If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
We had a couple of more free kicks than them, but both sides supporters (me included) were having a go at them, that usually means that they have got it just about right.
But the umpires really need to learn with hoilding the ball, what "prior opportunity" means. A few times, both ways a player was pinged for holding the ball, when they had no prior opportunity what so ever.
Originally posted by goswannie14 But the umpires really need to learn with hoilding the ball, what "prior opportunity" means. A few times, both ways a player was pinged for holding the ball, when they had no prior opportunity what so ever.
This rule has become silly now. Both sides were pinged with some ridiculous HTB decisions.
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.
"[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."
Yeah the holding the ball decisions were pretty ordinary, but importanty they were consistent.
The one mickey o got on joel smith was a bit ordinary as he was clearly holding the ball in and then it did pop out.
There were also two times in the second half when croad and soull both got slung to the ground and had prior opporunity but were given too much time to get rid of it, while in the first quarter roberts thompson got pinged for the same.
I thought the umpiring wasn't too bad, unbiased, which is the main thing. But the holding the ball decisions were pathetic all night, Luke Ablett barely touched the thing before he was caught and penalised.
"Red and White for blood cells, Red and White for wine."
"They could be the whole damn spectrum, if you just damn let them"
Originally posted by NMWBloods This rule has become silly now. Both sides were pinged with some ridiculous HTB decisions.
Absolutely agree!!! If they were in fact the correct interpretation then that is very bad news for the game. In all cases, the bloke making the play & most desperate for the footy was murdered by the player standing off.
Originally posted by Slick Swans I thought the umpiring wasn't too bad, unbiased, which is the main thing. But the holding the ball decisions were pathetic all night, Luke Ablett barely touched the thing before he was caught and penalised.
Prompting the query (I believe from Alistair Lynch?) "who'd want to chase a loose footy?"*.
*Probably nowhere near what was actually said, but the sentiment is the same.
I knew him as a gentle young man, I cannot say for sure the reasons for his decline
We watched him fade before our very eyes, and years before his time
Poor umpiring. The mystifying HTB decisions appeared to be based on how loudly the fans were yelling for HTB as much as anything. Also, inconsistency regarding when carrying a player forward in the tackle amounts to a push in the back. Plus my pet hate: frees for ruck infringements, for doing exactly what every ruckman does at every ball-up, merely because the opposition ruckman throws himself forward/to the ground.
That said, the poor decisions favoured Sydney more than the Hawks. A particularly blatant push-in-the-back not paid against MOL led to a Sydney goal in the 3rd.
Caught up with my Hawk mate at half time (couple of good wins in the tab in M8, too, btw) and he was in agreement that up until then the Hawks had had a very kind run with the men in light lime green.
Evened out later but they weren't flash all night. Couple of those 50's were dodgy...perhaps that's the new rule but there's got to be a contest!
Comment