I was trying to be objective about umpiring decisions on Saturday but found myself believing that Hawthorn are a protected species and that the umpires are mesmerized by Hawthorn's aura of invincibility. That bump on Oliver hit in the chest and the head. It was at the very least, a free kick. To miss that and then see the infringement that gifted him a free in front of goal made my blood boil. Then they also missed the head high clothesline on Bernie that flipped him onto his back and bloodied his nose. Everyone at the ground saw it but the four umpires. At least Cicely gets a week. Not to mention Mitchell's "push" to Watts' face. Everyone saw that too. Perhaps the teflon will wear off Hawthorn when they don't win this year's flag.

No free to Bernie though, wonder if Hayden (my umpires never make mistakes) Kennedy will comment? 

Sorry, but the Cyril bump was correctly called play on and the fact he has copped a fine is a disgrace

And Mitchell got off too, just to put the icing on the cake.

Just now, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

Sorry, but the Cyril bump was correctly called play on and the fact he has copped a fine is a disgrace

Nah sorry chap he lifted his arm, he didn't brace, the MRP knows the outrage amongst MFC fans, so hoping the fine will put out the fire

3 minutes ago, btdemon said:

I was trying to be objective about umpiring decisions on Saturday but found myself believing that Hawthorn are a protected species and that the umpires are mesmerized by Hawthorn's aura of invincibility. That bump on Oliver hit in the chest and the head. It was at the very least, a free kick. To miss that and then see the infringement that gifted him a free in front of goal made my blood boil. Then they also missed the head high clothesline on Bernie that flipped him onto his back and bloodied his nose. Everyone at the ground saw it but the four umpires. At least Cicely gets a week. Not to mention Mitchell's "push" to Watts' face. Everyone saw that too. Perhaps the teflon will wear off Hawthorn when they don't win this year's flag.

I have said this elsewhere - if they have deemed that Rioli's hit did not make contact with the head - under what rule would you like him freekicked - i just looked at the rules and they fined him under this  "engaging in rough conduct against an opposition Player which in the circumstances is unreasonable;" - what an ambiguous rule - that can just about justify anything ! They have the head is sacrosanct line and i agree - but they have apparently now changed the interpretation to take out bumps to the body as well.

Sicily deserved what he got.

Mitchell deserved to get off - it was an open hand - you have got to have sufficient force.

The thing that irks me is the sheer inconsistency of the MRP - Hawkins must be shaking his head.

 

Just now, Satyriconhome said:

Nah sorry chap he lifted his arm, he didn't brace, the MRP knows the outrage amongst MFC fans, so hoping the fine will put out the fire

He lifted his arm for a bump to the body, please do tell, what is wrong with that?

,......and we stuck it right up em, as Ted would say....

1 minute ago, Older demon said:

No free to Bernie though, wonder if Hayden (my umpires never make mistakes) Kennedy will comment? 

Look there are controversial decisions like the non-call rioli high tackle on jetta and the rioli duck moments later that I want talked about. The vince hit is an umpiring decision mistake clear as day, I dont think Kennedy has to answer for that. The others I'm thinking more were a lack of consistiant interpretation with that kind of stark inconsistancy within the space of a couple of minutes being a major issue.

1 minute ago, Satyriconhome said:

Nah sorry chap he lifted his arm, he didn't brace, the MRP knows the outrage amongst MFC fans, so hoping the fine will put out the fire

it's not just lifting the arm. a shirt front is illegal and at a minimum a free kick every time. also you only have to watch the replay to see it was intentional as against incidental

1 minute ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

He lifted his arm for a bump to the body, please do tell, what is wrong with that?

If he was bracing, which is the way I was taught, you tucked your arm in and used the shoulder, he aimed to hurt, he was lucky Oliver is made of rock

Thought the bump was cheap but fair, Mitchell's wack was light (and Watts had wacked him first), but the 2 or 3 spear tackles by Cyril were the real issue and they've been completely ignored. He lifted players by their legs and drove them head first into the ground. Now that is surely either classed as a "sling" tackle or at least unduly rough play.

