MEGA THREAD***** Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

[falconeyed]

Re: Pies v Hawks holding the ball

You are not allowed to handball the ball to yourself. By tapping the ball in the air after handballing is an incorrect disposal and is called a throw.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

I thought Dawes took a dive looking for the 50 would have been very soft

I've seen a lot softer ones than that get paid in finals. As for taking a dive, are you kidding? He was about 2m away from Schoenmakers when he took the mark, he tried to stop and Schoenmakers crashed into him with reasonable pace, knocking him over. That's 50m every day of the week.

The 2 frees against Davis were soft but technically there. The second one the umpire was on the other side of the contest and it looked like the other arm was on the shoulder.

They're not the sort of free kicks that get paid in finals time. The point of mentioning them is, Hawthorn got plenty of soft ones, and people are still saying the umpires won it for us.

Burgoyne actually got a little handball out and then knocked the ball away.

I really couldn't tell on that one.

That not to say there weren't decisions that didn't go Collingwood way especially the one where Stratton fell in Dawes back. I couldn't believe that wasn't paid

That's one I've never been able to work out. It seems that some umpires will see that as in the back, and some wont. It's not like it's hard to spot.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

Having just had a look at the reply for the first time, I can see how you might say that, but it ignores what happened at the start of the tackle. His arm is over hodge's shoulder at the start of the tackle, and his hand is actually on his lower arm, it ends up on his upper arm at the end of the tackle. Hodge didn't really duck into it, he was already low from gathering the ball, but he probably did try to accentuate the over the shoulder. Doesn't mean it wasn't there. Clearly a missed free kick, and especially annoying given the similar one the pies received a very short time afterwards.

I think that's just the way you want to see it. If you and I, with the benefit of video replays disagree on exactly what happened, then what hope has the umpire got of getting it right. He obviously thought he saw something similar to what I think I saw, and called play on.

A few pies fans have mentioned a free they should have got for Mitchell dropping the ball after being tackled at a centre bounce. This is rubbish. For that to be a free, he had to have prior opportunity, he'd had the ball for about 0.3 to 0.5 seconds at the most before he was tackled, and the ball fell free in the tackle, while Mitchell was trying to kick it. Without prior opportunity there is no free there, and around 0.4 seconds isn't a lot of prior opportunity.

The same thing happened to swan at the start of the 2nd qtr. Picked up the ball, tackled immediately, no prior, attempted to kick, HTB.

Burgoyne handballed, then tapped his own handball on the supposed "throw". Dawes dived at one point in a failed attempt to milk another free.

Looks like Stratts might have given a free away for in the back on dawes that was missed, but this had zero impact because you got the high free straight afterwards.

See my previous post.

Compare this to the missed free to Gibson with the illegal hold from Brown to allow the goal to go through. The fact that they are not paid often is not an acceptable excuse, Gibson was clearly close enough to stop the goal if it wasn't for the illegal hold Brown had on his arm. Impact = Extra goal to pies, and enough to win the game.

It looked like they were both holding each other to me. It also didn't look like Gibson was trying to make his way towards the goal line, Brown was actually pushing him in that direction, and Gibson was pushing brown in the opposite direction. Perhaps Gibson misjudged the flight of the ball. At one stage, he put his arm up over Brown's shoulder, and pushed on his neck and face. It's not uncommon for umpires to call play on when to players are both infringing on each other. Imagine how pissed you'd be if he'd have paid Brown a free kick, that was technically there.

If the umpires made zero mistakes in the last quarter, pies were not good enough to win. There were several umpiring mistakes throughout the game, in both directions, but they clearly helped the Pies on the scoreboard a good deal more than the Hawks, and this was the vast majority of neutral fans in this, and other threads have picked up on. Of course, if hawks had kicked the easy goals earlier on, it wouldn't have mattered. It was a good comeback against a tiring opponent, but Pies fans are delusional if they think the umpires didn't influence the result in their favour. I'm not even sure why they bother arguing the point, they won, the result will not change, and they have a shot at back to back flags.

You got 2 shots on goal from some of the softest free kicks in the 1st qtr. How many soft free kicks do you need to beat us? Had you not got the 2 behinds from those, had Dawes got the 50 he deserved, we'd have beaten you by 11 points. And that's just for starters. But that's all irrelevant. The Hawks didn't lose because of the few mistakes the umpires may or may not have made, they lost because they played poorly in the last qtr, when they should have been able to hold on. There's no good blaming anyone else for that.

