Elimnation Final Norwood v Port Review Thread

[Psyber]

Since we had no vision available in Victoria I was relying on posters here, and on the radio comments that it had happened behind play.
If it was genuinely accidental and in play I take back my comments.
[ Apart from those about past policy under Foster Williams.. ]

[JAS]

This has now appeared on the SANFL site

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/548/

A report against Daniel Hargraves scheduled to be heard at AAMI Stadium tonight has been postponed after a formal request from the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club.

The report will be heard next Tuesday (September 23) at a time to be determined.

Hargraves was reported for allegedly striking Norwood’s Aaron Kite after video footage of Sunday’s Elimination Final was viewed.

Anyone know why it's been postponed ?

Regards
JAS

[FlyingHigh]

Since we had no vision available in Victoria I was relying on posters here, and on the radio comments that it had happened behind play.
If it was genuinely accidental and in play I take back my comments.
[ Apart from those about past policy under Foster Williams.. ]

Depends of the definition of "behind play" and "in play". It certainly wasn't behind where the ball was, but it wasn't "in play" as the ball was goal-post height above them.

[Adelaide Hawk]

This has now appeared on the SANFL site

http://www.sanfl.com.au/news/sanfl_news/548/

A report against Daniel Hargraves scheduled to be heard at AAMI Stadium tonight has been postponed after a formal request from the Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club.

The report will be heard next Tuesday (September 23) at a time to be determined.

Hargraves was reported for allegedly striking Norwood’s Aaron Kite after video footage of Sunday’s Elimination Final was viewed.

Anyone know why it's been postponed ?

Regards
JAS

Port had Mad Monday yesterday and it will take that long for Hargs to sober up

[NO-MERCY]

Just in case anyone has forgotten ----
SUCKED IN SWAMPIES --- YOU LOST!!!!

When i heard Richard Williams was umpiring i thought all over, Norwood will win.
I wasn't wrong, thats why i didn't bother going to the game so i watched it on ABC, even that was hard to listen to with Robert Pyman"s bias commentary, F----n W--ker!

[Adelaide Hawk]

When i heard Richard Williams was umpiring i thought all over, Norwood will win.

I read this comment from you in another thread. If you think Richard Williams favours Norwood over Port, get yourself a copy of the 1996 PF ... guaranteed to change your mind.

[mpgirly]

who cares what williams did in 1996 - it is now 2008 and all season he has not liked port - this year 2008

[JK]

who cares what williams did in 1996 - it is now 2008 and all season he has not liked port - this year 2008

And I suppose he was the clear difference between the two teams on Sunday?

[Adelaide Hawk]

who cares what williams did in 1996

I do. Is that okay with you?

[Pseudo]

.... i watched it on ABC, even that was hard to listen to with Robert Pyman"s bias commentary, F----n W--ker!

Funny that... I thought one of the commentators had a certain pro-Norwood bias myself. I couldn't place the voice, but it wasn't CK.

[NO-MERCY]

When i heard Richard Williams was umpiring i thought all over, Norwood will win.

I read this comment from you in another thread. If you think Richard Williams favours Norwood over Port, get yourself a copy of the 1996 PF ... guaranteed to change your mind.

I remember that one, their was probably 3 free kicks in that passage, holding on, in the back or too high.
He couldn't miss them all, 1 out of 3 aint bad!

[Macca19]

When i heard Richard Williams was umpiring i thought all over, Norwood will win.

I read this comment from you in another thread. If you think Richard Williams favours Norwood over Port, get yourself a copy of the 1996 PF ... guaranteed to change your mind.

I think youll find Dick Williams is a born n bred Norwood supporter actually.

I put these picks on BF to dispel the myth that Scottys free kick shouldnt have been one, so Ill put them here as well. Its the most obvious free kick youll ever find.

[smac]

When i heard Richard Williams was umpiring i thought all over, Norwood will win.

I read this comment from you in another thread. If you think Richard Williams favours Norwood over Port, get yourself a copy of the 1996 PF ... guaranteed to change your mind.

I remember that one, their was probably 3 free kicks in that passage, holding on, in the back or too high.
He couldn't miss them all, 1 out of 3 aint bad!

So you actually went to that game instead of stopping home?

[Adelaide Hawk]

I think youll find Dick Williams is a born n bred Norwood supporter actually.

I put these picks on BF to dispel the myth that Scottys free kick shouldnt have been one, so Ill put them here as well. Its the most obvious free kick youll ever find.