 

2 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Look there are controversial decisions like the non-call rioli high tackle on jetta and the rioli duck moments later that I want talked about. The vince hit is an umpiring decision mistake clear as day, I dont think Kennedy has to answer for that. The others I'm thinking more were a lack of consistiant interpretation with that kind of stark inconsistancy within the space of a couple of minutes being a major issue.

The Jetta/Rioli was a howler - that happens with 3 umpires - adjudicating 3 different ways.

3 minutes ago, Rod Grinter Riot Squad said:

He lifted his arm for a bump to the body, please do tell, what is wrong with that?

because it is illegal to bump the front of the body. read the rules

6 minutes ago, Older demon said:

No free to Bernie though, wonder if Hayden (my umpires never make mistakes) Kennedy will comment? 

Complete mystery isn't  it....wasn't  even  called  high contact  yet is sanctioned  1 week. Surely questions should be asked by the umpiring panel about the performance on the  day and it should be acknowledged as an error?

1 minute ago, stuie said:

Thought the bump was cheap but fair, Mitchell's wack was light (and Watts had wacked him first), but the 2 or 3 spear tackles by Cyril were the real issue and they've been completely ignored. He lifted players by their legs and drove them head first into the ground. Now that is surely either classed as a "sling" tackle or at least unduly rough play.

 

especially if you considered that Oliver got a fine for exactly that type of tackle in the practice matches. 

 

I recall there was a case that looked like kicking in danger that was ignored.  I haven't seen a close up of it, so not sure if it should have been paid.  They seem to let them through these days much of the time.  Doubtless there has been a rule change (/sarcasm)

Just now, daisycutter said:

because it is illegal to bump the front of the body. read the rules

In all seriousness can you please direct me to that rule? My understanding is any bump is fine as long as it isnt high or directly in the back. 

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

because it is illegal to bump the front of the body. read the rules

 only if the head is down

 

(n) bumps or makes forceful contact to an opposition Player from front-on when that Player has their head down over the football. NOTE: – a Player can bump an opposition Player’s body from side-on but any contact forward of side-on will be deemed to be front-on; – a Player with their head down in anticipation of winning possession of the football or after contesting the football will be deemed to have their head down over the football for the purposes of this law. '

2 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

If he was bracing, which is the way I was taught, you tucked your arm in and used the shoulder, he aimed to hurt, he was lucky Oliver is made of rock

yes agree with this assessment, definitely aimed to hurt and would have seriously hurt most players. It was head high and designed to take out Oliver. I think other actions by Rioli during the match gives you a pathology that suggests that many of his tackles were not legitimate or fair. In my day, they would have been labelled dirty and the player would have had the dirty label.

But because Cyril is special he will probably get off.

The AFL updated their ruling of the Rioli bump.

It now states "...the incident was assessed as careless conduct with low impact to the head."

How the hell was that "low impact"?

The inconsistency is maddening.

And it might say something that every other club's supporters will comment that Hawthorn are getting a 'good run' from umpires, even if you aren't specifcially talking about Hawthorn, it gets brought up as "yeah, and what about how they always go easy on Hawthorn, it's an embarrassment".

Anyway, my mind was set way back when Spider Everitt, behind play, used his forearm to hold Simon Godfrey to the ground. Innocuous enough... except he was 'holding him down' at the throat! No free, no review, no penalty, of course. 

It really does go back that far.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The AFL updated their ruling of the Rioli bump.

It now states "...the incident was assessed as careless conduct with low impact to the head."

How the hell was that "low impact"?

Its poor wording it really should say "low damage" because thats all that matters. You can be as cowardly and dirty player as you want to be as long as you dont hit anyone hard. 

5 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

The AFL updated their ruling of the Rioli bump.

It now states "...the incident was assessed as careless conduct with low impact to the head."

How the hell was that "low impact"?

I ranted on another thread and i will rant here - YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.... if it is deemed head it should be weeks. So we are now assessing impact by a medical report. So if you smash someone with a fist to the face and they get straight back up - then it should be deemed insufficient force. The MRP is a joke ( and a bad one at that.)

19 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

because it is illegal to bump the front of the body. read the rules

So why isn't Cyril being cited when he bumped weideman head on and then lifted his leg and drove him into the turf?

That was head on.