There's mistakes but then it gets to being cheating.

[8856brother]

Watchig Pies v Dees atm. Can that Pendelbury get a free kick. He personally had more frees than the saints at half time of our game this year. He gets looked after, a bit like Selwood. We get donuts, week in week out. Win lose or draw.

[CURLY]

Melbourne are rubbish yet have three times as many frees as we did up until half time last night. So ladder position means nothing.

[GrumpyOne]

Honestly guys, what do you expect from a Clarkson coached team.

"Win at any cost" is his motto.... forged in London.

He has coached his side to take advantage of any grey area in the rules. Blocking the man on the mark, fending off in the face, leaping into packs without any intention of getting the ball, it was all on display.

That's not football in my book. The Umpires should have a good long look at the tape, and then have a good long look at themselves.

[Sainter_Dad]

AND they are positioning themselves terribly if they are legitimately 'missing' all the free kicks that they appear to be (to me and others)

I could not believe the positioning of the boundary umpire in the third quarter, it went in our favour, but as Armo (I think) ran down the boundary line, and was clearly out, the Hawks appealed that it was out, and the boundary umpire simply raised both his hands, shrugged his shoulders and had an apologetic look on his face. Looked like he did not even see the ball a foot over the line.

[Sainter_Dad]

Courtesy of: www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay

St Kilda
First Quarter
6:40 - Hickey - Definitely High
29:03 - Billings - Tunnelled in Mark - Would have Marked

Second Quarter
15:40 - Steven - Great Tackle Rewarded

Third Quarter
19:35 - Steven - Holding - Bit Soft - no real impact
25:45 - Montagna - Great Tackle Rewarded
30:55 - Lonie - Miassive 'In the Back'

Fourth Quarter
0:47 - Geary - Clear Marking Infringement
3:02 - Bruce - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
26:11 - Longer - Marking Infringement - Bit Soft
28:06 - Ray - Throw - Called by the Umpire 100 mtrs away

Hawthorn
First Quarter
9:46 - Hale - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
12:19 - Bruest - Deliberate - Technical
13:48 - Bruest - 'In the Back' Not there - Perfect Tackle
16:34 - Mitchell - Holding - There
18:52 - Gunston - Holding - There
23:54 - Lewis - Blocking - Not There
27:45 - Lake - Holding - Would normally be 'In the Back' to Bruce

Second Quarter
1:53 - Mitchell - Holding - Slightest of Touches - Not there
8:58 - Gibson - High
9:28 - Roughead - Marking Infringement - Not there
10:41 - Shiels - 'Holding the Ball' - Ball is knocked free in tackle - No Prior

Third Quarter
12:43 - Ceglar - Holding - 50/50
14:37 - Schoenmakers - Marking Infringement - Definitely not there

Fourth Quarter
0:53 - Frawley - 'In the Back' - Perfect side on tackle - a little late
4:10 - Hale - 'In the Back' - awkward tackle - there
14:23 - Hale - Ruck Infringement - Not there
15:25 - Gunston - Marking Infringement - 50/50
22:00 - Hodge - 'Holding the Ball' - No Prior

[Kate]

St Kilda
First Quarter
6:40 - Hickey - Definitely High
29:03 - Billings - Tunnelled in Mark - Would have Marked

Second Quarter
15:40 - Steven - Great Tackle Rewarded

Third Quarter
19:35 - Steven - Holding - Bit Soft - no real impact
25:45 - Montagna - Great Tackle Rewarded
30:55 - Lonie - Miassive 'In the Back'

Fourth Quarter
0:47 - Geary - Clear Marking Infringement
3:02 - Bruce - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
26:11 - Longer - Marking Infringement - Bit Soft
28:06 - Ray - Throw - Called by the Umpire 100 mtrs away

Hawthorn
First Quarter
9:46 - Hale - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
12:19 - Bruest - Deliberate - Technical
13:48 - Bruest - 'In the Back' Not there - Perfect Tackle
16:34 - Mitchell - Holding - There
18:52 - Gunston - Holding - There
23:54 - Lewis - Blocking - Not There
27:45 - Lake - Holding - Would normally be 'In the Back' to Bruce

Second Quarter
1:53 - Mitchell - Holding - Slightest of Touches - Not there
8:58 - Gibson - High
9:28 - Roughead - Marking Infringement - Not there
10:41 - Shiels - 'Holding the Ball' - Ball is knocked free in tackle - No Prior

