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

[hk89]

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.

How naive are you? There is no way Hodge or anyone officially representing Hawthorn is going to admit in public that we were shafted by the umpires, especially when the players have a massive portion of the blame squarely on their own shoulders. Hodge's comments just show that he has more class than whinging supporters like me, it says nothing about the correctness of the decision. I'll stick with the opinions of the guy on the actual rules committee, which was that it was a free kick to hodge, and Gibson should have got a free for holding, instead of a goal being given.

With that level of Naivity, you'll next be pointing to Gieschen's "all those decisions were correct" report to justify the debacle.

 

[Off The Couch]

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.

Wouldn't have expected him to say anything else. He likes his money in his own pocket rather than that of the AFL for making statements about umpiring. The HFC and the majority of it's supporters acknowledge that they lost the game because they didn't take opportunities in front of goals and didn't play for four quarters - that doesn't mean there wasn't some dubious umpiring in the 4th and that supporters of footy in general shouldn't be allowed to comment on it. If pie supporters were really honest these same threads would of being posted left right and centre if they had gone down by three points if the Davis goal had been disallowed after a free kick to gibbo.

I don't think it's sour grapes or persecution of the pies - it's an opinion.

 

[TheOldXav]

Hodge's comments just show that he has more class than whinging supporters like me, it says nothing about the correctness of the decision.

I've heard Leigh Matthews, Jason Dunstall, Shane Crawford & the like say there was absolutely nothing in the Hodge incident directly after the game. Apart from JD, none of the commentators have any direct involvement with Hawthorn & if anything, they are hardly going to side with the Collingwood angle.

Hodge adding to it just confirms Hawthorn supporters are clutching at straws, it is no conspiracy & is hardly as blatant as you are trying to think it is. Hodge is a straight down lad, if he feels he was cheated, he would have said so.

 

[eddiebankbalance]

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.

Nah! You just hate Collingwood, but I don't even know why I have responded - the game is history and it's a Coll v Cats Grand Final.

Go Pies

 

[hk89]

Hodge is a straight down lad, if he feels he was cheated, he would have said so.

So you really ARE that naive!

As for Matthews, I'm not sure which statement you are referring to, but after viewing the slow motion replay of the hodge incident, his statement was "That's high contact".

 

[TheOldXav]

So you really ARE that naive!

As for Matthews, I'm not sure which statement you are referring to, but after viewing the slow motion replay of the hodge incident, his statement was "That's high contact".

Matthews was on 3AW on Saturday in the pregame show & clearly made reference to the incident. He said that he got caught up in the game, made specific reference to saying "kick it" when Rioli got tackled & making the wrong call on the Hodge incident.

I'm not naive to believe AFL players say what they are really feeling but as far as I'm aware, the segment they have on Nova is an off the cuff show that has no ties to the club. Thomas is also on the segment, he actually got criticized for talking about his contract by the club on this show, which shows how relaxed/unattached to official club policy that it is.

 

[Jade]

Nah! You just hate Collingwood, but I don't even know why I have responded - the game is history and it's a Coll v Cats Grand Final.

Go Pies

Oh yeah? Go and check my history when it comes to commenting on Hawthorn and Collingwood, and then come back and tell me which of the two I dislike. You see what you've done there is lash out because you don't like what I'm saying.

Don't know which poster above pointed it out, but go ahead and check the responses of the neutral fans - Hawthorn were screwed. Some Hawthorn fans don't want to say it, because it appears bias, and Collingwood fans certainly don't want to say it, because it makes them UNDESERVED Grand Finalists.

Deservedly, much of the blame belongs on the shoulders of Hawthorn players that let the game slip. They went into a shell when it became apparent they were damn close to a win and it cost them.

That doesn't excuse the fact that were it not for some absolutely deplorable calls, Hawthorn win this game and play off in a GF this week.

Absolutely SHAFTED. Part of me wants to go with my natural inclination and stick the boot into Hawks fans - but to be honest I'm so dissapointed that umpires can stuff such a vitally important game I just don't have it in me.

 

[eddiebankbalance]

Far out! I reckon this thread will still be active after the grand final

It was a fair game, Pies won - move on

 

[eddiebankbalance]

Absolutely SHAFTED. Part of me wants to go with my natural inclination and stick the boot into Hawks fans - but to be honest I'm so dissapointed that umpires can stuff such a vitally important game I just don't have it in me.

Try being a Collingwood supporter, we get shafted more often than not. You know, Sydney and St Kilda are still the AFL's love children. $hits me to tears.

