Umpires kept Geelong in it. Absolute disgrace.

[phantom13]

The roughead HITB decision was wrong he pushed in the side, replays clearly showed that, and the franklin/scarlett decision was disgraceful, should have been a franklin free or play on, other than that i thought it was okay. Ablett was trying to milk it but his free kicks were there, he just shouldn't play up in front of the umps so much, he is a great footballer and that crap makes him look soft.

 

[pocketrocket#24]

Without a doubt that was some of the worst umpiring ever to take place in a Grand Final. The HUGE mistakes the umpires kept on "accidentally" making in Geelong's favour, kept them in it. The final free kick count was a 2 to 1 ratio.

Disgraceful umpiring.

in all fairness mate, it was geelong's bad kicking that kept you guys in it up to half time. u really should have been 5-6 goals down.
it was a good win in the end but i doubt it would have been the case had geelong kicked straight.
no idea why you're sooking about the umpires. get over it. geez.

 

[huggy_b]

There was 1 or 2 ordinary decisons that went Geelongs way (Scarlett).

But on the other side of the coin, how many times did the umpire not allow the Cats advantage, even though they were clearly off and running towards goal. And on one occassion allowed them advantage when they were knee deep in it, and the Hawks tackled them, and turned the ball over.

Mate there was crap decisions both ways. Suck it up, it looks pathetic having a girly cry about it.

 

[james_omahoney]

No it was hands in the side. Watch it again. The commentators said so too.

How had he been 'sniping all day' in the first quarter? And no the umpires don't have to take a stand. They have to be fair, impartial and enforce the rules.

I'm not having a go at the umpiring myself (even though we all know that McLaren should not have been selected for GF day). But there were some poor decisions.

It was hands in the back actually. At the beginning of the 'push' action the hands were in the back, but the body rotated so that the hands were in the side by the end of the pushing action. In my opinion the infringement was there at the start of the action.

"The commentators said so too" doesn't help your argument either.

 

[CarnThePiesfor09]

The Hands in the back was there - they replayed it on tv and it was a definite free kick.

The only one that was dodgy was the Mitchell one downfield, but to be honest that guy was sniping all day and the umpires had to take a stand on his tactics.

I thought all in all reasonably well officiated.

Hands in the side =/= hands in the back, that was a bull**** call on roughhead..

And the franklin one was crap to, scarlett simply fell to the ground and buddy had the free called on him.

 

[lopozop]

It was hands in the back actually. At the beginning of the 'push' action the hands were in the back, but the body rotated so that the hands were in the side by the end of the pushing action. In my opinion the infringement was there at the start of the action.

"The commentators said so too" doesn't help your argument either.

Your argument isn't helped by the fact that I've watched the game around 10 times more than you by now. It wasn't hands in the back. Of course Leigh Matthews and Nathan Buckley have no idea either. What would they know, right? They know nothing about the game.

As I said I'm not having a whinge about it. Umpires don't have the benefit of replays like us. And we won the game. But it wasn't hands in the back.

I'll say it one more time. It wasn't hands in the back.

 

[james_omahoney]

Your argument isn't helped by the fact that I've watched the game around 10 times more than you by now. It wasn't hands in the back. Of course Leigh Matthews and Nathan Buckley have no idea either. What would they know, right? They know nothing about the game.

As I said I'm not having a whinge about it. Umpires don't have the benefit of replays like us. And we won the game. But it wasn't hands in the back.

I'll say it one more time. It wasn't hands in the back.

That's their opinion and yours. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Anyway, I thought the umpiring was pretty good overall - my main gripe is this whole whinge about "soft" free kicks or "soft" 50m penalties. Either an infringement is there or it's not. A lot of people don't seem to understand this - there seems to be a notion that only blatant frees should be paid, and Buckley is the worst offender in this regard.

Don't get me wrong, I'll always maintain Hawthorn won the cup fair and square, but I don't understand why a lot of Hawks fans fail to understand why their team gets penalised more than others. Umpires aren't biased - they call what they see and I think the inflated figure of Frees Against Hawthorn week after week reflects the level of infringement from their players. Like it or not, Hawks infringe more than other teams and a lot of fans are in denial about this.

 

[the ranger]

The only obviously bad one was the Scarlett/Franklin decision. Roughead's was borderline whether it was the back or the side, but he pushed off with two hands and you can't blame the umpire if it was indeed wrong. It looked very much like a free at the time and even on replays it was 50/50.

The down the ground against Mitchell was technically wrong (unless there was a mark from Ling's kick, I didn't see) but it was a just result. Cynical foul by Mitchell. The Hawks gave away more frees because they played dirtier. It worked out for them in the end, so well done, but you can't expect the free kick count to be even when one team is constantly making late/high contact.

 

[King Elvis]

The Umpiring was a disgrace.

I was watching it with 5 neutrals and 2 Cats supporters; everyone of them thought the Umpiring was terrible.

 

[THRILLHOU]

Heres a great example of two players reputations preceeding them. The free scarlett got when he fell backwards vs buddy, and buddy got pinged for slinging him out of the contest. On the reply, buddy does NOTHING lol. But buddy gets pinged because he is typically 'sloppy' and the golden boy scarlett gets the free because... well... because he's scarlett!

They were gifted two goals from the umpires in the first quarter

 

[dipper86]

It was hands in the back actually. At the beginning of the 'push' action the hands were in the back, but the body rotated so that the hands were in the side by the end of the pushing action. In my opinion the infringement was there at the start of the action.

"The commentators said so too" doesn't help your argument either.

Doesn't help your argument????? how bout on the Sunday footy show when the commentators and an umpire called Goldspink said the decision was clearly wrong!!!! they reviewed all 3 decisions, the Roughead hands in the back, the Franklin Scarlett holding decision and the downfield free kick to Steve Johnson, in every case the panel and Darren Goldspink acknowledged the umpires were wrong in all 3 decisions.

 

[damochandler]

this is what i hate most about football. the suporters bitching about how bad the umpiring was. hawthorn won the and they were by far the best side on the day. who cares about how bad the umpiring was and just enjoy the win ffs

 

[Hawkzzz]

The free against Mitchell on Ablett, which bounced off to Ling who took a nice run up and then bombed it long..............to have that paid downfield was not a bad decision. The ump was right there and it was at such a crucial stage of the game, just before 3/4 time. If ever there was a case to bring in a red card for an umpire, that would be the time. Let the players decide the game .

I'm ecstatic we beat a great side in the cats. But THAT ONE alost made me vomit. In a Grand Final too.

 

[josh_eagles]

There were a couple of shockers (Franklin/Scarlett) (Roughead HITB) (Mitchells downfield)and several others but thankfully they didn't influence the result.

I actually thought you meant "Hold Ing The Ball"

I was gonna rip in but read through and realised I was the goose

 

[TheBloods]

They were gifted two goals from the umpires in the first quarter

Which two?

 

[Bomba Sheldon]

At the end of the day who gives a rats tossbag - you won the flag and now bask in the glory that goes with it.

 

[yeahmate]

The Mitchell downfield decision was a disgrace. I cant believe people are excusing that. It was a fundamental umpiring error at a very important time of the game that resulted in a goal. It wasnt even a close call.

The rest of them are all debateable or at least excusable or at best didnt have a major impact on the game. Although I thought the Hawks got a lot of ordinary decisions I accept I am biased and in hindsight Geelong also copped a couple of important ones that went against them (like the Hunt in the back on Osborne and the Rioli HTB on Rooke on the wing when he was 2 on 1 which I thought was more likely a play on call).

 

[Merv]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=230