Third Quarter
12:43 - Ceglar - Holding - 50/50
14:37 - Schoenmakers - Marking Infringement - Definitely not there

Fourth Quarter
0:53 - Frawley - 'In the Back' - Perfect side on tackle - a little late
4:10 - Hale - 'In the Back' - awkward tackle - there
14:23 - Hale - Ruck Infringement - Not there
15:25 - Gunston - Marking Infringement - 50/50
22:00 - Hodge - 'Holding the Ball' - No Prior

Great analysis, and this is only looking at frees that were paid. Gets worse again when you look at the times the whistle wasn't blown but should have been. Hawthorn are a clever side that were able to recognise that they could "get away" with a lot more, and they took full advantage of it.

[plugger66]

Courtesy of: http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay

St Kilda
First Quarter
6:40 - Hickey - Definitely High
29:03 - Billings - Tunnelled in Mark - Would have Marked

Second Quarter
15:40 - Steven - Great Tackle Rewarded

Third Quarter
19:35 - Steven - Holding - Bit Soft - no real impact
25:45 - Montagna - Great Tackle Rewarded
30:55 - Lonie - Miassive 'In the Back'

Fourth Quarter
0:47 - Geary - Clear Marking Infringement
3:02 - Bruce - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
26:11 - Longer - Marking Infringement - Bit Soft
28:06 - Ray - Throw - Called by the Umpire 100 mtrs away

Hawthorn
First Quarter
9:46 - Hale - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
12:19 - Bruest - Deliberate - Technical
13:48 - Bruest - 'In the Back' Not there - Perfect Tackle
16:34 - Mitchell - Holding - There
18:52 - Gunston - Holding - There
23:54 - Lewis - Blocking - Not There
27:45 - Lake - Holding - Would normally be 'In the Back' to Bruce

Second Quarter
1:53 - Mitchell - Holding - Slightest of Touches - Not there
8:58 - Gibson - High
9:28 - Roughead - Marking Infringement - Not there
10:41 - Shiels - 'Holding the Ball' - Ball is knocked free in tackle - No Prior

Third Quarter
12:43 - Ceglar - Holding - 50/50
14:37 - Schoenmakers - Marking Infringement - Definitely not there

Fourth Quarter
0:53 - Frawley - 'In the Back' - Perfect side on tackle - a little late
4:10 - Hale - 'In the Back' - awkward tackle - there
14:23 - Hale - Ruck Infringement - Not there
15:25 - Gunston - Marking Infringement - 50/50
22:00 - Hodge - 'Holding the Ball' - No Prior

Look I don't know if the umpiring was bad or not. We certainly did not get the run of it but its hard to take you seriously when you call the deliberate, Technical. One of the most obvious I have see. Probably proves that your description of others may have a little bias which is fair enough but also means your descriptions maybe a little bit off.

[Sainter_Dad]

Look I don't know if the umpiring was bad or not. We certainly did not get the run of it but its hard to take you seriously when you call the deliberate, Technical. One of the most obvious I have see. Probably proves that your description of others may have a little bias which is fair enough but also means your descriptions maybe a little bit off.

So Plug's you would have that paid every time it occurred - I see that he was only going for the boundary and completely agree it was there - but if that is paid then so should at least 5 every game.

And I do umpire - but please feel free to review my descriptions - alsp feel free to put in any comments on the others that you feel Hawthorn deserved but were not paid.

[gringo]

Courtesy of: http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay

St Kilda
First Quarter
6:40 - Hickey - Definitely High
29:03 - Billings - Tunnelled in Mark - Would have Marked

Second Quarter
15:40 - Steven - Great Tackle Rewarded

Third Quarter
19:35 - Steven - Holding - Bit Soft - no real impact
25:45 - Montagna - Great Tackle Rewarded
30:55 - Lonie - Miassive 'In the Back'

Fourth Quarter
0:47 - Geary - Clear Marking Infringement
3:02 - Bruce - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
26:11 - Longer - Marking Infringement - Bit Soft
28:06 - Ray - Throw - Called by the Umpire 100 mtrs away

Hawthorn
First Quarter
9:46 - Hale - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
12:19 - Bruest - Deliberate - Technical
13:48 - Bruest - 'In the Back' Not there - Perfect Tackle
16:34 - Mitchell - Holding - There
18:52 - Gunston - Holding - There
23:54 - Lewis - Blocking - Not There
27:45 - Lake - Holding - Would normally be 'In the Back' to Bruce

