My sincere apologies to Messers Rowe, Head and Ryan

[swan_song]

I am writing this as a flagalantic exercise to express by sincere apologies to Messers Rowe Head and Ryan for the abuse I hurled at them for not paying a mark to Adam Goodes 5 metres out from goal. I used words like "maggot" and "you ....you.....you....".Convinced, from my spot in the Noble stand, that he had indeed marked the ball, and the umpires had once again done the dirty on us, my stream of invective would have done a Canterbury Bulldogs player proud...But, having watched the replay and seen the incident from a different angle, the officiating umpire got it right...CONGRATULATIONS!!! The ball went through his hands and hit the ground.
As a supporter of a team that has not benefitted from -- or been in a position to, indeed, offer an alleged $20,000 to the AFL in exchange for more free kicks -- I would however say that had it been Matty Lloyd, it would have undoubtedly been paid a mark, as it seems that a ball that hits the ground anywhere from two to three feet in front off him is also considered to be a mark, given the new interpretation of the rules for Essendon matches.
That aside, I do feel for Hawthorn supporters (yeah, right!!!) whom I personally think were hard done by when what appeared to be a clear mark to Trent Croad was not paid also in front of goal. The ensuing play saw Crouchie kick a goal the other end. I believe that we were, in fact, very fortunate to have won this game. But hey, them's the breaks, and what we lost against the bombers we gained against the hawks... Maybe hawthorn could, like the rest of us, consider making a "donation" to the AFL umpires as well...

Just in case you didn't realise, this is a tongue-in-cheek post....I couldn't really give a rat's about hawthorn or their supporters...

[Thunder Shaker]

The umpires did favour the Hawks a little in the last quarter with their decisions, so overall I would say that the umpires were close to square for the day.

For example, there was an obvious deliberate out of bounds by a Hawthorn ruckman (probably Spider) that wasn't paid in the Swans forward line in the second half. The rule states that if the ruckman taps the ball over the boundary line on the full without the ball being touched by another player, then a free kick is to be awarded to the opposition. This happened, but the free kick wasn't paid.

I was also not happy when that Goodes mark wasn't paid, but I also saw the replay on television and saw that the umpire got it right. The television replay was slow-motion, and the umpire had to see that at full speed. Occasionally, you have to congratulate the umpire for getting a difficult decision right.

[NMWBloods]

Originally posted by Thunder Shaker
For example, there was an obvious deliberate out of bounds by a Hawthorn ruckman (probably Spider) that wasn't paid in the Swans forward line in the second half. The rule states that if the ruckman taps the ball over the boundary line on the full without the ball being touched by another player, then a free kick is to be awarded to the opposition. This happened, but the free kick wasn't paid.

This is only a free kick from a boundary throw in. The ball was knocked out after a ball up.

EDIT: as I noted elsewhere, I've just been informed on BF that it should have been a free kick!

Per the rules:

15.6.1 (f) hits the football Out of Bounds on the Full from a boundary throw or a field bounce or throw by a field Umpire.

[Red]

I thought that was the best umpiring for us I've seen this year. 23 free kicks for the whole game (13 Hawks, 10 Swans). Compare that to the 48 frees in the Geelong v. Essendon game!

Yeah Croad was unlucky to not get that mark, though you could argue that Everitts' hand touched the ball it before Croad took control of it. But that was at the end of the 3rd so a goal to them may not have cost us victory.

They got it back with a <i>very</i> soft free for Crawford at the end. If he had goaled, or Everitt marked & goaled with 30 sec. left in the game, then <i>we</i> would be the ones that had been robbed by the umps (again).

[NMWBloods]

I find the comments about the number of free kicks quite amusing. People think these days that a couple of dozen is normal, and about 40 is too many. Not 15-20 years ago, about 30-40 was quite standard and the game was still quick and entertaining. Two key differences these days is that the players hang onto the ball a lot more now, hence less dispute possession and free kicks from that, plus there seem to be a lot more ball ups.

[sharp9]

According to another thread the OOB is also a free from a ball up (thay have looked up the rule).

Don't forget ROK was not given a free directly in front despite Osborne crashing into his head coming with the flight of the ball and eyes only on the player (not the ball). This has been paid a free kick all year (unless the player with no eyes for the ball is named Lloyd or Solomon, of course).

Lloyd and Gehrig must have had 10 each (most of them correct). even Bazza has had a couple.

So that's 2 Sydney goals denied to 1 Hawthorn goal so Hawks fans can get @@@@**.

[Schneidergirl]

What has happened to the 'holding the ball' rule? Does it not exist anymore?

[Old Royboy]

Re: My sincere apologies to Messers Rowe, Head and Ryan

Originally posted by swan_song
That aside, I do feel for Hawthorn supporters (yeah, right!!!) whom I personally think were hard done by when what appeared to be a clear mark to Trent Croad was not paid also in front of goal. The ensuing play saw Crouchie kick a goal the other end.

The ball should never have been down at the Hawthorn end as the incident occurred just after Leo was pinged for running too far (when by today's standards he didn't) Did the umpy realise and square up? At least the two dodgy decisions went one each way for once.

Obviously we in the Noble stand were blindsided with the Goodes (non) mark. Didn't stop us going bananas but.

[DST]

Originally posted by Red
ICompare that to the 48 frees in the Geelong v. Essendon game!

Give the umpires some credit, the free kick count for that game was blown out in the 3rd Qtr when the game was on the verge of getting out of control with some ugly clashes.

The umpires sensing this up'd the frees and thus got on with the game and thus removed the likelyhood of some ugly packs which could have flared up.

It was very noticable and a good ploy to keep the game flowing, as that third quarter was one of the best for the year.

DST

[dread and might]

Originally posted by Schneidergirl
What has happened to the 'holding the ball' rule? Does it not exist anymore?

no i don't think it does.

what about Leo getting called for running too far?

[AussieAnge]

Originally posted by Schneidergirl
What has happened to the 'holding the ball' rule? Does it not exist anymore?

We did get one holding the ball decision in our favour but I think that was the only one all day.
I was in the Noble stand and said straight away that it wasn't a mark, I suppoes it depended on where you were sitting and from what angle you saw it.

[AussieAnge]

Originally posted by Schneidergirl
What has happened to the 'holding the ball' rule? Does it not exist anymore?

We did get one holding the ball decision in our favour but I think that was the only one all day.
I was in the Noble stand and said straight away that it wasn't a mark, I suppose it depended on where you were sitting and from what angle you saw it.