Central Highlands Part 2

[backup]

Dunnstown big wigs who got caught up in the euphoria of the Towns win over the Burra now a couple of grand lighter in the pocket [/quote]

I think you have it the wrong way around their Archie. I believe that your players might be a bit lighter in the pockets after the Towns big win. Pretty sure no 'match payments' paid out that day nor the Ballan game. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And looks like that legal eagle failed with his adjournment, oh well.

 

[ArchieDuda]

I think you have it the wrong way around their Archie. I believe that your players might be a bit lighter in the pockets after the Towns big win. Pretty sure no 'match payments' paid out that day nor the Ballan game. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And looks like that legal eagle failed with his adjournment, oh well.[/QUOTE]

We are both right. D'Town high rollers took good odds that they would go further into the finals than the Burra's (and lost).

Re match payments. Payments related to performance are much more closely linked at Hepburn than many think.. you just don't rock up and collect.. as it should be.

re the mysteries of the legal process my inside man tells me that whoever wins or loses in the current saga which is of interest to us, some involved will never never let go !

 

[Crackerz]

I think you have it the wrong way around their Archie. I believe that your players might be a bit lighter in the pockets after the Towns big win. Pretty sure no 'match payments' paid out that day nor the Ballan game. Correct me if I'm wrong.
And looks like that legal eagle failed with his adjournment, oh well.

We are both right. D'Town high rollers took good odds that they would go further into the finals than the Burra's (and lost).



Who holds these bets? What odds were offered? What odds can i get on this weeks games? Do you hold bets?

 

[chfl_fan5]

Overtime at Learmonth???
Anyone give a run down of the game?

 

[Movie Star]

Overtime at Learmonth???
Anyone give a run down of the game?

the big rumour to come out is that Cox took a mark in front of goal with only seconds . possibly 5 to 10 sec left in extra time and the umpire didnt pay it. cost Hepburn the match. can anyone from Hepburn or Daylesford confirm this?

 

[Deledio2Conca]

the big rumour to come out is that Cox took a mark in front of goal with only seconds . possibly 5 to 10 sec left in extra time and the umpire didnt pay it. cost Hepburn the match. can anyone from Hepburn or Daylesford confirm this?

I was up the other end and must admit it looked like a mark to me, but like I said I was up the other end.

In saying that though, Hepburn had a fantastic run with the umpiring in the 2nd half, umpires were terrible pinging Daylesford blokes for "dragging" it in, in terrible conditions. The men in orange just needed to show a bit of common sense and call a ball up. When it is as muddy as it was today, some leniency needs to be shown, when a player dives in head first and wants it more than his opponent in sloppy conditions, the umpires need to give the benefit of the doubt to the player actually GOING for the ball.

 

[timmy 32]

I was up the other end and must admit it looked like a mark to me, but like I said I was up the other end.

In saying that though, Hepburn had a fantastic run with the umpiring in the 2nd half, umpires were terrible pinging Daylesford blokes for "dragging" it in, in terrible conditions. The men in orange just needed to show a bit of common sense and call a ball up. When it is as muddy as it was today, some leniency needs to be shown, when a player dives in head first and wants it more than his opponent in sloppy conditions, the umpires need to give the benefit of the doubt to the player actually GOING for the ball.

C'mon , sounds a bit one eyed to me... what your saying is that Daylesford were the only ones who wanted the ball.!!! We got the raw end of several decisions. You blokes were well in front of the free kick count on the day. Also its not the amount of free's awarded, but where they are not awarded as well. Your forwards were looked after, especially Button, whereas our forwards didn't recieve a thing all day. And if you were at the windmill end like you say you were, then you would have noticed our forwards being held on several occasions and no free kick paid.

