Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in finals history?

[winty]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

That's always the textbook answer isn't it, but the point remains that Hawkins clearly hit the post, and that was a far worse umpiring decision than Mooney pushing out Gwilt.

If you viewed it from a neutral perspective, and saw a ball clearly hitting the post yet being decided as a goal, and then watched a guy receive a possibly dubious interpretive decision for being pushed in the back, you could tell which time the umpire stuffed it up worse.

The difference IMO is St.Kilda had over a half a game of football to get that goal back, and it could be argued, and has been in this thread, that the double goal you got at the end of the second quarter was the "square up".

Geelong had all the running when the Mooney free was paid, and if play was allowed to continue, would've hit the lead with less than a minute remaining. The free kick allowed you to move the ball to the other end of the ground and keep it there.

I guess you could say that the free kick was technically there, but as others have said in both this thread and elsewhere on BigFooty, and not all of them are Geelong fans mind you, you see numerous instances where the exact same thing happens at other times during games, yet are not pulled up by the umpires. The fact that this one was at such a crucial stage of the game is what is really irritating Geelong fans at the moment.

 

[jimmy.h]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

Sorry to have to say it, but Hawkins hitting the post was a FAR worse decision, because it is a clear cut rule, not an interpretive rule. And if you feel like you got jibbed, well how the hell do you think St Kilda felt last year?

St Kilda lost by 12 points. Take the 5 points off and you lose by 7. Not sure if losing a GF by 12 points feels a lot worse than losing one by 7.

Geelong lost by 4 points. Add the 6 points on and we win by 2. The difference between a week-off then the Dogs and the Hawks then the Pies.

Not really comparable.

 

[Murraj1966]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

The timing is irrelevant, every point of discussion is irrelevant except the moment and what happened.
Hawkins hit the post, yet was awarded a goal that was clearly a point. That is a worse decision than an interpretive hands in the back call. Strip it down to bare moments, and you cannot say, that that free kick is the worst umpiring decision made in history, nor am I saying Hawkins hitting the post is, but there have probably been many worse calls than the Mooney free kick, and the Hawkins goal is one of them.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

Mooney's goal which was clearly touched? Stokes "high contact"? It was a clear free kick and Mooney stuffed the tackle up. It's not a good rule but that was the clear interpretation of it.

That's probably a good way to describe it. It may well have been a free kick, but gosh, if that's a free kick in the wet, then everything is a free kick. And to that point, reckon there's about 15 times in the second half the same thing happened to both sides (i.e. someone falling across someone's back) and the free isn't paid, and yet they pay it at a time that decides the game...it's the inconsistency that frustrates us supporters.

 

[jimmy.h]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

The timing is irrelevant, every point of discussion is irrelevant except the moment and what happened.

No it really isn't.

Take last year's prelim. The Dogs were clearly shafted by a shocking free/dive involving Lake/Riewoldt. If that decision doesn't happen then, in some hypothetical world, the Dogs may well have won the match (and then possibly the granny).

However, the decision only cost the Dogs 1 goal and they had a half of football to make up for it. They really can't claim that the decision cost them the game.

If the Mooney free wasn't paid Geelong lead with less than a minute to play. Would be highly likely to win from there. Correct or not, the decision pretty much directly influenced the result of the game.

 

[cakewalk_1]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

The timing is irrelevant, every point of discussion is irrelevant except the moment and what happened.
Hawkins hit the post, yet was awarded a goal that was clearly a point. That is a worse decision than an interpretive hands in the back call. Strip it down to bare moments, and you cannot say, that that free kick is the worst umpiring decision made in history, nor am I saying Hawkins hitting the post is, but there have probably been many worse calls than the Mooney free kick, and the Hawkins goal is one of them.

Agree there are many examples. Here is another one. 1983 final Hawthorn & Fitzroy. Deliberate out of bounds paid against Fitzroy which cost them the final. Hawks won by 4 points (Absolute Shocking decision) and possibly them the flag that year.

 

[OldStyle2007]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

No it's not an out and out howler like Grant Vernon's refusal to pay Leigh Colbert's mark

The free was technically there but the ball was long gone and the push in the back had no effect on play. I would expect to see that as play on given all the other stuff they let go

 

[Redemptionin09]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

No it's not an out and out howler like Grant Vernon's refusal to pay Leigh Colbert's mark

The free was technically there but the ball was long gone and the push in the back had no effect on play. I would expect to see that as play on given all the other stuff they let go

All of this.

Plus I could say a load of things about the game tonight but would end up with a suspended account and a criminal record...

I was wanting that umpire to be lynched...but if we win next week it won't matter as much, they will be breathing fire I can assure you.

1.7 in a quarter means we really could of/should of won the game, despite the lackluster first half.

 

[Barabbas]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

Dry weather free kick. Just saying.

 

[mysainters]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

I have done my best to take the rose coloured glasses off, and it's honestly there.

I can also put myself in your shoes and understand how incredibly crap the high to low would of felt, I've been there, just my team didn't have the next week to turn it around....which you have, and you will.

 

[Rockford]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

Could've gone either way. I've seen worse not paid, and I've seen softer frees paid.

Cats never should've been in the position where they needed to fight back from 5+ goals down. Bring on next week.

 

[Righteo]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

It's quite easy for neutrals to sit back and take pot shots at Geelong supporters being angered over what was a technical free kick, but I have to admit if it was my team in that position I'd be equally furious.