So what? Mark Mackie was a Norwood supporter, didn't help Norwood. Peter Mead was a Port Adelaide player .. didn't help Port Adelaide. It means nothing who they used to barrack for. If anything it goes against the club because the umpire would be making mental notes not to show favouritism and then unwittingly go the other way. If you saw Peter Mead umpire the Norwood v Port Adelaide game at Alberton 1972, you will know what I'm talking about. It was early in Peter's umpiring career, and just about every 50/50 decision went Norwood's way that day.

My reference to the 1996 PF is not based on one free kick. Unlike some, I judge an umpire on his overall perfromance, and that day Norwood definitely got the rough of the green. I rarely criticise umpiring performances, but I did that day.

[HeartBeatsTrue]

Just in case anyone has forgotten ----
SUCKED IN SWAMPIES --- YOU LOST!!!!

When i heard Richard Williams was umpiring i thought all over, Norwood will win.
I wasn't wrong, thats why i didn't bother going to the game so i watched it on ABC, even that was hard to listen to with Robert Pyman"s bias commentary, F----n W--ker!

Are you serious? You didnt go to the game because Richard Williams was umpiring?

[HeartBeatsTrue]

The age of the 'beltee' is irrelevant when considering the offence by the 'belter'. The age only has a bearing in determining the depth of cowardice involved, IMO.

The behind play is also I measure of cowardice too I guess.

The ball was travelling over thier heads as contact was made,hardly behind the play.

From the limited vision I had of the incident it was a stray arm that hit the wrong spot as they were both wrestling each other for position,this may or may not be the case and everyone will have thier own opinion regardless of the tribunal and the decision they make.

I do not condone 'belting' people in the game,but dont go and have a cry because the 'victim' is only young....perhaps he could get his Mum to have run out with a hanky...

Maybe not behind the play, but they were not contesting the footy. The ball was going thru the goals at decent height, and the incident wasnt even on the goal line.

I'll leave it up to the ever reliable tribunal to make the right decision.

[Rik E Boy]

I think youll find Dick Williams is a born n bred Norwood supporter actually.

I put these picks on BF to dispel the myth that Scottys free kick shouldnt have been one, so Ill put them here as well. Its the most obvious free kick youll ever find.

As a Legs fan I never had a problem with Port's 24th and final free kick of the day - I agree that was there. However the final count of 24-8 was something that peeved me slightly *insert ******* understatement of the year comment here*. Now I know that there is no logic that states that the free kick count should be even but IMO that 96 Prelim Final was a top notch game of footy with BOTH teams going in hard but was eventually decided by the umpires. Problem is, when a Norwood bloke went in hard a Pie got a free kick. When a Pie player went in hard that was 'the Magpie way' or 'The Port tradition'. Neil Craig even made a comment that one side was allowed to play the man and the other wasn't and with some justification. It was what wasn't paid during that game that pi55ed me off, rather than what was, even though Port got more free kicks in thier forward line (or maybe the same can't remember the exact numbers) that day than we got over the whole ground.

Your repeated posting of that one decision is perpetuating a myth that the Legs weren't shagged by the men in white that day. I can't think of another game in which I felt the Legs copped such a raw deal in thirty years. 16 Extra kicks in a one kick game equals thanks for nothing maggots, no matter how often you post those pics. Even the two Port supporters I went to the game with didn't razz me up all that much because they thought they were a bit fortunate on the day.

Bloody Oath.

regards,

REB

[Adelaide Hawk]

If the tribunal get the same view I had, they would have to dismiss it. Saw the reply a few times and couldn't ascertain what happened. As the commentator said at the time, you'd think something untoward must have occured ... but what? A player just doesn't fall over and hit his head on the ground, so you'd think something else happened. However, if we can't work out what, then it should be thrown out.

The other interesting thing is no Redleg player remonstated with Hargreaves after the incident, so either nobody saw it, or they thought it was just one of those things. It would be interesting to hear Kite's recollection of events.

[HeartBeatsTrue]

It would be interesting to hear Kite's recollection of events.

The only one who can recall the event and know exactly what happened is Daniel Hargraves.

[Dogwatcher]

Just in case anyone has forgotten ----
SUCKED IN SWAMPIES --- YOU LOST!!!!

When i heard Richard Williams was umpiring i thought all over, Norwood will win.
I wasn't wrong, thats why i didn't bother going to the game so i watched it on ABC, even that was hard to listen to with Robert Pyman"s bias commentary, F----n W--ker!

Are there any former South coaches you like NM?