BOTH sides went hard at the ball all day, with not one player pulling out of any contest whatsoever. both sides should be congratulated on producing a fierce, hard but fair contest in the conditions. So dont go making an idiot of yourself by saying that Daylesford were the only ones actually going for the hard ball

In answer to the Coxy mark... Great mark in a pack of players under real pressure with maybe 5 seconds remaining in extra time. ( id hate to see the ramifications if this happened in an AFL final) . You get decisions like that throughout the home & away season, but in the back of your mind, you know that in the finals the better umpires are in charge, and the correct decisions will be made. How wrong can i be.
not sure on the rule though, but if Coxy had of been awarded the mark and he kicked a point, would we have another 5 minutes x 2 quarters of extra time, or is it next score wins?

Another interesting point, and good luck to Daylesford for being on the right end of the decisions, but in 2007, Coxy took a great mark in the last half of the final quarter of the Prelim Final. His 10th goal that day would have broke the Bulldogs back that day. Instead, a free was paid against him, daylesford ran the ball down the ground and goaled. A two goal turn around, and the rest is history.
2008, Lee Brown takes one of the marks of the season, its not paid, Daylesford again goal from the rebound. Brown's goal would have made it very hard for Daylesford to win.
Then yesterday, history repeats itself......with these crucial decisions not being paid correctly, they have advanced into 2 Grand Finals and one Prelininary Final. Deledio, i don't think you have the right to have a go at any umpires in this league.

 

[Wanganeen93]

Was at the game, and it was a great standard of football that was played in fairly poor conditions. Both teams went hard at the ball and i do agree that the umpires were disappointing. Common sense does need to be brought into consideration in weather conditions like yesterday. Both teams would go in hard to get the ball, and is covered by 5 other players only to be pinned for holding the ball when he had no real chance to get the ball out.

I thought Hepburn were extremely unlucky with a soccer off the ground that was heading straight at goal, but hit a puddle in the square and just stopped dead. But they also had more scoring shots and turned out to be the difference.

Daylesford were fortunate with so many 50m penelty's being called, one handing luke adams a goal from the goal line.

Cox's mark, appeared to be a mark but was difficult to see because of the rain, and the umpire was in a s**t position to see it.

Anyone know the reason for the little crowd ruckus at the end of the game. was quite entertaining.

Overall, was very impressed with the way the game was played and can't see Waubra or Learmonth beating Hepburn next week.

 

[backup]

Was at the game, and it was a great standard of football that was played in fairly poor conditions. Both teams went hard at the ball and i do agree that the umpires were disappointing. Common sense does need to be brought into consideration in weather conditions like yesterday. Both teams would go in hard to get the ball, and is covered by 5 other players only to be pinned for holding the ball when he had no real chance to get the ball out.

I thought Hepburn were extremely unlucky with a soccer off the ground that was heading straight at goal, but hit a puddle in the square and just stopped dead. But they also had more scoring shots and turned out to be the difference.

Daylesford were fortunate with so many 50m penelty's being called, one handing luke adams a goal from the goal line.

Cox's mark, appeared to be a mark but was difficult to see because of the rain, and the umpire was in a s**t position to see it.

Anyone know the reason for the little crowd ruckus at the end of the game. was quite entertaining.

Overall, was very impressed with the way the game was played and can't see Waubra or Learmonth beating Hepburn next week.

Was at the game also & it was a cracker.
Q.Was it a mark to cox 20m out straight in front with 5 sec. to go?
A. Yes. Umpire was in perfect spot to adjudicate
Q.How bad were the umpiring decisions?
A.Very.
Adams' free kick & 50m penalty then goal soft. 50m pen. to D James late in extra time was soft.Over umpired for most of the day until it gets tight then whistle goes away, they didn't have the courage to pay what normally would have been paid during the year.
Timmy Q. Why weren't you trying to win the game @ 3 qrt time. (cox to back line). It seemed as tho you were just trying to hold on rather than win the game?
Q. Why did Button try to run the clock down by chipping the back 30m backward then have his teammate turn the ball over in the middle of the ground where Shep kicks the leveler
BOG for me was Sullivan from Daylesford. was in everything all day.

 

[DfordDog]

Dont know if it was a mark to Cox or not, could barely tell who was who at that stage. Learmonth ground terrible. Cant believe they want to play a grand final there.