 

[hk89]

Matthews was on 3AW on Saturday in the pregame show & clearly made reference to the incident. He said that he got caught up in the game, made specific reference to saying "kick it" when Rioli got tackled & making the wrong call on the Hodge incident.

Not having heard the program, I'll have to take you at face value, but I'd like to have known his exact wording there.

I'm not naive to believe AFL players say what they are really feeling but as far as I'm aware, the segment they have on Nova is an off the cuff show that has no ties to the club. Thomas is also on the segment, he actually got criticized for talking about his contract by the club on this show, which shows how relaxed/unattached to official club policy that it is.

The difference between bagging an umpiring decision and talking about your contract is that one can have fines associated with it, and the other is just silly. This is why you almost never see players or club officials criticize individual decisions, and when they do, they use very very careful wording. There is a whole other topic on whether the AFLs attempt to protect the umpires from criticism is good for them, or creates an unhealthy environment of secrecy and suppression of critical, but constructive discussions.

 

[g-man]

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).








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

You need to watch it again. He grabbed the ball at the centre bounce, took several steps, went to kick and was tackled. That's prior opportunity and also holding the ball. Fact is that decisions went against both sides in that last quarter that could easily have gone the other way. All this talk about undeserving winners and Grand Finalists and cheating is disrespectful and absolute garbage. I gained a lot of respect for the way Hawthorn played friday night, pity the same respect isn't being shown to the Collingwood players.

When it comes to Collingwood there are no neutral supporters, that is one thing you should have learnt from being on BF.

 

[Jade]

Try being a Collingwood supporter, we get shafted more often than not. You know, Sydney and St Kilda are still the AFL's love children. $hits me to tears.

So yes, you agree - Hawthorn got absolutely screwed.

But it's ok according to yourself, because Collingwood have been screwed in the past.

 

[hk89]

You need to watch it again.

I just did, he takes one step which is understandable given he was running when he collected the ball, and then his second stride is a kicking stride, where he is tackled during the stride. It would have been very very hard for Mitchell to have disposed of the ball by foot any quicker than he did, i.e. no prior opportunity. Pies did get some bad ones in the game, but that wasn't one of them, and as the vast majority of non-pies supporters keep telling you, you got less bad ones than us, and the bad ones you did get, hurt you less on the scoreboard.

 

[entourage]

In close games contentious decisions will always be scrutinised. There were a few frees that didn't go our way as well, aside from the onslaught of frees in the first half i thought the umpiring was fairly even. Unfortunately due to the collective hate of the pies most BF posters will think the Hawks were robbed.

 

[g-man]

I just did, he takes one step which is understandable given he was running when he collected the ball, and then his second stride is a kicking stride, where he is tackled during the stride. It would have been very very hard for Mitchell to have disposed of the ball by foot any quicker than he did, i.e. no prior opportunity. Pies did get some bad ones in the game, but that wasn't one of them, and as the vast majority of non-pies supporters keep telling you, you got less bad ones than us, and the bad ones you did get, hurt you less on the scoreboard.

You need to learn to count, it's more than one step. Plus if Leon can get pinned for holding the ball when he got tackled at virtually the same time as receiving the ball in the 3rd quarter then Mitchell was definitely holding the ball. I'm not saying he should have be pinned for holding the ball but that under the rules as they now stand that he could have. You can point to all sorts of decisions for both teams in virtually every single game, so many decisions can go either way under the rules that exist in the game today. This is just a thread for all those people that don't like Collingwood to have a whinge about how undeserving they are. It's pathetic.

We had one of the great finals to be played, both teams were fanatical and hard at it and yet the biggest thread on the game is for a bunch of sooks going on about how one team was robbed by the umpiring. No team was robbed and no team was handed a victory. That's just looking for an excuse because the team you didn't want to see win did. People don't want to admit that so they'll keep going on and on about rubbish, looking for any excuse instead of giving credit where it is due.

 

[hk89]

You need to learn to count, it's more than one step.

You are confused by his tiny legs. It was two steps, tackled while kicking during the second step. Did you measure the time from possession to tackle? Well under a second. No prior opportunity.

Plus if Leon can get pinned for holding the ball when he got tackled at virtually the same time as receiving the ball in the 3rd quarter then Mitchell was definitely holding the ball.

There is a flaw in your logic, I'll let you discover it yourself.

You can point to all sorts of decisions for both teams in virtually every single game. This is just a thread for all those people that don't like Collingwood to have a whinge about how undeserving they are. It's pathetic.

