In the back to hickey marking contest!!

[chook23]

Why was that not a free to hickey?
Clearly bumped in back causing interference.
Scores level at time........
Livid

[ralphsmith]

Yep that arguably cost the game.
Commentators even surprised it wasn't paid.

[bigcarl]

I guess we've just got to suck it up because we are also-rans.

[Devilhead]

He got smashed - taken out of the contest

There were at least two frees to Hickey in those final minutes that were not paid ........... and then he gets one paid against him that wasn't

Still shaking my head

[Milne]

All I can say is f**k. So livid right now

[Griggsy]

Well there was that call
Ziebell gets a free whenever he puts his head down, one against Gresham prob the worst call all season
Nahas was holding the ball clearly with 4 minutes
Dal with obvious deliberate oob twice in the last quarter
Ruck call was bull
+ others

[BigMart]

The Nahas HTB was terrible

[mullet]

but every week there have been howling decisions that have cost matches. And they come out and say yeah we got it wrong, but by wednesday its too late

[saynta]

I guess we've just got to suck it up because we are also-rans.

Well, that's obviously what the AFL thinks and they control the maggots.

Breaks your heart though to see the Saints get robbed of games year after year by the maggot lice.

[mullet]

I guess we've just got to suck it up because we are also-rans.

Well, that's obviously what the AFL thinks and they control the maggots.

Breaks your heart though to see the Saints get robbed of games year after year by the maggot lice.

Think the crows would be feeling the same after last night

[saynta]

Well there was that call
Ziebell gets a free whenever he puts his head down, one against Gresham prob the worst call all season
Nahas was holding the ball clearly with 4 minutes
Dal with obvious deliberate oob twice in the last quarter
Ruck call was bull
+ others

The push in the back to Harvey was a joke. Not long after Firrito puts both hands squarely in Roo's back and propels him forward. Play on was the call.

Plenty of holding the ball instances by Roos players not paid. The call on Newnes was a joke in those circumstances.

[mullet]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/t ... bdcb83898b

3rd last who would have thought

[George27]

Why was that not a free to hickey?
Clearly bumped in back causing interference.
Scores level at time........
Livid

Just watched it again in slo mo. Definitely a free to Hickey. Plus they injured his leg when they squashed him in that contest, which meant he struggled to the next ruck contest, which meant he could not jump, which gave the umpire the lame excuse to give Goldstein the free.

My overall feeling at the final siren was pride in the effort. However now , having reflected on the game during the trip home, watched the replay and reflected on the multiple crap decisions ( the Goldstein, Harvey and two Ziebell ones being the worst of a whole heap of them) I am really angry. Proud still , but angry too.

The Crows are making a big fuss over last night. I hate the way every losing NRL coach bags the referees , but after the Hawthorn debacle and now this, the club has to stand up and not trot out the "oh well, that is the way it goes " line.

[ROLS-LEE]

As much as I want our coach to stand up and say something I remember when Tommo did it and it took years to recover from. Even Schneider took years to get a 50 50 free after the hand clamping fiasco. I will be watching the crows games to see if they get f'ed over like we did.

As for the Hickey incident. The ruck duel was a free to them but the mark 20 seconds earlier should have been a free to Hickey. Front on contact eyes not at ball and chopping arms. That should have been a free every day of the week, and it was on our forward 50mtr

[Life Long Saint]

As much as I want our coach to stand up and say something I remember when Tommo did it and it took years to recover from. Even Schneider took years to get a 50 50 free after the hand clamping fiasco. I will be watching the crows games to see if they get f'ed over like we did.

As for the Hickey incident. The ruck duel was a free to them but the mark 20 seconds earlier should have been a free to Hickey. Front on contact eyes not at ball and chopping arms. That should have been a free every day of the week, and it was on our forward 50mtr

Can I just say that nowhere in the rules of the AFL does it say that a player must have eyes on the ball and not his opponent. Almost every ruckman at every contest looks at his opponent...It's folly if you don't as you need to know where he is to position yourself and time your leap.
Hickey did NOTHING wrong in that ruck contest. Absolute howler of a decision. As were the ones already mentioned here...It's funny that I can't point to a single 50/50 call that went our way yesterday. But I can recall many North Melbourne 50/50 frees.
When you have more possessions and only lose the contested possessions by 9 and have the same number of tackles then something stinks when the free kick count is lop-sided.
It's not so much the ones the opposition get but it is the ones St Kilda does not get that hurt...Especially to Roo and Bruce!