Also, during the 2nd quarter Button had a shot on goal about 20m out and the ball clearly scraped through by a foot (only just tho) and the fat goal umpire who was too lazy to move to the post to see called it a point.

We can go on about the Button goal called a point, or the Cox mark not paid, but it isnt going to change a thing. Great game of football and probably one of the hardest grinds i have ever played in. All finals between Daylesford and Hepburn (excluding last years GF) have been hard and tough close games.

Timmy, I honestly reckon you have brought up that 2007 decision against Cox about 5 times on here. Get over it, bloody hell, you went on to smash us in the Grand Final the next year and all you do is sook about that decision. Pretty sure you got your redemtion in 2008.

 

[Deledio2Conca]

C'mon , sounds a bit one eyed to me... what your saying is that Daylesford were the only ones who wanted the ball.!!! We got the raw end of several decisions. You blokes were well in front of the free kick count on the day. Also its not the amount of free's awarded, but where they are not awarded as well. Your forwards were looked after, especially Button, whereas our forwards didn't recieve a thing all day. And if you were at the windmill end like you say you were, then you would have noticed our forwards being held on several occasions and no free kick paid.

BOTH sides went hard at the ball all day, with not one player pulling out of any contest whatsoever. both sides should be congratulated on producing a fierce, hard but fair contest in the conditions. So dont go making an idiot of yourself by saying that Daylesford were the only ones actually going for the hard ball

In answer to the Coxy mark... Great mark in a pack of players under real pressure with maybe 5 seconds remaining in extra time. ( id hate to see the ramifications if this happened in an AFL final) . You get decisions like that throughout the home & away season, but in the back of your mind, you know that in the finals the better umpires are in charge, and the correct decisions will be made. How wrong can i be.
not sure on the rule though, but if Coxy had of been awarded the mark and he kicked a point, would we have another 5 minutes x 2 quarters of extra time, or is it next score wins?

Another interesting point, and good luck to Daylesford for being on the right end of the decisions, but in 2007, Coxy took a great mark in the last half of the final quarter of the Prelim Final. His 10th goal that day would have broke the Bulldogs back that day. Instead, a free was paid against him, daylesford ran the ball down the ground and goaled. A two goal turn around, and the rest is history.
2008, Lee Brown takes one of the marks of the season, its not paid, Daylesford again goal from the rebound. Brown's goal would have made it very hard for Daylesford to win.
Then yesterday, history repeats itself......with these crucial decisions not being paid correctly, they have advanced into 2 Grand Finals and one Prelininary Final. Deledio, i don't think you have the right to have a go at any umpires in this league.

First off, I defintely wasn't implying that Daylesford were the only side going in for the ball hard, sorry if it came out that way but that's not what I meant. Was simply stating that the bloke going in for the ball and making the play (both Daylesford and Hepburn players) were not looked after, and in conditions like that, it becomes very dangerous. Was a dig at the poor umpiring, which was a disgrace as they didn't adjust their calls to the conditions, which is a must, they even do that in the AFL.

As for making an idiot of myself Whatever mate I know what I meant and if you want to misconstrue what I said that's up to you, you say I sound one-eyed yet you then proceed to bring up a handful of biased instances from season's past. Very hypocritical IMO.

 

[straggler]

Cox's mark was a good effort but appeared to hit the ground between his legs on the way down. Technically correct decision but probably stiff in the conditions. Dodgy 50 awarded which lead to the kick to Cox in the first place. As for umpiring decisions costing the game Button denied a goal by a poor decision. Don't know of anyone other than the umpire that thought it missed.
There were heaps of points kicked and passages of play that could have gone either way so you could easily talk about the 'what ifs' for a long time. As Dford dog said though, the result isn't going to change. If Hepburn get through next week things could go the other way.
A fair game to watch though given the conditions.

 

[Deledio2Conca]

Q. Why did Button try to run the clock down by chipping the back 30m backward then have his teammate turn the ball over in the middle of the ground where Shep kicks the leveler
BOG for me was Sullivan from Daylesford. was in everything all day.

I could be wrong but I think that was actually Beattie who kicked backwards.