This will only serve to motivate Geelong even more now IMO.

 

[edgie]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

And I have to admit if it was my team we would have some clown running around all "YOU'VE LOST US THE GAME! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?!"

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

Feeling for the game? The rules don't change just because it's a close final. The free kick was there, stop being a sore loser.

The thing we are, or should be, debating, is SHOULD THERE be a fee kick for 'incidental' in-the-back contact? It wasn't a shove. Mooney wasn't trying to restrict his ability to get to the contest. He was carried forward in a tackle.

Should the rules be changed?

HELL YES.

 

[Shmoses]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

It was extremely harsh but it was there. Those kind of decisions tend to go 50/50, and we got the raw end of the stick tonight. It's pretty much pointless getting worked up over it because there's nothing you can do, it's a part of any sport, and these kind of things come and go. Swings and roundabouts and all that.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

It was 'there' by the letter of the law but SHOULD it be? Incidental contact is not deliberate and it is not vindictive. The law needs to change, pure and simple.

 

[vealesy]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

It was 'there' by the letter of the law but SHOULD it be? Incidental contact is not deliberate and it is not vindictive. The law needs to change, pure and simple.

Its IN THE BACK mate, its as important to our game as head high tackles.

You can't slam your body into an opponents back when hes on the ground, its a safety issue to protect the player going for the ball, pure and simple.

 

[Chris who]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

It's quite easy for neutrals to sit back and take pot shots at Geelong supporters being angered over what was a technical free kick, but I have to admit if it was my team in that position I'd be equally furious.

This will only serve to motivate Geelong even more now IMO.

was a free kick every day of the week, even on friday nights

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

Its IN THE BACK mate, its as important to our game as head high tackles.

You can't slam your body into an opponents back when hes on the ground, its a safety issue to protect the player going for the ball, pure and simple.

We can agree to disagree on that one. Without noticeable intent to drive a player into the ground or a noticeable shove to get a player out of the contest, incidental contact i.e two players falling forward in a tackle, should be called play-on. If it was a St Kilda player 'infringed against' in a similar manner my opinion and argument would not change.

 

[vealesy]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

We can agree to disagree on that one. Without noticeable intent to drive a player into the ground or a noticeable shove to get a player out of the contest, incidental contact i.e two players falling forward in a tackle, should be called play-on. If it was a St Kilda player 'infringed against' in a similar manner my opinion and argument would not change.

Well in this case the players didnt fall to the ground, one was deemed responsible for the forward motion, ie the tackler and was correctly penalised.

You can't fall into a players back, its that simple.

I'd be more focused on the consistant application of the rule than the validity of it, if I were you.

Dry your eyes and try not to make us look like a pack of sooks.

 

[Mayneman]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

I think the reaction from the Saints players showed that it was a touch and go free-kick, especially in that weather.

Goddard, Ray and Hayes had pretty much conceded.

But the blame the the result on that is stretching.

Bad kicking is bad footy. 1.7 was very reminiscent of the 08 howler.

Good luck for the rest of the finals. I hope our paths cross

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

Well in this case the players didnt fall to the ground, one was deemed responsible for the forward motion, ie the tackler and was correctly penalised.

You can't fall into a players back, its that simple.

I'd be more focused on the consistant application of the rule than the validity of it, if I were you.

Dry your eyes and try not to make us look like a pack of sooks.

Player 1 tackled player 2 and in the motion of the tackle ended up 'in his back'. This was not his intent. He did not perform the action with any intent other than to stop the player with the ball.

I will continue to focus on the validity of this facet of the rule, as I believe it is a slight (not quite a blight, but a slight) on the spectacle of an otherwise good game.

My eyes are dry and my vision clear, matey. You can call me many things, but a 'sook' I don't think applies in this regard. Bad kicking is bad football and our lack of effort cost us the game in the first half. This incident just illustrates the foolishness of this particular facet of the 'in-the-back' rule.

As I said, we can agree to disagree.

 

[vealesy]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

Player 1 tackled player 2 and in the motion of the tackle ended up 'in his back'. This was not his intent. He did not perform the action with any intent other than to stop the player with the ball.

I will continue to focus on the validity of this facet of the rule, as I believe it is a slight (not quite a blight, but a slight) on the spectacle of an otherwise good game.

My eyes are dry and my vision clear, matey. You can call me many things, but a 'sook' I don't think applies in this regard. Bad kicking is bad football and our lack of effort cost us the game in the first half. This incident just illustrates the foolishness of this particular facet of the 'in-the-back' rule.

As I said, we can agree to disagree.

Your first sentence is piss weak. If a player whacks someone in the head, but his intent was for the ball, is that not a free kick? Intent is irrelevant and open to interpretation, stop trying to make a simple rule sound more complex than it really is.

The rule is not foolish. It is there to protect the players safety against potentially dangerous tackles. This was not a ticky touchwood 'hands in the back'.

It is there to protect the player going for the ball and it has been in our game since I can remember. It won't be changed because Bomber or anyone else has a dummy spit.

Move on mate. You're delerious. Get some sleep.

 

[jayjones1]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

Have we seen the worst, silly reactionary thread in Finals history?

lol

 

[lenny&carl]

Re: Have we seen the worst umpiring decision in Finals history

well i was on the saints to win at 3.50, but then i done gone lost the ticket, ...but even still, that was there.