This thread is anti-umpire, not anti-pies. Pies played a great last quarter to get back into it, it is not really their fault the umpires helped them, and the wrong team made its way into the GF. It is indeed pathetic that every time someone says anything that could be seen as slightly negative towards Collingwood, that pies supporters see it as a symptom of a deep underlying hatred of your club, rather than just reality as seen through the eyes of non-pies supporters.

We had one of the great finals to be played, both teams were fanatical and hard at it and yet the biggest thread on the game is for a bunch of sooks going on about how one team was robbed by the umpiring.

I agree, that is sad and unfortunate, but that is what happens in a close game where one side benefits from the umpiring more than the other.

No team was robbed and no team was handed a victory.

Says the supporter of the team that wasn't robbed, what a surprising opinion!

That's just looking for an excuse because the team you didn't want to see win did.

There was lots of reasons we didn't win, many of them were in control of the players and coaching staff, this thread is about one that wasn't.

 

[g-man]

You are confused by his tiny legs. It was two steps, tackled while kicking during the second step. Did you measure the time from possession to tackle? Well under a second. No prior opportunity.



There is a flaw in your logic, I'll let you discover it yourself.



This thread is anti-umpire, not anti-pies. Pies played a great last quarter to get back into it, it is not really their fault the umpires helped them, and the wrong team made its way into the GF. It is indeed pathetic that every time someone says anything that could be seen as slightly negative towards Collingwood, that pies supporters see it as a symptom of a deep underlying hatred of your club, rather than just reality as seen through the eyes of non-pies supporters.




I agree, that is sad and unfortunate, but that is what happens in a close game where one side benefits from the umpiring more than the other.



Says the supporter of the team that wasn't robbed, what a surprising opinion!



There was lots of reasons we didn't win, many of them were in control of the players and coaching staff, this thread is about one that wasn't.

For starters there is no flaw in my logic regarding the Davis decision, I was just highlighting a decision that happened in the 3rd quarter that was extremely tough and comparing it to the Mitchell one in the fact that Davis had even less time to get rid of the ball yet still was penalised. If you can't understand that then no amount of explaining will help.

This thread is an anti Collingwood thread otherwise there would be no need to say they cheated or paid off the umpires or that they are undeserving of being in the Grand Final. Those comments have nothing to do with umpiring and everything to do with Collingwood. Also the fact that only the decisions that didn't go the way of Hawthorn are getting highlighted and the thread title would also suggest this is about the pies. If it was anti umpiring then people would be discussing all the decisions that were wrong, not just those that went against the hawks. I can cop criticism against the pies, no player, team or club is perfect, but to suggest there was cheating going on or they only won thanks to the umpiring is garbage.

While I may jump up and down during the game about certain umpiring decisions, like virtually every other supporter of every team, after all it is part of watching the footy, I have never used umpiring as an excuse for winning or losing. I always say that you are either good enough on the day or you're not. If a person maintains that an umpiring decision or decisions cost them a game then my answer is that you should have played well enough to be further in front.

I can also say the same thing about you, you're only having a whinge about the umpiring because you lost. See, I can play that card too.

Don't know how long you've been following footy but there is nothing in the rules that says everything should be even when it comes to umpiring. some teams get more free kicks than the opposition. Some get their free kicks in front of goal, some get them early and some get them late, some players get better looked after than others. It's always happened and always will.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

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.

But it's only you're opinion that they don't balance out. I notice you didn't bother quote anyone at all who claims that the hawks were ripped off by the umpires. I guess that wasn't true after all.

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.

Once again, you seem to focus only on the umpiring mistakes that went against you. Don't you think it's about time you HTFU?

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.

The Hodge incident certainly looks high at first glance, although BMcA did say it was probably a correct decision. When you slow it down, and look really hard, you realised that you can't actually see any high contact at all. All you see is Hodge trying to play for a free kick that isn't there. The initial contact is to the bicep, and that's where it stays.

As for Gibson, Matthews wasn't asking why the umpires let this incident go, he was asking why their interpretation of the rules is always that this should be let go. The answer to his question is most likely "When 2 players are holding each other, the correct call is 'play-on'."

The offended will dissipate faster if you HTFU.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

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.

But... You don't even know the rules...

 

[Amber Guzzler]

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).

This describes what Swan did at the start of the 2nd qtr, and he was pinged. He had no prior, and attempted to kick the ball immediately.

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

Again we see the lie that all neutral supporters see thing the same was you do. Hell, even some of your own supporters don't agree with you.

 

[hk89]

For starters there is no flaw in my logic regarding the Davis decision, I was just highlighting a decision that happened in the 3rd quarter that was extremely tough and comparing it to the Mitchell one in the fact that Davis had even less time to get rid of the ball yet still was penalised. If you can't understand that then no amount of explaining will help.

