Match Day Thread Rnd 19 Hawthorn V Sydney. MCG. 19.50 pm.

[Mug Punter]

Agreed. I can't believe we're talking about this.

Langford is an arrogant little flog but Macca shouldn't have reacted and given away a free. Someone of his experience should know better than that.

Are you serious? Why should McVeigh have to cop that @@@@?

Do you seriously think that players should be able to go around the field kissing other players in the hope that it will (understandably) annoy them and draw them into a free kick.

Why not just let anything go. A nipple tweak? why not a squirrel grip instead? Or go up and twist their ear or if that doesn't work try a Hoppa?

It's not the kissing per se, though I do think it is a pretty rude invasion of personal space. How would you feel if a male colleague you barely knew came up to you ate work and playfully planted one on your cheek? It's the gamesmanship and baiting in the extreme and has no place in the game.

It just has no place in the game and is just all part and parcel of the "anything takes" approach that the Hawks take to winning a game.

And it stinks!!

[Meg]

My understanding is that a 5 or 10m exclusion zone was introduced to stop clubs, especially Hawthorn, shepherding for their teammate allowing them to play on. The umpires just aren't enforcing it which is typical of the umpiring dept. Hawthorn did it several times on Friday night.

The exclusion zone only applies to the side and in front of the mark. So (as far as I am aware) Hawthorn players are not breaking any rule by standing close behind the man on the mark. Hawthorn have been using this tactic against all teams for several years.

[Nolie]

I would be interested in an (objective) opinion from anyone who had a good view (or who watches replay carefully) of the over-the-head hand pass by Parker which was penalised as a throw.

Personally I think most handballs of that type are technically throws because the force of the action comes from the propulsion of the arms, not from the punch. But they have long been accepted as legitimate handballs. So why was this one penalised? (And I'm not looking for an umpire-conspiracy explanation.)

Great comment. I agree completely. It iss a throw but they always let it go. I too was flabbergasted by the decision against Parker.

[rojo]

Are you serious? Why should McVeigh have to cop that @@@@?

Do you seriously think that players should be able to go around the field kissing other players in the hope that it will (understandably) annoy them and draw them into a free kick.

Why not just let anything go. A nipple tweak? why not a squirrel grip instead? Or go up and twist their ear or if that doesn't work try a Hoppa?

It's not the kissing per se, though I do think it is a pretty rude invasion of personal space. How would you feel if a male colleague you barely knew came up to you ate work and playfully planted one on your cheek? It's the gamesmanship and baiting in the extreme and has no place in the game.

It just has no place in the game and is just all part and parcel of the "anything takes" approach that the Hawks take to winning a game.

And it stinks!!

+1

[Bexl]

Are you serious? Why should McVeigh have to cop that @@@@?

Do you seriously think that players should be able to go around the field kissing other players in the hope that it will (understandably) annoy them and draw them into a free kick.

Why not just let anything go. A nipple tweak? why not a squirrel grip instead? Or go up and twist their ear or if that doesn't work try a Hoppa?

It's not the kissing per se, though I do think it is a pretty rude invasion of personal space. How would you feel if a male colleague you barely knew came up to you ate work and playfully planted one on your cheek? It's the gamesmanship and baiting in the extreme and has no place in the game.

It just has no place in the game and is just all part and parcel of the "anything takes" approach that the Hawks take to winning a game.

And it stinks!!

+1

[stevoswan]

No, just not a conspiracy theorist.

......and you watched last years GF. Wow!

[Ludwig]

Are you serious? Why should McVeigh have to cop that @@@@?

Do you seriously think that players should be able to go around the field kissing other players in the hope that it will (understandably) annoy them and draw them into a free kick.

Why not just let anything go. A nipple tweak? why not a squirrel grip instead? Or go up and twist their ear or if that doesn't work try a Hoppa?

It's not the kissing per se, though I do think it is a pretty rude invasion of personal space. How would you feel if a male colleague you barely knew came up to you at work and playfully planted one on your cheek? It's the gamesmanship and baiting in the extreme and has no place in the game.

It just has no place in the game and is just all part and parcel of the "anything takes" approach that the Hawks take to winning a game.

And it stinks!!

A Hoppa? I hate when people talk about salacious stuff that I've never heard of. It makes me feel like I'm missing out on something.