 

[TheOldXav]

Re: Pies v Hawks holding the ball

It was clearly holding the ball, the way umpires have been paying that rule this year. If you take the ball & try to keep it in your grasp, whilst being tackled & failing to get rid of it, then you are gone. The dead giveaway is if the tackler gives the player with the ball a bit of space to release the ball, then the umpire will penalize you if you fail to get rid of it.

 

[hk89]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

I think that's just the way you want to see it. If you and I, with the benefit of video replays disagree on exactly what happened, then what hope has the umpire got of getting it right. He obviously thought he saw something similar to what I think I saw, and called play on.

Ultimately neither of us are unbiased on the hodge incident, as well as all the other calls we both mentioned. I disagree with several of your other assessments (for example I thought Dawes deliberately propped to create contact with Shoenmakers, and then accentuated the contact after contributing to it, and to quote you, it seems the umpire thought he saw something similar to what I saw). But it is not that unusual that we disagree, we both supported different teams in the game, and as hard as we try, it is impossible for us to be completely objective. The commentators and the vast majority of neutral fans thought the Hodge incident was a free, and the commentators had slow motion replays, possibly from more angles than we were shown in the replay. While I don't trust my own judgement on umpiring decisions, because I know it is impossible to look at it without letting my non-neutral point of view interfere, the fact that so many neutrals have expressed in this thread the same opinion - that the pies had the game handed to them by the umpires in the last quarter - makes me more confident that this was indeed the case. While you can argue that there is no such thing as a neutral where the pies are concerned, many of these people also have very little love for the hawks.

What is more likely here, that you're uniquely able to be completely objective about umpiring involving your own team, and that a bunch of people who didn't have their own team playing are getting it wrong because of some irrational hatred for Collingwood, or that you were actually favoured as most non-pies people in this thread have claimed?

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

Ultimately neither of us are unbiased on the hodge incident, as well as all the other calls we both mentioned. I disagree with several of your other assessments (for example I thought Dawes deliberately propped to create contact with Shoenmakers, and then accentuated the contact after contributing to it, and to quote you, it seems the umpire thought he saw something similar to what I saw). But it is not that unusual that we disagree, we both supported different teams in the game, and as hard as we try, it is impossible for us to be completely objective. The commentators and the vast majority of neutral fans thought the Hodge incident was a free, and the commentators had slow motion replays, possibly from more angles than we were shown in the replay. While I don't trust my own judgement on umpiring decisions, because I know it is impossible to look at it without letting my non-neutral point of view interfere, the fact that so many neutrals have expressed in this thread the same opinion - that the pies had the game handed to them by the umpires in the last quarter - makes me more confident that this was indeed the case. While you can argue that there is no such thing as a neutral where the pies are concerned, many of these people also have very little love for the hawks.

What is more likely here, that you're uniquely able to be completely objective about umpiring involving your own team, and that a bunch of people who didn't have their own team playing are getting it wrong because of some irrational hatred for Collingwood, or that you were actually favoured as most non-pies people in this thread have claimed?

If you want to talk about commentators then perhaps you should re-watch the game, and count how many incidents they question from each club. You may then see how many time you guys got lucky. DC made several comments regarding the Dawes 50m penalty for example. There were several other incidents that were called into question by the commentators that also went your way. And that's my point. You're saying you were robbed, but all you're doing is looking at the incidents that went our way, ignoring the fact that just as many went your way.

Dawes propped to draw a 50m? I don't think so. He stopped because he had to. Why? Because if he didn't he would have been called play on for not making a reasonable attempt to promptly bring the ball back behind the mark. And as for accentuating the contact, leave it out. If you get down to the position he was in, and I came crashing into you at a similar pace, I bet you won't be able to hold your footing. That incident was a textbook 50m penalty, and claiming that Dawes first created to contact by forcing a player he couldn't see to run into him, then took a dive in a situation where it would have been a miracle had he kept his feet... That just makes you look like a real sore loser.

Now, as for the unbiased opinions of others... Yes, you're right. It's very hard to find an unbiased opinion regarding Collingwood here. But there are plenty on people in this thread, and many of the Hawks supporters, who have said the umpiring was fair enough, and wasn't what cost the hawks the game. And before you start making up more shit and telling me that these people must hate the hawks more than Collingwood, I should point out that some of them were actually hawks supporters.