 

[Deledio2Conca]

Cox's mark was a good effort but appeared to hit the ground between his legs on the way down. Technically correct decision but probably stiff in the conditions. Dodgy 50 awarded which lead to the kick to Cox in the first place. As for umpiring decisions costing the game Button denied a goal by a poor decision. Don't know of anyone other than the umpire that thought it missed.
There were heaps of points kicked and passages of play that could have gone either way so you could easily talk about the 'what ifs' for a long time. As Dford dog said though, the result isn't going to change. If Hepburn get through next week things could go the other way.
A fair game to watch though given the conditions.

Which was the exact point of my first post, should have been a mark because you have to allow a little leeway when the conditions are as appalling as that.

 

[Ferrit]

C'mon , sounds a bit one eyed to me... what your saying is that Daylesford were the only ones who wanted the ball.!!! We got the raw end of several decisions. You blokes were well in front of the free kick count on the day. Also its not the amount of free's awarded, but where they are not awarded as well. Your forwards were looked after, especially Button, whereas our forwards didn't recieve a thing all day. And if you were at the windmill end like you say you were, then you would have noticed our forwards being held on several occasions and no free kick paid.

BOTH sides went hard at the ball all day, with not one player pulling out of any contest whatsoever. both sides should be congratulated on producing a fierce, hard but fair contest in the conditions. So don't go making an idiot of yourself by saying that Daylesford were the only ones actually going for the hard ball


In answer to the Coxy mark... Great mark in a pack of players under real pressure with maybe 5 seconds remaining in extra time. ( id hate to see the ramifications if this happened in an AFL final) . You get decisions like that throughout the home & away season, but in the back of your mind, you know that in the finals the better umpires are in charge, and the correct decisions will be made. How wrong can i be.
not sure on the rule though, but if Coxy had of been awarded the mark and he kicked a point, would we have another 5 minutes x 2 quarters of extra time, or is it next score wins?

Another interesting point, and good luck to Daylesford for being on the right end of the decisions, but in 2007, Coxy took a great mark in the last half of the final quarter of the Prelim Final. His 10th goal that day would have broke the Bulldogs back that day. Instead, a free was paid against him, daylesford ran the ball down the ground and goaled. A two goal turn around, and the rest is history.
2008, Lee Brown takes one of the marks of the season, its not paid, Daylesford again goal from the rebound. Brown's goal would have made it very hard for Daylesford to win.
Then yesterday, history repeats itself......with these crucial decisions not being paid correctly, they have advanced into 2 Grand Finals and one Prelininary Final. Deledio, i don't think you have the right to have a go at any umpires in this league.

You snotty nose little sook. Cox's mark went straight through the arms onto the chest he rolled over it on the ground and then tryed to clam it between his legs. The umpire had a perfect view of it and so did I. I think you need to de-mist those glasses. Top game. I thought you were a better loser that that Jocks old mate.

 

[timmy 32]

You snotty nose little sook. Cox's mark went straight through the arms onto the chest he rolled over it on the ground and then tryed to clam it between his legs. The umpire had a perfect view of it and so did I. I think you need to de-mist those glasses. Top game. I thought you were a better loser that that Jocks old mate.

Not a sore loser Ferrit, checked the footage of it this morning, replaying it several times. and each time it is clearly a mark. The wrong decision by an umpire at a very crucial stage of the match has cost a side dearly. But im sure we will discuss it face to face in the near future. Good luck to you blokes, you were in front when the final siren sounded and get the weeks rest. Hope we can get a re- match... my question to you is, Ferrit will you get a game, or will Beattie overlook you?