Second Quarter
1:53 - Mitchell - Holding - Slightest of Touches - Not there
8:58 - Gibson - High
9:28 - Roughead - Marking Infringement - Not there
10:41 - Shiels - 'Holding the Ball' - Ball is knocked free in tackle - No Prior

Third Quarter
12:43 - Ceglar - Holding - 50/50
14:37 - Schoenmakers - Marking Infringement - Definitely not there

Fourth Quarter
0:53 - Frawley - 'In the Back' - Perfect side on tackle - a little late
4:10 - Hale - 'In the Back' - awkward tackle - there
14:23 - Hale - Ruck Infringement - Not there
15:25 - Gunston - Marking Infringement - 50/50
22:00 - Hodge - 'Holding the Ball' - No Prior

Look I don't know if the umpiring was bad or not. We certainly did not get the run of it but its hard to take you seriously when you call the deliberate, Technical. One of the most obvious I have see. Probably proves that your description of others may have a little bias which is fair enough but also means your descriptions maybe a little bit off.

You do know it was bad. You are bullshitting if you thought it was even close to an acceptable performance. You are desperate to justify your self if you claim the semantics ruin his argument when the proof was in watching. It was an unacceptably one sided umpiring display.

[CURLY]

Courtesy of: http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay

St Kilda
First Quarter
6:40 - Hickey - Definitely High
29:03 - Billings - Tunnelled in Mark - Would have Marked

Second Quarter
15:40 - Steven - Great Tackle Rewarded

Third Quarter
19:35 - Steven - Holding - Bit Soft - no real impact
25:45 - Montagna - Great Tackle Rewarded
30:55 - Lonie - Miassive 'In the Back'

Fourth Quarter
0:47 - Geary - Clear Marking Infringement
3:02 - Bruce - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
26:11 - Longer - Marking Infringement - Bit Soft
28:06 - Ray - Throw - Called by the Umpire 100 mtrs away

Hawthorn
First Quarter
9:46 - Hale - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
12:19 - Bruest - Deliberate - Technical
13:48 - Bruest - 'In the Back' Not there - Perfect Tackle
16:34 - Mitchell - Holding - There
18:52 - Gunston - Holding - There
23:54 - Lewis - Blocking - Not There
27:45 - Lake - Holding - Would normally be 'In the Back' to Bruce

Second Quarter
1:53 - Mitchell - Holding - Slightest of Touches - Not there
8:58 - Gibson - High
9:28 - Roughead - Marking Infringement - Not there
10:41 - Shiels - 'Holding the Ball' - Ball is knocked free in tackle - No Prior

Third Quarter
12:43 - Ceglar - Holding - 50/50
14:37 - Schoenmakers - Marking Infringement - Definitely not there

Fourth Quarter
0:53 - Frawley - 'In the Back' - Perfect side on tackle - a little late
4:10 - Hale - 'In the Back' - awkward tackle - there
14:23 - Hale - Ruck Infringement - Not there
15:25 - Gunston - Marking Infringement - 50/50
22:00 - Hodge - 'Holding the Ball' - No Prior

Look I don't know if the umpiring was bad or not. We certainly did not get the run of it but its hard to take you seriously when you call the deliberate, Technical. One of the most obvious I have see. Probably proves that your description of others may have a little bias which is fair enough but also means your descriptions maybe a little bit off.

In regard to Gearys deliberate the point is they just never pay it. Today alone I watched skill full players a meter from the boundry simply tap waist high balls over the line. All delineate none paid. That's what's frustrating.

[plugger66]

In regard to Gearys deliberate the point is they just never pay it. Today alone I watched skill full players a meter from the boundry simply tap waist high balls over the line. All delineate none paid. That's what's frustrating.

They never pay it? I haven't seen one like that to say they never pay it but if they didn't then they have made a very clear mistake. Like I said its hard to take all the decriptions seriously if you try to say its technical. Actually it technical and its also 100% correct.