Sorry, I thought you could figure it out for yourself. The problem with your logic is that just because one bad decision is made in one situation, doesn't mean that a similar situation should have the same bad decision made. It is entirely possible the Davis decision was incorrect. What you are seeing is umpiring inconsistency. The vast majority of neutral fans feel you were the overall beneficiary of this type of thing on Friday night.

This thread is an anti Collingwood thread otherwise there would be no need to say they cheated or paid off the umpires or that they are undeserving of being in the Grand Final.

If umpires got them over the line, then they are less deserving to be in the grand final than their opponents. Of course over the course of the year they are certainly worthy grand final competitors.

Those comments have nothing to do with umpiring and everything to do with Collingwood.

Pies fans say that a lot. About everything. Apparently everything has nothing to do with X, and everything to do with the pies for all values of X.

...the thread title would also suggest this is about the pies.

When I read the thread title I think it is about the umpiring in the pies versus hawks game. Yet when you read it, you think it is about Collingwood. I'm starting to see the problem.

If it was anti umpiring then people would be discussing all the decisions that were wrong, not just those that went against the hawks. I can cop criticism against the pies, no player, team or club is perfect, but to suggest there was cheating going on or they only won thanks to the umpiring is garbage.

Claims of cheating are indeed rubbish, but most non-pies supporters seem to believe you would not have won without the umpires.

If a person maintains that an umpiring decision or decisions cost them a game then my answer is that you should have played well enough to be further in front.

This is a bullshit statement. Teams should build an "umpire" buffer into their play? I've got a better idea, umpires should umpire the game correctly and consistently more than they are doing at the moment.

I can also say the same thing about you, you're only having a whinge about the umpiring because you lost. See, I can play that card too.

It is not a card, it is a statement of the obvious. Of course I'm having a big whinge about the umpires because my team lost, I wouldn't be in this thread complaining about the umpires if we'd won, because as you suggest we should have done, we'd have won despite the umpires.

Don't know how long you've been following footy but there is nothing in the rules that says everything should be even when it comes to umpiring. some teams get more free kicks than the opposition. Some get their free kicks in front of goal, some get them early and some get them late, some players get better looked after than others. It's always happened and always will.

Completely agree, and sometimes it impacts the outcome of the game. This time my team was on the losing end, so I'm having a whinge, I hope you can be as even minded if you lose in a close one next saturday after a few umpiring mistakes cost you goals.

 

[filly]

The answer to this thread is quite simple.Go down to the TAB and back Geelong at $1.90. Have a laugh whilst the Collingwood fans go ******* at the umps for not giving them the same genorosity as they enjoyed in the Prelim(now they know theyre goners).
Laugh even harder as they watch how clever their clubs brainstrust was by playing an injured Jolly against Ottens/West(most Collingwood supporters wont work this part out)

Once you have recovered from all this laughter,return to the TAB to pick up your winnings

 

[hk89]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

Once again, you seem to focus only on the umpiring mistakes that went against you.

I've tried to stay on topic of the original thread title, so yes, I've concentrated on the umpires. As I said, there were lots of other reasons. The umpiring factor hurts, because it is the one that isn't directly under the players' control. If you want to discuss other matters related to the game unrelated to umpires such as our lack of run in the last, our bad disposal in the last, and our poor goal kicking throughout the game, feel free to contribute to the threads discussing those matters on the Hawks board.

The Hodge incident certainly looks high at first glance, although BMcA did say it was probably a correct decision. When you slow it down, and look really hard, you realised that you can't actually see any high contact at all. All you see is Hodge trying to play for a free kick that isn't there. The initial contact is to the bicep, and that's where it stays.

You might be seeing a different angle, his ARM starts over his shoulder, his actual HAND is on or near Hodge's forearm, and as hodge moves, his hand slips up to his bicep.

As for Gibson, Matthews wasn't asking why the umpires let this incident go, he was asking why their interpretation of the rules is always that this should be let go.

That is a complete mis-representation of what he says. He does indeed not outrightly say it should have been a free. What he says is that it would have been a free on any other part of the ground. Given that the rules don't actually say anything about not giving holding frees in that situation, he is in fact saying it was a free, albeit a rarely paid one (you do see it paid, but not often).

The offended will dissipate faster if you HTFU.

