The umpires need to be investigated.

[barry]

I think the key thing here is not the umps loving the hawks, but the hawks loving the umps.
Hawthorn have developed a way to get the umps on side. Whether it be a close relationship, knowing them personally, whatever.

Whatever it is, we must do the same. No point complaining about it. An Longmire needs to stop shrugging his shoulders and be proactive.

[Industrial Fan]

You overrate Swans fans then.

No conspiracy. It was a cracking game of footy. Two champions kicked massive goals in the last quarter to give them victory. Sometimes you just have to tip your hat to the opposition.

They missed a few. It happens, it's a tough gig. Every single supporter base thinks the umpires are against them. It's pathetic.

I dont think its a conspiracy but can you honestly say that the umpiring was balanced last night? For Longmire to comment on it says alot - he wouldnt normally point to something like that. 3-13....

I much prefer the game to be under umpired than over, but it should also go both ways which it didnt.

[dimelb]

I don't believe that umpires intend to favour one team over another. There is no conspiracy. On the contrary, they seem to me to take pride in their job, work hard at fitness and try to meet player hostility with calmness.

On the other hand I find it quite possible that umpires fall into habits and assumptions that need to be looked at from time to time. For instance, seeing the Hawks as expert ball handlers (which they obviously are) may mean that flaws in technique are missed. That's the sort of thing that may be worth investigating.

[Plugger46]

I dont think its a conspiracy but can you honestly say that the umpiring was balanced last night? For Longmire to comment on it says alot - he wouldnt normally point to something like that. 3-13....

I much prefer the game to be under umpired than over, but it should also go both ways which it didnt.

I thought they missed a few holding the ball decisions both ways. A couple of holds in marking contests could've gone our way. I don't like the 'protected area' rule but that's not an umpiring fault. The McGlynn was obvious and stupid.

I don't think poor umpiring cost us victory. A lack of composure did.

As for Longmire, he didn't give much away did he? Asked a direct question and he answered it by saying we were undisciplined. He may not have meant that but that's what he said.

[crackedactor]

I think the key thing here is not the umps loving the hawks, but the hawks loving the umps.
Hawthorn have developed a way to get the umps on side. Whether it be a close relationship, knowing them personally, whatever.

Whatever it is, we must do the same. No point complaining about it. An Longmire needs to stop shrugging his shoulders and be proactive.

It is the highest standard in Australia, umps should be above being friends with Hawthorn or any other team, just because they are friendly towards them. They need to be stand alone, unbias and totally professional and not open to any bribes, whether its money. gifts or just being a bunch of friendly guys.

[RogueSwan]

Can't agree with your first sentence. We lost by 5 points, with similar inside 50s, three quarters of the game played in the Swans' style. Only in the second quarter were the Hawks allowed to dictate play. Hanners did struggle for impact (I wasn't looking closely but I suspect he was being tagged) but I thought Parker and Kennedy were very good and, along with Rohan, the Swans' best contributors.) The team made mistakes, sure, but I didn't come away thinking any of the players weren't trying their hardest.

Yes, poor choice of words, I don't think any Swans goes out and doesn't give their all. My impression was that they didn't seem to be around the contest as often as they usual are, it felt they were just struggling to get into game. I don't think the game was 3/4 "Swans style", maybe it was, either way it shows our boys have a lot of work to do before the finals. Then again, if we had held our lead for another two minutes this I wouldn't have even made that post.

[AnnieH]

I thought they missed a few holding the ball decisions both ways. A couple of holds in marking contests could've gone our way. I don't like the 'protected area' rule but that's not an umpiring fault. The McGlynn was obvious and stupid.

I don't think poor umpiring cost us victory. A lack of composure did.

As for Longmire, he didn't give much away did he? Asked a direct question and he answered it by saying we were undisciplined. He may not have meant that but that's what he said.

He was being sarcastic.

[Swanny40519]

We had some disgusting Dawks supporters behind us.
The area that I sit in is "members reserve". I know that the seats behind me are seats that belong to members.
By 3/4 time, I'd had enough of these jerks and I asked if they are sitting in the right seats.
They got a bit narky, and the feral chick said asked me if I was asking to see her ticket.
I said yes, she can either show them to me to prove they should be sitting there, or she can show them to the security guard I'm about to call and he can decide if she should be sitting there.
Suffice to say they didn't open their mouth again. Even when they won.
People @@@@ me today.

Good on ya.

We had some normal (disgusting Dawk supporters behind us as well).

In a very tense last qtr when we actually received a couple of free kicks they went berserk and complained the umpires were favouring the Swans. I saw red and after that we had a few interesting verbal discussions on the ability of Mitchell and Hodge to get easy free kicks and the Dawk team in general how they get the easy free's.
Unfortunately then Burgoyne and Rioli kicked a couple of goals and we went home very very frustrated and angry.

[jono2707]

Hey mate, the only thing pathetic is your post. How can you say that third quarters of running and tackling is only worthy of 3 free kicks in total? Simple probability tells you something is wrong!

I just don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories that some fans of all teams seem to think exist. That's all. There is some really good analysis on this thread about how the Hawks seem to suit their play to umpiring standards etc. At least that analysis keeps this thread above tin foil hat level.

[AnnieH]

Good on ya.

We had some normal (disgusting Dawk supporters behind us as well).

In a very tense last qtr when we actually received a couple of free kicks they went berserk and complained the umpires were favouring the Swans. I saw red and after that we had a few interesting verbal discussions on the ability of Mitchell and Hodge to get easy free kicks and the Dawk team in general how they get the easy free's.
Unfortunately then Burgoyne and Rioli kicked a couple of goals and we went home very very frustrated and angry.

I'm STILL angry.
I just want to sit down in the corner and have a good cry.

[RogueSwan]

... They need to be stand alone, unbias and totally professional and not open to any bribes, whether its money. gifts or just being a bunch of friendly guys.

Give them a clear set of rules that don't need interpretation or understanding someone's intent.
This would make it easier to officiate. This won't/can't happen so then we have to put up these guys (and gals) doing their best.
Does anyone think the umpires took on this awful (I was going to say "thankless" but it is worse than that, as shown at games and even in this thread) to try and help out a team they support? Anyone on here want to be an umpire to even out the "Hawks biased" umpiring?
It would actually be interesting to know why these guys wanted to become umpires and whether those reasons still stand. If I took it on, it would be because I want to see the game officiated in the most even, noninvasive way possible.
Plus, it would be kinda cool to watch (and be paid for it) these incredible matches/athletes up close. Then again, the umps probably don't get to appreciate a game whilst they are in the middle of it.

[Industrial Fan]

I thought they missed a few holding the ball decisions both ways. A couple of holds in marking contests could've gone our way. I don't like the 'protected area' rule but that's not an umpiring fault. The McGlynn was obvious and stupid.

I don't think poor umpiring cost us victory. A lack of composure did.

As for Longmire, he didn't give much away did he? Asked a direct question and he answered it by saying we were undisciplined. He may not have meant that but that's what he said.

Despite the one armed umpiring we had every chance to win late and werent composed enough to hang on - I'll give you that.

But the scores shouldnt have been close enough to matter.

I still dont think McGlynn went over the mark to impede Ceglar he was trying to go to the runner in the protected area. What is the rule on that - I thought you could go into that area if tracking an opposition player?