I lived in Europe for 6 years and people you don't know are always coming up and giving you a few pecks on the cheeks. You ring someone's door bell, they open the door, and before you know it - smack. It's really not such a big deal. I can think much ruder invasions of personal space, but I can't mention them here because I'm already in hot water with the Mods.

There's a lot of untoward stuff that's part of the byplay in footy. Personally, I would like to see it all go out of the game. I think the AFL should start fining all these sorts of things and then it would go away. Apparently, the AFL don't think it's a big enough problem to penalize. As things stand now, singling out a kiss on the cheek as worse than the rest of what goes on is over the top. It's a lot better than getting Buggered (punched in the face by Thomas Bugg).

Maybe someone should ask Jason Johannesen if he'd prefer a kiss on the cheek or 86 whacks with a forearm into his kidneys.

[aardvark]

Maybe someone should ask Jason Johannesen if he'd prefer a kiss on the cheek or 86 whacks with a forearm into his kidneys.

An excellent point!

[snajik]

My understanding is that a 5 or 10m exclusion zone was introduced to stop clubs, especially Hawthorn, shepherding for their teammate allowing them to play on. The umpires just aren't enforcing it which is typical of the umpiring dept. Hawthorn did it several times on Friday night.

Pretty sure the exclusion zone just applies to the defending team. It's absurd that it doesn't apply to both teams. Surely the team with the ball already has the advantage. It's incredibly ugly to watch and Hawthorn do this more than any other team (then again it won the 2008 GF by employing an unsportsmanlike tactic). Combined with the constant niggle, punches and elbows in the back it was the ugliest game I've watched so far this year. Then we throw in a handful of dismal umpiring decisions, McAvaney's commentary, Maguire and Brereton bias and it all adds up to a fairly @@@@ty way to kick off one's weekend.

[AnnieH]

Well, that was really crap.

Can't play like that if they want to win a granny.

[Sandrevan]

Grrr - what a disappointment. A sense of deja vu. What is it about Ho-thorn that makes us play so badly?

The game played out pretty much the same way as round 10. We play badly, but manage to get ahead only to lose by a small margin at the end.

To me, coaching is a large part of this. The Swans are a high pressure team - why can't we bring this same pressure to the Dawks? Beats me. We were outplayed and the umpires didn't help but it does start in the preparation. We seem to lose to Ho-thorn in the same way again and again - this is coaching and game plan.

How does Roughy end up in the goal square marked by a player 12 cm shorter and 20 kg lighter - and this happened twice. I'm not criticizing Hanners or Jones for this - where were Grundy and Melican? Where was a third man up trying to intercept or spoil?

The only benefit from this - if the season keeps going the way it is we won't have to play Ho-thorn in the finals because they won't make it. However, this is a season where anything is possible.

[ugg]

Hodge given 1 match suspension for his strike on Papley
Franklin 2 incidents:
1st one = $1500 fine unnecessary contact to Hodge's face
2nd one = cleared contact. High contact not a striking motion.

[ugg]

How does Roughy end up in the goal square marked by a player 12 cm shorter and 20 kg lighter - and this happened twice. I'm not criticizing Hanners or Jones for this - where were Grundy and Melican? Where was a third man up trying to intercept or spoil?

Roughy started in the centre square and then pushed forward after the centre bounce. It can be hard to do a changeover depending on how the play unfolds.

[Hotpotato]

Titus O'Reilly take:
Hawthorn (72) v Sydney (66)

More evidence this week that no one will win the premiership this year.

Sydney seems to have no answers against Hawthorn, rolling out the same losing game plan with a hopeful optimism that is as heart-warming as it is ineffective.

As the Hawks continually slowed the game, the Swans decided that constantly chipping the ball sideways and backwards was the best approach. It wasn?t.

The strange thing was it almost worked, with the Swans taking the lead late in the game, only for Hawthorn to wrestle back control.

It was a spiteful game too with Buddy Franklin collecting Luke Hodge high at one stage. It was a cheap shot against someone who would never play the game that way.

It got so spiteful that kissing got involved with Will Langford kissing Jarrad McVeigh on the cheek, twice.

There are not too many workplaces where you can kiss someone uninvited and not get hauled in front of someone with 'People and Culture' in their title. Just ask an AFL executive.

[Meg]

Roughy started in the centre square and then pushed forward after the centre bounce. It can be hard to do a changeover depending on how the play unfolds.

Exactly, as planned by Clarkson. He used Roughead brilliantly Friday night.