In summary, we got the benefit of some bad umpiring decisions, and so did you. Ours may have come in the last qtr, and that may be the reason that we kicked 5 goals to 2, or it may have happened simply because we played better than you in that qtr. Yours may have came earlier in the match, and that may have been the reason you were 17 points up at the start of the last qtr. Or it may have been because you played the first 3/4 better than us. On thing's for sure. The best team on the day won, because they played better than their opponent across 4 qtrs. You played poorly in the last qtr, and you can't do that against the pies when you're only a few goals up and expect to win. So you lost. Deal with it.

 

[Chief]

One of the main rationalisations is that Hawthorn got their chances with bad calls, too.

However it is ridiculous to have the umpires handing out scoring chances - even if they are handed out evenly which in this game they most definitely were not. If one side, for whatever reason, can't capitalise on demand then you're letting the other side improve their score basically for free.

As happened in this game.

The Hawks did fall apart at the end, but they did not need the umpires exacerbating the problem. This cost them the game.

 

[hk89]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

Dawes propped to draw a 50m? I don't think so.

You still seem to be under the illusion you can look at this objectively.

That just makes you look like a real sore loser.

Your continued contributions to this thread make you look like a pies fan desperate to justify what to many was seen as a lucky, umpire assisted win, by the lesser team on the day. If I was in your situation, I'd stay a long way from this thread, or stick to the "suck it up princess, we won, you lost" line, without the biased attempts at justifying the unjustifiable.

So you lost. Deal with it.

That's better!

 

[Amber Guzzler]

One of the main rationalisations is that Hawthorn got their chances with bad calls, too.

However it is ridiculous to have the umpires handing out scoring chances - even if they are handed out evenly which in this game they most definitely were not. If one side, for whatever reason, can't capitalise on demand then you're letting the other side improve their score basically for free.

As happened in this game.

The Hawks did fall apart at the end, but they did not need the umpires exacerbating the problem. This cost them the game.

So basically, we get back to where we were the other day, when the umpires make mistakes that go both ways, and only one side capitalises, it's the umpires fault. It's the umpires fault the Hawks played badly in the final term.

I'll tell you what's ridiculous. The expectation that the umpires should adjudicate the game without so much as a single mistake, while that same expectations isn't levelled at the player. Hawthorn didn't lose because the umpires rightfully refused to pay hodge a free, they lost because shoenmakers played like a girl, and because every time the went into their backline in the last, they seemed to kick it to Maxwell, who was on his own. If you want to whinge about anything chief, whinge about that.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

You still seem to be under the illusion you can look at this objectively.

I can be just as objective as you.

Your continued contributions to this thread make you look like a pies fan desperate to justify what to many was seen as a lucky, umpire assisted win, by the lesser team on the day. If I was in your situation, I'd stay a long way from this thread, or stick to the "suck it up princess, we won, you lost" line, without the biased attempts at justifying the unjustifiable.

I'm just point out where you and the rest of the sooks are wrong. These "many" wouldn't happen to be the sort of people who say things like "Swan is shit", "Pendlebury, nothing special", "Thomas, nothing but a show pony", "Maxwell, worst captain in the AFL"? Because I have no problem what so every claiming that I'm more objective than these sorts of posters.

Now run along and start coming to grips with the fact that you're season's now over, because you lost a prelim to a better side.

 

[hk89]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

I can be just as objective as you.

That's the problem, I'm biased, I'm unobjective on this matter. This is why I rely on the majority opinion of neutral supporters. You don't have that luxury, because they disagree with you, so you keep sprouting opinions you admit are biased, and hope that if you repeat them enough times, you'll reassure yourself that they are true.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

That's the problem, I'm biased, I'm unobjective on this matter. This is why I rely on the majority opinion of neutral supporters. You don't have that luxury, because they disagree with you, so you keep sprouting opinions you admit are biased, and hope that if you repeat them enough times, you'll reassure yourself that they are true.

Didn't you also suggest that it's difficult to find people with unbiased opinions when it comes to Collingwood? So nobody else's opinion here counts for anything either. That leaves us with the commentators, who picked up bad decisions on both sides.

So cutting out all the opinions that can't be trusted to be objective, we're left with "The umpires made mistakes, as they always do. Some of those mistakes advantaged Collingwood, and some advantaged Hawthorn. Collingwood won, therefore, Collingwood played a better 4 qtr game."

You mentioned my personal development before, it would probably be good for your own if you could bring yourself to say that. "Collingwood played a better 4 qtr game."

 

[hk89]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

So cutting out all the opinions that can't be trusted to be objective, we're left with "The umpires made mistakes, as they always do. Some of those mistakes advantaged Collingwood, and some advantaged Hawthorn. Collingwood won, therefore, Collingwood played a better 4 qtr game."