You're probably right, but I'm not quite ready to move on yet, I have not passed the angry stage of grieving and moved on to the acceptance phase yet I hope to do so before Saturday, otherwise I'll find it hard to enjoy what will likely be a great game

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Re: Hawthorn vs Collingwood + umpires

I've tried to stay on topic of the original thread title, so yes, I've concentrated on the umpires. As I said, there were lots of other reasons. The umpiring factor hurts, because it is the one that isn't directly under the players' control. If you want to discuss other matters related to the game unrelated to umpires such as our lack of run in the last, our bad disposal in the last, and our poor goal kicking throughout the game, feel free to contribute to the threads discussing those matters on the Hawks board.

You misunderstood my comment. You only acknowledge the mistakes that went against the hawks, while ignoring the ones that went against us. And as you've been shown, most of the ones you think went against you weren't even there, but you refuse to acknowledge that as well.

You might be seeing a different angle, his ARM starts over his shoulder, his actual HAND is on or near Hodge's forearm, and as hodge moves, his hand slips up to his bicep.

I saw it from 2 angles, and in both of them, the distance between Reid's hand and Hodge's elbow remains constant. There is not a single frame showing clear contact above Hodge's shoulder. You asked (I believe it was you) what the difference was between that and the Wellingham incident a few minutes later. Well, that's it. There was absolutely no question about the Wellingham one. The Hodge one however, even when looked at frame by frame, you can't see a high tackle. Of course I may be wrong. But you be able to prove that pretty easily by posting an image that clearly shows Reid's hand over Hodge's shoulder.

That is a complete mis-representation of what he says. He does indeed not outrightly say it should have been a free. What he says is that it would have been a free on any other part of the ground. Given that the rules don't actually say anything about not giving holding frees in that situation, he is in fact saying it was a free, albeit a rarely paid one (you do see it paid, but not often).

But he's also ask why the umpires never pay them in the goal square. He's not talking about this specific incident, he's talking about the way they treat that incident in general. Had that been paid a free kick, it wouldn't have been consistent. Know how much value people place on consistent umpiring, Matthews is actually condoning the decision in this case; he's implying that had it gone the other way, that wouldn't have been consistent umpiring.

 

[g-man]

Sorry, I thought you could figure it out for yourself. The problem with your logic is that just because one bad decision is made in one situation, doesn't mean that a similar situation should have the same bad decision made. It is entirely possible the Davis decision was incorrect. What you are seeing is umpiring inconsistency. The vast majority of neutral fans feel you were the overall beneficiary of this type of thing on Friday night.



If umpires got them over the line, then they are less deserving to be in the grand final than their opponents. Of course over the course of the year they are certainly worthy grand final competitors.



Pies fans say that a lot. About everything. Apparently everything has nothing to do with X, and everything to do with the pies for all values of X.



When I read the thread title I think it is about the umpiring in the pies versus hawks game. Yet when you read it, you think it is about Collingwood. I'm starting to see the problem.



Claims of cheating are indeed rubbish, but most non-pies supporters seem to believe you would not have won without the umpires.




This is a bullshit statement. Teams should build an "umpire" buffer into their play? I've got a better idea, umpires should umpire the game correctly and consistently more than they are doing at the moment.



It is not a card, it is a statement of the obvious. Of course I'm having a big whinge about the umpires because my team lost, I wouldn't be in this thread complaining about the umpires if we'd won, because as you suggest we should have done, we'd have won despite the umpires.



Completely agree, and sometimes it impacts the outcome of the game. This time my team was on the losing end, so I'm having a whinge, I hope you can be as even minded if you lose in a close one next saturday after a few umpiring mistakes cost you goals.

I can figure it out for myself thanks, it's clearly you who is having the problem getting my point. I was highlighting the fact that if they were being consistent then Mitchell could have easily been pinned for holding the ball or it could have been the other way around and Davis not pinned, in relation to prior opportunity. I was showing an example of how there were decisions that went against both sides that could easily have gone the other way. I only mentioned a Collingwood decision because only Hawthorn decisions or non-decisions are getting brought up.

A bullshit statement is it? Clearly you have either never played sport at any level or are one of those people that looks for excuses other than your own performance when things go wrong. It's not an umpire buffer, it's about playing well enough and capitalising on your opportunities and putting the game out of reach of the opposition. Something Hawthorn failed to do and the real reason they lost. They left the game close enough so that when Collingwood started to control the ball they were close enough to snatch victory.

This thread isn't about the umpiring in the game, it's about the decisions that didn't go the way of Hawthorn, it clearly states Hawthorn vs Collingwood plus umpires. If it was simply about the umpiring then there would be no need to say Collingwood plus.

If we lose on Saturday I'll be shattered but I can promise you one thing, I won't be here bitching and moaning about umpires. We will either be good enough on the day or we won't be.