Umpires rob the Hawks?

[Troy G]

Was looking an the very exciting finish to the Hawks v Bombers game last night and actually felt sorry for the Hawks.

It appeared in the last quarter that Hay got his foot to the ball just before the boot of Solomon missed the ball on the goal line but the ump ruled a goal to the Bombers.

Soon after the Hawks went down by 2pts. Had the umps ruled it Hay's way, Hawks win!

Look forward to taking another look at it tonight.

It would have been a big confidence builder for the young Hawks going into this weekend. Extra pleasing to see their indig boys Williams, Bateman, Miller and especially Franklin (looks a real gun) have good game! The Hawks could do better than many think.

[swansrule100]

who cares though, if we went back through the game im sure some frees and stuff went the hawks way that shouldnt have and maybe essendon score more??

[Troy G]

It was a crucial period of the game and the Hawks were mounting enormous pressure. It could have cracked the game wide open. I notice that the AFL umpiring panel have now admitted they got it wrong. We'll hear more about it.

[swansrule100]

i know it was, but mistakes are made the entire game that could influence the point margin, its because this one is right at the end people say it cost the game. But who is to say there arent decisions the entire game that didnt cost essendon a 30 point win,


id be annoyed for sure if i was a hawks fan but its over now

[ScottH]

It happened so quickly that the umpire woulda struggled to see it properly. It comes down to gamesmanship and Solomon should not have claimed it.

I'm more p!ssed that Llloyd can smack someone in the head with a forearm covered in a solid material, fracture his cheekbone, and walk away scott free.

The Hawks should feel robbed about that too.

[Charlie]

Perfect result for the Hawks. Confidence boost of what was rightfully a win, but no 4 points that could come back to haunt them on draft day.

[j s]

Originally posted by ScottH
I'm more p!ssed that Llloyd can smack someone in the head with a forearm covered in a solid material, fracture his cheekbone, and walk away scott free.

I haven't seen the actual incident but whether Lloyd should be penalised should have nothing to do with the guard but upon the manner in which the contact occurred.

It's obvious though from this incident that these forearm guards should not be allowed.

Other than boots no rigid equipment shiuld be allowed, no matter how padded it seems to be. Sole exception (maybe) is the face guards that have been worn to protect noses and cheeks. It's hard to imagine those injuring another player.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by j s
I haven't seen the actual incident but whether Lloyd should be penalised should have nothing to do with the guard but upon the manner in which the contact occurred.

It's obvious though from this incident that these forearm guards should not be allowed.

Other than boots no rigid equipment shiuld be allowed, no matter how padded it seems to be. Sole exception (maybe) is the face guards that have been worn to protect noses and cheeks. It's hard to imagine those injuring another player.

If you need to wear a guard to protect an injury, you shouldn't be on the ground.

If the injury would have been caused by an unguarded arm fair enough, but if the injury is a result of the guard, i think its disgraceful. Any way Lloyd played crap, so he was obviously unfit.

[Mike_B]

All parties have said the AFL cleared the guard and secondly that it was likely the injury would have resulted even if he wasn't wearing it simply because of how hard the outside of the arm is anyway.

[ScottH]

Originally posted by Mike_B
All parties have said the AFL cleared the guard and secondly that it was likely the injury would have resulted even if he wasn't wearing it simply because of how hard the outside of the arm is anyway.

Hmmm. Would he have been cleared if he wasn't M Lloyd????

[Sanecow]

We should outfit our back line with the arm guards every week.

[liz]

Regardless of what effect the arm guard made, Lloyd arrived at a contest late with his arm flailing, got nowhere close to the ball and made forceful high contact with an opponent. I don't think it was deliberate but it certainly looked reckless and players have been suspended on a striking charge for far more innocuous contact that than.

I reckon the hoohah over whether the arm guard was to blame deflected attention away from the manner of the contact itself.

[swansrule100]

there certainly has been a lot of focus on a game that involved the two lowest teams on the ladder (at the start of the match)

[ScottH]

Originally posted by swansrule100
there certainly has been a lot of focus on a game that involved the two lowest teams on the ladder (at the start of the match)

What has that go to do with the topic?

Originally posted by liz
Regardless of what effect the arm guard made, Lloyd arrived at a contest late with his arm flailing, got nowhere close to the ball and made forceful high contact with an opponent. I don't think it was deliberate but it certainly looked reckless and players have been suspended on a striking charge for far more innocuous contact that than.

I reckon the hoohah over whether the arm guard was to blame deflected attention away from the manner of the contact itself.

I reckon if you damage someone enough that they miss x weeks of footy, then the damager should miss x weeks as well.