So once we cut out all the opinions that can't be trusted, we are left with yours! Nice one!

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

So once we cut out all the opinions that can't be trusted, we are left with yours! Nice one!

That's not what I said. I said we were left with the opinions of the comentators you brought into the argument, and who questioned umpiring decisions that benefited both sides. That does seem to support my argument more than it does yours though.

 

[hk89]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

That's not what I said. I said we were left with the opinions of the comentators you brought into the argument, and who questioned umpiring decisions that benefited both sides. That does seem to support my argument more than it does yours though.

Which commentator said:

"The umpires made mistakes, as they always do. Some of those mistakes advantaged Collingwood, and some advantaged Hawthorn. Collingwood won, therefore, Collingwood played a better 4 qtr game."

?

That looks like your opinion to me.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

Which commentator said:

?

That looks like your opinion to me.

That's not opinion, it's fact. Watch the game again, and listen to what they say. Sometimes they say Hawthorn were disadvantaged, and sometimes they say the Collingwood was disadvantaged. Just because I paraphrased it doesn't make it my opinion.

Why can't you just admit that you lost because you played poorly in the last qtr. BTW, here are some after-match quotes from the commentators whose opinion you appear to value so highly.

Dennis Cometti:
- This last qtr by Cloke has been outstanding.

Bruce McAvaney:
- It's the best game of 2011 so far.
- Collingwood were magnificent in that last qtr to get over the line.
- Just felt Hawthorn couldn't hold the ball in their forward 50 in the las qtr.

Tim Watson:
- It was a brave, courageous effort (referring to the Collingwood victory)

Matthew Richardson:
- There was some huge moments in that last qtr, what a great final.

Leigh Matthews: (as eloquent as ever)
- Those forward 50 stoppages goals, they were the ones that really were able to separated the.. separated the game for ah.. for Collingwood. Sometimes you prefer to concede a behind than a boundary throw in the forward pocket, and that was really costing the Hawks on a couple of times here.
- They (Hawthorn) looked fatigued, didn't they. Just the last 15 minutes they looked like they were really struggling and that was the part the most, because they had the one player less down there, because the game was set up like that the whole night, but they just, in the end, didn't have the energy to actually cope with the outnumber.

However, I can't seem to find a single quote from a single commentator that suggests that the umpires cost the hawks the game. I wonder why that is. Surely, if what you say is true, and the commentators agree with you that the Hawks were robbed, then you'd be able to quote them on that, wouldn't you? No, all you can do is point out that they disagreed with some decisions that went against the hawks, and, ignoring the fact that they also did this with decisions that went against the pies, you fill in the blanks yourself.

Suck it up princesses, the hawk lost to a better team on the night.

BTW, you may want to listen to the commentators comments on the Bateman HTB. They seem to suggest the umpire got that one right (including Leigh Matthews, who's on the rules committee). They also said that Burgoyne threw it.

 

[PieNSauce]

Kudos to most of the Hawks supporters in this thread. Sure there will always be cry babies who want to blame everyone but their own team but blind freddy could see that the umpiring was much the same both ways all night. This is the way finals are umpired these days. I would have seen more than 20 frees which would have been paid in the H&A rounds and some of them were so blatant it doesn't bear thinking about. Like I said, kudos to the vast majority of Hawks supporters for seeing it for what it was. Obviously it's all the Collingwood haters who are talking up some myth that the umpires cost Hawthorn the game whilst completely ignoring all the bad decisions that went the other way. To them all I can say is, suck it up princesses!

 

[hk89]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

That's not opinion, it's fact. Watch the game again, and listen to what they say. Sometimes they say Hawthorn were disadvantaged, and sometimes they say the Collingwood was disadvantaged. Just because I paraphrased it doesn't make it my opinion.

Yes they did say that. It is your opinion that this balanced out, and in the end was equally bad in both directions. it is also your opinion that because pies won they are automatically the best team despite the large number of umpiring mistakes, how convenient for you that you think they balanced out perfectly.

Why can't you just admit that you lost because you played poorly in the last qtr.

Oh I fully admit that. There are several reasons we lost:
- No week off, so less able to run than Pies in last quarter.
- Played poorly in last quarter (mostly due to previous point, especially Bateman).
- Due to tiring in the last quarter, we were unable to put the same pressure on, as we had in the first 3, and the pies who had performed poorly under pressure all night were able to improve in the last.
- Missed easy scoring opportunities earlier in the game that would have put the game well beyond the pies reach.
- Game poorly umpired in the last quarter.

In case you missed the thread title, this thread is about the last reason, which is why that is what is being focused on here.