[8856brother]

Courtesy of: http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay

St Kilda
First Quarter
6:40 - Hickey - Definitely High
29:03 - Billings - Tunnelled in Mark - Would have Marked

Second Quarter
15:40 - Steven - Great Tackle Rewarded

Third Quarter
19:35 - Steven - Holding - Bit Soft - no real impact
25:45 - Montagna - Great Tackle Rewarded
30:55 - Lonie - Miassive 'In the Back'

Fourth Quarter
0:47 - Geary - Clear Marking Infringement
3:02 - Bruce - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
26:11 - Longer - Marking Infringement - Bit Soft
28:06 - Ray - Throw - Called by the Umpire 100 mtrs away

Hawthorn
First Quarter
9:46 - Hale - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
12:19 - Bruest - Deliberate - Technical
13:48 - Bruest - 'In the Back' Not there - Perfect Tackle
16:34 - Mitchell - Holding - There
18:52 - Gunston - Holding - There
23:54 - Lewis - Blocking - Not There
27:45 - Lake - Holding - Would normally be 'In the Back' to Bruce

Second Quarter
1:53 - Mitchell - Holding - Slightest of Touches - Not there
8:58 - Gibson - High
9:28 - Roughead - Marking Infringement - Not there
10:41 - Shiels - 'Holding the Ball' - Ball is knocked free in tackle - No Prior

Third Quarter
12:43 - Ceglar - Holding - 50/50
14:37 - Schoenmakers - Marking Infringement - Definitely not there

Fourth Quarter
0:53 - Frawley - 'In the Back' - Perfect side on tackle - a little late
4:10 - Hale - 'In the Back' - awkward tackle - there
14:23 - Hale - Ruck Infringement - Not there
15:25 - Gunston - Marking Infringement - 50/50
22:00 - Hodge - 'Holding the Ball' - No Prior

Look I don't know if the umpiring was bad or not. We certainly did not get the run of it but its hard to take you seriously when you call the deliberate, Technical. One of the most obvious I have see. Probably proves that your description of others may have a little bias which is fair enough but also means your descriptions maybe a little bit off.

In regard to Gearys deliberate the point is they just never pay it. Today alone I watched skill full players a meter from the boundry simply tap waist high balls over the line. All delineate none paid. That's what's frustrating.

Happened today. Commentators openly giggling about how deliberate it was. No free paid, nor was it expected to be. Bruce could have also possibly received up to 3 frees in marking contests and got none.

[CURLY]

In regard to Gearys deliberate the point is they just never pay it. Today alone I watched skill full players a meter from the boundry simply tap waist high balls over the line. All delineate none paid. That's what's frustrating.

They never pay it? I haven't seen one like that to say they never pay it but if they didn't then they have made a very clear mistake. Like I said its hard to take all the decriptions seriously if you try to say its technical. Actually it technical and its also 100% correct.

What about Armo not getting a free for kicking in danger?

[plugger66]

In regard to Gearys deliberate the point is they just never pay it. Today alone I watched skill full players a meter from the boundry simply tap waist high balls over the line. All delineate none paid. That's what's frustrating.

They never pay it? I haven't seen one like that to say they never pay it but if they didn't then they have made a very clear mistake. Like I said its hard to take all the decriptions seriously if you try to say its technical. Actually it technical and its also 100% correct.

What about Armo not getting a free for kicking in danger?

No idea. cant remember it. Do remember the deliberate because people around me whinged until they saw the replay. Probably an error if it was that obvious to Armo. At least you has a good 2 days to watch umpires. I watched the players yesterday.

[kosifantutti]

Courtesy of: http://www.afl.com.au/video/smart-replay

St Kilda
First Quarter
6:40 - Hickey - Definitely High
29:03 - Billings - Tunnelled in Mark - Would have Marked

Second Quarter
15:40 - Steven - Great Tackle Rewarded

Third Quarter
19:35 - Steven - Holding - Bit Soft - no real impact
25:45 - Montagna - Great Tackle Rewarded
30:55 - Lonie - Miassive 'In the Back'

Fourth Quarter
0:47 - Geary - Clear Marking Infringement
3:02 - Bruce - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
26:11 - Longer - Marking Infringement - Bit Soft
28:06 - Ray - Throw - Called by the Umpire 100 mtrs away

Hawthorn
First Quarter
9:46 - Hale - Great Tackle - Plenty of Prior
12:19 - Bruest - Deliberate - Technical
13:48 - Bruest - 'In the Back' Not there - Perfect Tackle
16:34 - Mitchell - Holding - There
18:52 - Gunston - Holding - There
23:54 - Lewis - Blocking - Not There
27:45 - Lake - Holding - Would normally be 'In the Back' to Bruce

