Hawthorn’s first goal

[kosifantutti]

McKenzie obviously touched it or thought he did, then didn’t bother hustling back. I’m not blaming the umpires, there’s plenty of other mistakes they made, but if they can’t see it they can’t call it.

But it’s these little things like hustling and manning marks and making throws look like handballs that we don’t do very well.

Also, do Hawthorn always do that thing of shepherding the man on the mark? I don’t think it worked for them. We tended to bring an extra player down and they would end up kicking under pressure.

[SaintPav]

It looked touched on the replay but it had to be conclusive so they went with the goal umpire’s call.

It's a very confusing process.

[Waltzing St Kilda]

McKenzie obviously touched it or thought he did, then didn’t bother hustling back. I’m not blaming the umpires, there’s plenty of other mistakes they made, but if they can’t see it they can’t call it.

But it’s these little things like hustling and manning marks and making throws look like handballs that we don’t do very well.

Also, do Hawthorn always do that thing of shepherding the man on the mark? I don’t think it worked for them. We tended to bring an extra player down and they would end up kicking under pressure.

Shepherding the man on the mark seems like cheating to me. i think the Filth invented it in 2009 or so.

[degruch]

Looked like a goal from the replays I've seen...Dimma complains constantly (about the process, and probably rightly so), but have we had a single goal review go our way this season?

[The_Dud]

Very lazy effort by Mackenzie, should have smashed it through to put it beyond doubt.

[Enrico_Misso]

Very lazy effort by Mackenzie, should have smashed it through to put it beyond doubt.

Looked in the stands like if he had of dived he could easily have knocked it through.
But he seemed to think he had it covered because he had touched it, but umpires call is most likely to be the call.

It's a bit like a bowler trapping a batsman plum lbw and the ball pops up towards him.
But rather than catching it he is appealing to the umpire for lbw.
Then the ump says there was an inside edge!

Moral is - cover all options.
Lazy effort from DMac.
And I think it set the tone for a very ordinary first quarter.

[ROLS-LEE]

Was the touched goal in the third quarter a touch. At the game it seemed to be a goal but no review

[degruch]

Was the touched goal in the third quarter a touch. At the game it seemed to be a goal but no review

Ah, maybe that's the one I'm thinking of, but the one I mentioned did get a review.

[shrodes]

Was the touched goal in the third quarter a touch. At the game it seemed to be a goal but no review

Yeah I saw that one and thought it was weird that they didn't even review it.

[Jacks Back]

McKenzie's finger bends back on the replay so it was touched.

Also Breust's goal that rolled through but appeared to take a right hand turn when it hit the base of the post - No review???

[Toy Saint]

Was the touched goal in the third quarter a touch. At the game it seemed to be a goal but no review

Saints fans behind the goals were adamant, but no review

[bigred]

It looked touched on the replay but it had to be conclusive so they went with the goal umpire’s call.

It's a very confusing process.

Its not really confusing.

It is just plain old shyte.

[SaintPav]

It looked touched on the replay but it had to be conclusive so they went with the goal umpire’s call.

It's a very confusing process.

Its not really confusing.

It is just plain old shyte.

Yes dude.

[ROLS-LEE]

Was the touched goal in the third quarter a touch. At the game it seemed to be a goal but no review

Saints fans behind the goals were adamant, but no review

I was in the pocket and it looked like it went through. Just a quick review would have been nice. Let the play go on as they kicked out quick but in the background review it and let the public know the outcome. If a goal stop play and bounce in the centre.