BTW, you may want to listen to the commentators comments on the Bateman HTB. They seem to suggest the umpire got that one right (including Leigh Matthews, who's on the rules committee). They also said that Burgoyne threw it.

If you want to use Matthews as your example, he also thought Hodge was caught high, and the umpire missed the illegal goal shepherd on Gibson. Decisions you thought were both 100% correct, which shows how subjective this whole discussion is. Perhaps he is one of these many untrustable sources you like to refer to, it must be a terrible club if even their premiership coaches are biased against them.

 

[Jade]

So with a few days to marinate, it's still true. Hawks were absolutely SCREWED by umpiring. Had the game been called correctly, they would be meeting the Cats in the GF.

I'm glad it wasn't Essendon; otherwise I'd be accused of bias. A team I very much dislike (Hawks) were unjustly robbed of a deserved reward.

Never thought I'd see the day that a side that went 20-2 in the H&A season would be undeserved grand finalists - but here we are.

 

[g-man]

What a load of absolute shite. People are complaining about 2 fking free kicks. People seem to be forgetting that a few seconds before the Hodge one that Mitchell should have been pinned for holding the ball. He grabbed the ball at the centre bounce, took off and was run down as he was about to kick the ball and never made contact with it. If that free kick was paid then the ball doesn't even get down to Hodge but everyone just wants to ignore that so they can continue bashing Collingwood. The holding the ball free kick was tough but if you dive on it and don't get rid of it then it's holding the ball. Soft, yes and I'd prefer to see it called play on personally.

Some people need to take the blinkers off. It seems every second week some idiot starts a thread saying how Collingwood cheated their way to victory due to the umpires or the umpiring won the game for the pies or that they paid the umpires. Seriously, grow up and get over it you bunch of sooks, stop acting like an 8 year old throwing a tantrum.

 

[Roby]

After the reviewing the game and listening to Pies supporters complain about the umpiring for three quarters I thought that the umpiring may have evened out in the last quarter.

In fact it was the opposite, Collingwood had one more incorrect blatant decision go their way up until that last quarter.

Clarkson was right, we need to better, we could've won it regardless of the officiating and next season Hawks need to be better and that way bad umpiring or not, (we had gifts against Sydney just in case you think I am biased), we can still win it.

I can see why a lot Essendon supporters are in this thread, they've had the worst of it this year and I have reviewed every game.

Anyway good luck to your team in the finals and hopefully the best teams wins.

 

[The Finger]

Anyone that saw the highlights theyve been showing of the Buddy on Tarrant contest will notice the same thing. Basically every contest Tarrant has hold of him and most were high. Not one free resulted.

The other big one is Dawes. The bloke just refuses to release the ball staraight up and takes one sometimes two tackles on. Again without penalty.

 

[hk89]

People seem to be forgetting that a few seconds before the Hodge one that Mitchell should have been pinned for holding the ball. He grabbed the ball at the centre bounce, took off and was run down as he was about to kick the ball and never made contact with it.

You either need to take another look at the replay of that incident, or review your understanding of the laws of the game.

Mitchell didn't "take off", he was tackled immediately after taking possession of the ball. The ball fell free in the tackle as he was attempting to kick. For that to be a free, he would have to be deemed to have prior opportunity. Given he was tackled immediately after taking possession, there was no prior opportunity, hence no free kick, correct decision, unlike the ones that went the pies way that have been pointed out in this thread. If you disagree with this assessment, go and watch the replay (last quarter available on you tube), and tell us exactly how many milliseconds Mitchell had to dispose of the ball between taking possession and being tackled, and then tell us what you think a reasonable number of milliseconds would have been for that figure (and I say milliseconds, because it was less than a second).

Some people need to take the blinkers off.

Yes they do. Look to the neutral supporters, they will lead you to the truth.

 

[TheOldXav]

Luke Hodge said on Nova this morning that he didn't believe there was anything in the last quarter incident. He expanded & said that if anything, he tried to milk the free kick.

Hawthorn supporters should learn how to embrace being truthful like Hodge was here.

 

[The Finger]

Luke Hodge said on Nova this morning that he didn't believe there was anything in the last quarter incident. He expanded & said that if anything, he tried to milk the free kick.

Hawthorn supporters should learn how to embrace being truthful like Hodge was here.

Suprised I would of thought he would have come out and said the umpire cost them the game and was useless. Please whether he milked it or not it was high. The same as when Hale made slight contact with Ball high in the marking contest. It was soft and got paid. Hodge was stiff.