m out. Muston pulls up 2-3m from the line, but the whistle goes before he even gets that close.

Franklin's opponent standing next to the kicker, he starts heading towards his man (keeping the 5m zone wide), Grant plays on and runs directly at Franklin who of course reacts, and is penalised.

Both these decisions were incredibly harsh, and the Grant one had been called play-on all night prior.

Just happy the umpires were unsuccessful in the end.

The 50m penalty against Buddy was for infringing on the 5m protected zone. The umpires have been paying this all season on players who come in from the side, regardless of their intentions.

The 50m against Muston was because he ran forward towards the Bulldogs player over the mark...they are consistent at paying this one too.

As for Griffen he knew that once the siren goes, as a player from the attacking team, if he is involved in any contest at all the ball is dead and the game is over. Only the defending team is allowed to contest the ball to prevent a score once the siren has gone.

 

[blackhead&boil]

Well if he kicked it with the intention of it going OOB, then that is deliberate. I believe that this should be paid a lot more than it is. It slows down the game, and is an easy option in close games in which teams can make sure the clock just runs down. If the free is paid more, then people wont look to the boundary as often. It would increase the excitement of close games. It doesn't matter how far they kick it, if they deliberately kick it out of bounds, then it should be paid as a deliberate out of bounds free kick

I agree with you, but the umpires don't interpret it that way. it would have been grossly inconsistent to plug ruffy for that one given all the other ones that never get paid.

but yes, deliberate should be paid a lot more often than it is, for sure. it's very frustrating...

 

[blackhead&boil]

The 50m penalty against Buddy was for infringing on the 5m protected zone. The umpires have been paying this all season on players who come in from the side, regardless of their intentions.

The 50m against Muston was because he ran forward towards the Bulldogs player over the mark...they are consistent at paying this one too.

As for Griffen he knew that once the siren goes, as a player from the attacking team, if he is involved in any contest at all the ball is dead and the game is over. Only the defending team is allowed to contest the ball to prevent a score once the siren has gone.

thanks for clearing this up...

 

[Ted's Robot]

The 50m penalty against Buddy was for infringing on the 5m protected zone. The umpires have been paying this all season on players who come in from the side, regardless of their intentions.

The 50m against Muston was because he ran forward towards the Bulldogs player over the mark...they are consistent at paying this one too.

As for Griffen he knew that once the siren goes, as a player from the attacking team, if he is involved in any contest at all the ball is dead and the game is over. Only the defending team is allowed to contest the ball to prevent a score once the siren has gone.

Finally someone making sense. Well done hawks you won, I would be happy with that. I think the dogs could list a few dubious decisions as well but what is the point? It does not change anything.

 

[giantsully]

The crowd where right to be aggrieved at the level of umpiring last night and clearly most neutrals feel similarly.

The hawks have had a fair even go the last month but last night we where on the receiving end of the Mcburney whistle of death.

The howlers are too many to list and many are already mentioned prior. This is a story.
Saying that the hawks play close to the line is dismissing what people can see with their eyes.
WAS A great game but if the dogs won it would have read
dogs best: Lake, Mcburney and Vozzo.

Nup. Hawks fans are taking over from Bombers fans as the biggest whingers about imaginary umpire bias - and that's really saying something.

 

[ANGEL DARK]

The 50m penalty against Buddy was for infringing on the 5m protected zone. The umpires have been paying this all season on players who come in from the side, regardless of their intentions.

The 50m against Muston was because he ran forward towards the Bulldogs player over the mark...they are consistent at paying this one too.

As for Griffen he knew that once the siren goes, as a player from the attacking team, if he is involved in any contest at all the ball is dead and the game is over. Only the defending team is allowed to contest the ball to prevent a score once the siren has gone.

I thought the 50m against Buddy was a joke as he just happened to be standing in the area as the bulldogs player began running around the mark and Buddy began to move towards him only after the bulldogs player played on and got pinged for it. This rule is a joke because by the time the ump signals play on if a player runs around or off his mark he has already taken several steps and the natural progression from an oppostion player in the area is to run towards him so i cant understand why he should be penalised for it

 

[estibador]

The 2 decisions that stood out to me were Hodge's "360", in which he did spin 360 degrees. What shocked me about it was it was the first time I have seen that ridiculous rule paid this season, and have seen countless players from every other team get tackled in the same manner and not get pinged for it.