[ROLS-LEE]

To me the free against Hickey was not due to looking at the opp but was for the hand put out to keep Goldstein from jumping into him hence blocking him from the contest. Yes I don't like it but it's the rules. You can't block and the umps have been hot on it all year.

[Toy Saint]

As much as I want our coach to stand up and say something I remember when Tommo did it and it took years to recover from. Even Schneider took years to get a 50 50 free after the hand clamping fiasco. I will be watching the crows games to see if they get f'ed over like we did.

As for the Hickey incident. The ruck duel was a free to them but the mark 20 seconds earlier should have been a free to Hickey. Front on contact eyes not at ball and chopping arms. That should have been a free every day of the week, and it was on our forward 50mtr

Why was the ruck duel a free to them? Hickey stood in the same spot, the ball would have landed on his head. Agree he took his eye off the ball, but there is nothing in the rule book against that.

Looking at the replay, the resulting point from Goldstein looked very close to out of bounce. In fact, I think it probably was out of bounce.

[Life Long Saint]

You can't block and the umps have been hot on it all year.

Except when they haven't! Just like the deliberate OOB, just like the diving on the ball to take your opponents legs, just like hands in the back, just like 15m kicks...

[perfectionist]

To me the free against Hickey was not due to looking at the opp but was for the hand put out to keep Goldstein from jumping into him hence blocking him from the contest. Yes I don't like it but it's the rules. You can't block and the umps have been hot on it all year.

Yes, you are correct. This is the interpretation that the umpires are instructed to pay. But, given the amount of mauling that happens elsewhere in ruck contests, I don't understand why the Rules Committee has chosen this stance. It was line ball whether he pushed him out of the contest. I didn't think he did. However, had not used his hand, but his body - including his elbow - then it would have been play on. I have no doubt, as others have said, that he was a victim of circumstances. He was literally running himself into the ground, and on one leg at the time. The tiredness factor was very high. I thought Tom Hickey played a mighty game.

[saynta]

To me the free against Hickey was not due to looking at the opp but was for the hand put out to keep Goldstein from jumping into him hence blocking him from the contest. Yes I don't like it but it's the rules. You can't block and the umps have been hot on it all year.

Yes, you are correct. This is the interpretation that the umpires are instructed to pay. But, given the amount of mauling that happens elsewhere in ruck contests, I don't understand why the Rules Committee has chosen this stance. It was line ball whether he pushed him out of the contest. I didn't think he did. However, had not used his hand, but his body - including his elbow - then it would have been play on. I have no doubt, as others have said, that he was a victim of circumstances. He was literally running himself into the ground, and on one leg at the time. The tiredness factor was very high. I thought Tom Hickey played a mighty game.

Yes he did. Well sad.

[ROLS-LEE]

As much as I want our coach to stand up and say something I remember when Tommo did it and it took years to recover from. Even Schneider took years to get a 50 50 free after the hand clamping fiasco. I will be watching the crows games to see if they get f'ed over like we did.

As for the Hickey incident. The ruck duel was a free to them but the mark 20 seconds earlier should have been a free to Hickey. Front on contact eyes not at ball and chopping arms. That should have been a free every day of the week, and it was on our forward 50mtr

Why was the ruck duel a free to them? Hickey stood in the same spot, the ball would have landed on his head. Agree he took his eye off the ball, but there is nothing in the rule book against that.

Looking at the replay, the resulting point from Goldstein looked very close to out of bounce. In fact, I think it probably was out of bounce.

The moment Hickey took his eye off the ball and put his arm out to protect himself from Goldstein knee was deemed a free kick.