Second Quarter
1:53 - Mitchell - Holding - Slightest of Touches - Not there
8:58 - Gibson - High
9:28 - Roughead - Marking Infringement - Not there
10:41 - Shiels - 'Holding the Ball' - Ball is knocked free in tackle - No Prior

Third Quarter
12:43 - Ceglar - Holding - 50/50
14:37 - Schoenmakers - Marking Infringement - Definitely not there

Fourth Quarter
0:53 - Frawley - 'In the Back' - Perfect side on tackle - a little late
4:10 - Hale - 'In the Back' - awkward tackle - there
14:23 - Hale - Ruck Infringement - Not there
15:25 - Gunston - Marking Infringement - 50/50
22:00 - Hodge - 'Holding the Ball' - No Prior

Look I don't know if the umpiring was bad or not. We certainly did not get the run of it but its hard to take you seriously when you call the deliberate, Technical. One of the most obvious I have see. Probably proves that your description of others may have a little bias which is fair enough but also means your descriptions maybe a little bit off.

In regard to Gearys deliberate the point is they just never pay it. Today alone I watched skill full players a meter from the boundry simply tap waist high balls over the line. All delineate none paid. That's what's frustrating.

Happened today. Commentators openly giggling about how deliberate it was. No free paid, nor was it expected to be. Bruce could have also possibly received up to 3 frees in marking contests and got none.

Saw that. Varcoe? He pretended he was trying to catch the ball but really just knocked it out. Probably should have been a free.

But it was way less obvious than the one against Geary which would be a free kick every time. Geary gave the umpire no choice. Not technical. Just a 100% free.

[CURLY]

In regard to Gearys deliberate the point is they just never pay it. Today alone I watched skill full players a meter from the boundry simply tap waist high balls over the line. All delineate none paid. That's what's frustrating.

They never pay it? I haven't seen one like that to say they never pay it but if they didn't then they have made a very clear mistake. Like I said its hard to take all the decriptions seriously if you try to say its technical. Actually it technical and its also 100% correct.

What about Armo not getting a free for kicking in danger?

No idea. cant remember it. Do remember the deliberate because people around me whinged until they saw the replay. Probably an error if it was that obvious to Armo. At least you has a good 2 days to watch umpires. I watched the players yesterday.

No frees to Roo or Bruce again. The umps just refuse to look after us.

By the way we had a umpire from the Ammos come up and do the reserves. If that's what you cop each week no wonder you've become immune to the s*** StKilda get.

[plugger66]

In regard to Gearys deliberate the point is they just never pay it. Today alone I watched skill full players a meter from the boundry simply tap waist high balls over the line. All delineate none paid. That's what's frustrating.

They never pay it? I haven't seen one like that to say they never pay it but if they didn't then they have made a very clear mistake. Like I said its hard to take all the decriptions seriously if you try to say its technical. Actually it technical and its also 100% correct.

What about Armo not getting a free for kicking in danger?

No idea. cant remember it. Do remember the deliberate because people around me whinged until they saw the replay. Probably an error if it was that obvious to Armo. At least you has a good 2 days to watch umpires. I watched the players yesterday.

No frees to Roo or Bruce again. The umps just refuse to look after us.

By the way we had a umpire from the Ammos come up and do the reserves. If that's what you cop each week no wonder you've become immune to the s*** StKilda get.

Fancy you thinking an umpire was poor in your footy. And even in the seconds. Did you also think they umpired poorly in the legends game? I watched the players all week. At least you are consistent. No free to Bruce or Roo. You do realise Rooy averages the most frees for of any key forward in the AFL. Well certainly the biggest gap between for and against.

[Sainter_Dad]

They never pay it? I haven't seen one like that to say they never pay it but if they didn't then they have made a very clear mistake. Like I said its hard to take all the decriptions seriously if you try to say its technical. Actually it technical and its also 100% correct.

Plugger - Please show me where I said it was not correct in paying it - it was technical - so we agree - Technically it was there - and it was paid - technically a lot of frees were there and they weren't paid.

[plugger66]

They never pay it? I haven't seen one like that to say they never pay it but if they didn't then they have made a very clear mistake. Like I said its hard to take all the decriptions seriously if you try to say its technical. Actually it technical and its also 100% correct.

Plugger - Please show me where I said it was not correct in paying it - it was technical - so we agree - Technically it was there - and it was paid - technically a lot of frees were there and they weren't paid.

Strange that you only mentioned it for that one. Was there no other technical frees? IMO you thought they could justify the free but you wouldn't not have paid it.