Nah it's usually only Judd and Ablett who get away with that one regularly.

 

[Chattanooga]

Nup. Hawks fans are taking over from Bombers fans as the biggest whingers about imaginary umpire bias - and that's really saying something.

So, so, true. Until last night I would have said Essendon fans win that battle hands down, but the Hawks have made up amazing ground recently.

Had I closed my eyes when they started the childish "bullshit...bullshit..." chant I would have sworn as I was surrounded by fans wearing the red & black.

 

[Jess' Doggies!!]

NO because the Hawks were at least a 5 goal better team on the night! only the umps kept the dogs in it.

did they even kick a goal that wasn't ump involved ?

You're joking aren't you! The Hawks first goal was from a mark that was paid to Renouf that was in no way a mark! And the second was the free to Roughead which was a disgraceful decision for sheparding!

Hawks wanted it more - was blatantly obvious in the 4th qtr - don't ruin a good win with garbage like this!!

 

[brmi]

griffen should have tried to sheppard the ball to at least bounce... i have watched him closely since he came to the club and he is a dumb footballer.

he has amazing skill and pace, but footy smarts, zero.

 

[The_Ru]

I watched this game as a complete neutral. No interest in either side beyond hoping to see a good game (which it was). My reading of the umpiring was that the Hodge HTB was a mistake which the ump will be embarrassed about when he reviews the game. Same goes for the 'unrealistic attempt to mark' decision. The 50s were technical BUT they were there and this week has seen the umps crack down on these across all teams in all games. I also thought the Renouf mark early was a shocker as well.

Overall I didn't get the sense there was a particular bias one way or the other. Some people need to think about how many mistakes their players make compared with how many the umps make and weigh up which has the greater impact.

Getting back to the OP. I believe technically if Griffen engages Ellis in a contest once the siren's gone the game is over. It would be interesting to see if the umpires knew this and the reaction if the ball had gone through and they had applied this rule. Maybe Griffen knows the rules better than 99% of fans (including his coach)?

 

[Saint Sacca]

griffen should have tried to sheppard the ball to at least bounce... i have watched him closely since he came to the club and he is a dumb footballer.

he has amazing skill and pace, but footy smarts, zero.[/quote

Agree in the fact that there was a slight chance it could have gone through, for the kick to come after the siren and for him to stop without trying to Sheppard was just puzzling.

 

[aussieicon91]

If the dogs were assisted by the umpires all night, can anyone explain to me how the first two goals of the game were umpire assisted HAWTHORN goals?

The first goal should've been a freekick to Franklin anyway - who was being held in the contest by Lake.

Anyways the siren should've gone before the bulldogs player kicked the ball. Siren went a second or two after the clock had counted down to 00:00.

 

[SJ]

The first goal should've been a freekick to Franklin anyway - who was being held in the contest by Lake.

Anyways the siren should've gone before the bulldogs player kicked the ball. Siren went a second or two after the clock had counted down to 00:00.

The television clock has nothing to do with the official clock though.

 

[Igloo]

griffen should have tried to sheppard the ball to at least bounce... i have watched him closely since he came to the club and he is a dumb footballer.

he has amazing skill and pace, but footy smarts, zero.

That is very, very wrong. He definately needs to work on reading the game defensively, but offensively he has great footy smarts. He can read the play going forward extremely well.

 

[hirthy]

A question for someone with a knowledge of the rule book. Does the umpire have the ability to pay a free kick after the final siren? If Griffin had realised what was going on and decided to try and shepherd the ball through and there was an infringement such as Griffin hanging on to Ellis' jumper to stop him getting to the ball or vice versa, Ellis infringing to get to the ball, could the ump have paid a free even though the siren had sounded?

If there is a melee at half time the umps are powerless to do anything as they can't pay a free. Just wondering as it could possibly have happened had Griffin had his wits about him.

I understand the rule is an umpire can't pay a freekick after the siren, Griffen could have tackled him, tripped him even a trainer a runner or a yobbo jumping the fence in the crowd could have taken out Ellis and if it rolled through for a goal it would have counted.

 

[The_Ru]

OK I have just checked the rules here and it seems that Griffen could have shepherded the ball, however IF the umpire deemed the shepherd illegal he could have awarded a free kick to Ellis. My earlier post was confusing the rule about the attacking team not being able to punch the ball through.