[8856brother]

Thought there were 3 50/50 decisions in the last couple of minutes.

1. Hickey marking contest. Which injured Tom, meaning he couldn't jump at the next stoppage
2. Savage tackle in the back. Led to the ball up.
3. Ruck infringement.

All went in North's favour.

[SydneySainter]

To me the free against Hickey was not due to looking at the opp but was for the hand put out to keep Goldstein from jumping into him hence blocking him from the contest. Yes I don't like it but it's the rules. You can't block and the umps have been hot on it all year.

Yes, you are correct. This is the interpretation that the umpires are instructed to pay. But, given the amount of mauling that happens elsewhere in ruck contests, I don't understand why the Rules Committee has chosen this stance. It was line ball whether he pushed him out of the contest. I didn't think he did. However, had not used his hand, but his body - including his elbow - then it would have been play on. I have no doubt, as others have said, that he was a victim of circumstances. He was literally running himself into the ground, and on one leg at the time. The tiredness factor was very high. I thought Tom Hickey played a mighty game.

What frustrates me the most is when and where umpire choose to pay these frees.

In the letter of the law, the free against Hickey was there, same way the "hands in the back" free to Boomer was there also. But whether or not I agree with the rule is irrelevant, as long as these frees are paid consistently, then at least that's fare, but when the umpires cherry pick their moments, that's what infuriates me. No one gets it right all the time, but some consistency would be nice.

[kp83]

To me the free against Hickey was not due to looking at the opp but was for the hand put out to keep Goldstein from jumping into him hence blocking him from the contest. Yes I don't like it but it's the rules. You can't block and the umps have been hot on it all year.

Yes, you are correct. This is the interpretation that the umpires are instructed to pay. But, given the amount of mauling that happens elsewhere in ruck contests, I don't understand why the Rules Committee has chosen this stance. It was line ball whether he pushed him out of the contest. I didn't think he did. However, had not used his hand, but his body - including his elbow - then it would have been play on. I have no doubt, as others have said, that he was a victim of circumstances. He was literally running himself into the ground, and on one leg at the time. The tiredness factor was very high. I thought Tom Hickey played a mighty game.

What frustrates me the most is when and where umpire choose to pay these frees.

In the letter of the law, the free against Hickey was there, same way the "hands in the back" free to Boomer was there also. But whether or not I agree with the rule is irrelevant, as long as these frees are paid consistently, then at least that's fare, but when the umpires cherry pick their moments, that's what infuriates me. No one gets it right all the time, but some consistency would be nice.

Agree with this 100%. Another way to put it is to say imagine if those 2 examples were not paid as free kicks...would anyone (including North fans) have noticed? I would say not.

[mullet]

To me the free against Hickey was not due to looking at the opp but was for the hand put out to keep Goldstein from jumping into him hence blocking him from the contest. Yes I don't like it but it's the rules. You can't block and the umps have been hot on it all year.

Yes, you are correct. This is the interpretation that the umpires are instructed to pay. But, given the amount of mauling that happens elsewhere in ruck contests, I don't understand why the Rules Committee has chosen this stance. It was line ball whether he pushed him out of the contest. I didn't think he did. However, had not used his hand, but his body - including his elbow - then it would have been play on. I have no doubt, as others have said, that he was a victim of circumstances. He was literally running himself into the ground, and on one leg at the time. The tiredness factor was very high. I thought Tom Hickey played a mighty game.

What frustrates me the most is when and where umpire choose to pay these frees.

In the letter of the law, the free against Hickey was there, same way the "hands in the back" free to Boomer was there also. But whether or not I agree with the rule is irrelevant, as long as these frees are paid consistently, then at least that's fare, but when the umpires cherry pick their moments, that's what infuriates me. No one gets it right all the time, but some consistency would be nice.

Agree with this 100%. Another way to put it is to say imagine if those 2 examples were not paid as free kicks...would anyone (including North fans) have noticed? I would say not.

KP I thought exactly the same thing. If the free wasnt paid, no one would have said a thing. Bit like the old tree falling in the forrest and does anyone hear thing.