[Sainter_Dad]

They never pay it? I haven't seen one like that to say they never pay it but if they didn't then they have made a very clear mistake. Like I said its hard to take all the decriptions seriously if you try to say its technical. Actually it technical and its also 100% correct.

Plugger - Please show me where I said it was not correct in paying it - it was technical - so we agree - Technically it was there - and it was paid - technically a lot of frees were there and they weren't paid.

Strange that you only mentioned it for that one. Was there no other technical frees? IMO you thought they could justify the free but you wouldn't not have paid it.

There were others - and I used soft - see Billy Longers free for the Marking Infringement - see Steven free for holding - see Mitchell free for holding - did not think that Geary's free was soft - just Technical.

[plugger66]

They never pay it? I haven't seen one like that to say they never pay it but if they didn't then they have made a very clear mistake. Like I said its hard to take all the decriptions seriously if you try to say its technical. Actually it technical and its also 100% correct.

Plugger - Please show me where I said it was not correct in paying it - it was technical - so we agree - Technically it was there - and it was paid - technically a lot of frees were there and they weren't paid.

Strange that you only mentioned it for that one. Was there no other technical frees? IMO you thought they could justify the free but you wouldn't not have paid it.

There were others - and I used soft - see Billy Londers free for the Marking Infringement - see Steven free for holding - see Mitchell free for holding - did not think that Geary's free was soft - just Technical.

I would have used very obvious.

[Bunk_Moreland]

They never pay it? I haven't seen one like that to say they never pay it but if they didn't then they have made a very clear mistake. Like I said its hard to take all the decriptions seriously if you try to say its technical. Actually it technical and its also 100% correct.

Plugger - Please show me where I said it was not correct in paying it - it was technical - so we agree - Technically it was there - and it was paid - technically a lot of frees were there and they weren't paid.

Strange that you only mentioned it for that one. Was there no other technical frees? IMO you thought they could justify the free but you wouldn't not have paid it.

Gibson technically put his hand on Bruces shoulder in almost every single to hoist himself up, but I suppose the umpires dont look at marking contests, or is there a rule where a defender can hold down a forward like that?

you are the umpire Plugger can you answer if that is a rule. If not why did the umpires let it go all afternoon?

[SainterK]

[plugger66]

They never pay it? I haven't seen one like that to say they never pay it but if they didn't then they have made a very clear mistake. Like I said its hard to take all the decriptions seriously if you try to say its technical. Actually it technical and its also 100% correct.

Plugger - Please show me where I said it was not correct in paying it - it was technical - so we agree - Technically it was there - and it was paid - technically a lot of frees were there and they weren't paid.

Strange that you only mentioned it for that one. Was there no other technical frees? IMO you thought they could justify the free but you wouldn't not have paid it.

Gibson technically put his hand on Bruces shoulder in almost every single to hoist himself up, but I suppose the umpires dont look at marking contests, or is there a rule where a defender can hold down a forward like that?

you are the umpire Plugger can you answer if that is a rule. If not why did the umpires let it go all afternoon?

It is a rule. I cant tell you why the umpires let it go but I suppose that's why I don't like the word technical. You could make an excuse for 100 frees in a game but no one wants that. Well I don't. We didn't get the rub but as silly as it sounds there is probably a thread on the Hawks fan forum complaining about the umpires. Anyway Im more interested about things our club can do like trying to win every game we play in or whether Longer or Hickey should ruck or whether Lee or Goddard play this week.

[CURLY]

They never pay it? I haven't seen one like that to say they never pay it but if they didn't then they have made a very clear mistake. Like I said its hard to take all the decriptions seriously if you try to say its technical. Actually it technical and its also 100% correct.

Plugger - Please show me where I said it was not correct in paying it - it was technical - so we agree - Technically it was there - and it was paid - technically a lot of frees were there and they weren't paid.

Strange that you only mentioned it for that one. Was there no other technical frees? IMO you thought they could justify the free but you wouldn't not have paid it.

Gibson technically put his hand on Bruces shoulder in almost every single to hoist himself up, but I suppose the umpires dont look at marking contests, or is there a rule where a defender can hold down a forward like that?

you are the umpire Plugger can you answer if that is a rule. If not why did the umpires let it go all afternoon?

They were to obvious. Umpires like to try and prove they know more than everyone by paying ridiculous technical frees and ignore clear frees. The treatment of Bruce was a disgrace.