 

[pigshooter]

How strange daylesford Diog is now back on line , Wasn't he so over this site with all the bull**** strange how a win over hepburn will bring him out of self exile!!! thought I would go and have a geeza at the game as impartial bystander. Hepburn must be bleeding over clear mark by Coxy in dying minutes of game. Shame on you umpires!!! Also Daylesford Dog you must be counting your blessings as regards to no video recall with your king hit on Hepburn captain. chgeap shot

 

[HOUND8DOG]

Can somebody who actually knows the answer, please give me a sensible explanation as to why the NON PLAYING coach of a team cannot address his players at " swap over" in extra time, while the PLAYING coach of a team can say what he likes to his group ?
I would think that a 2 minute break, with the coaches able to address the players would be more than fair. ( Naturally no others allowed on ground except maybe the runner and water boys )
The rule is at the moment is biased and the Rules Committee needs to do something about it BEFORE next weeks game, as the same situation could easily occur.
Anyway, great game of footy on Sat. Played in good spirit and although some umpiring decisions were questionable, they were by no means blatantly biased.
Lets hope " the BURRA " can get through next sat's game and front for a fantastic re-match.

 

[merrigan]

Can somebody who actually knows the answer, please give me a sensible explanation as to why the NON PLAYING coach of a team cannot address his players at " swap over" in extra time, while the PLAYING coach of a team can say what he likes to his group ?
I would think that a 2 minute break, with the coaches able to address the players would be more than fair. ( Naturally no others allowed on ground except maybe the runner and water boys )
The rule is at the moment is biased and the Rules Committee needs to do something about it BEFORE next weeks game, as the same situation could easily occur.
Anyway, great game of footy on Sat. Played in good spirit and although some umpiring decisions were questionable, they were by no means blatantly biased.
Lets hope " the BURRA " can get through next sat's game and front for a fantastic re-match.

Good point. They are using the AFL rule where obviously there are no playing coaches. Agree it should be changed.

Cox's disputed mark looked clean from where I was standing, some around me reckoned he grassed it, but its history now better forget about it and get ready for next week. Imagine saturdays game would have sapped a lot of energy out of both sides so dogs would be stoked to have the week off. Even though Learmonth had better conditions on sunday Hepburn have the extra day recovery time so both sides should go in as fresh as each other. Can't see Hepburn having much trouble with the pansies from the dry lake bed, which means we'll hopefully get a repeat performance of saturdays contest in the grand final.

Speaking of lakes, good to see some water in Lake Learmonth on saturday - just a pity teams had to play footy in it. What a joke. Imagine if the sooky netballers got their way and had the grand final moved there and it was wet like saturday. As long as they get the playing surface they want it doesn't matter that the football could be played on a ground underwater? They need a reality check - its the football that brings money through the gate not netball. And as for some netball clubs boycotting the presentation night, what, don't they like that venue either? Wrong tiles in the toilets or something?

Finally, sorry to see that despite the best efforts of some good people at HFC to clean up their act there are still the same old ********s doing their best to drag them back down. Timmy you challenged Daylesford to weed out their bad eggs a few months back on here, maybe you could do the same.

 

[merrigan]

Not a sore loser Ferrit, checked the footage of it this morning, replaying it several times. and each time it is clearly a mark. The wrong decision by an umpire at a very crucial stage of the match has cost a side dearly. But im sure we will discuss it face to face in the near future. Good luck to you blokes, you were in front when the final siren sounded and get the weeks rest. Hope we can get a re- match... my question to you is, Ferrit will you get a game, or will Beattie overlook you?

If ferrit took a leaf out of team mate Nick Sullivans book and went hard at the footy instead of at the man when they're not looking his position would never be in doubt. Sullivans clash with Sheppard was great stuff, you'll never see Tom do what Nick did.

 

[Ferrit]

If ferrit took a leaf out of team mate Nick Sullivans book and went hard at the footy instead of at the man when they're not looking his position would never be in doubt. Sullivans clash with Sheppard was great stuff, you'll never see Tom do what Nick did.

All I'm going to say is classical, not once but twice.

 

[Deledio2Conca]

Anyone else think North Ballarat's Oval is a terrible ground to play a Grand Final on?

Sure you can fit a few in there and the view is fairly good, but its always incredibly windy, and IMO it's a bit of a waste of the year (maybe wrong choice of words there) to play the granny on a ground where the wind impacts the football.

 

[Trooper4]

Anyone else think North Ballarat's Oval is a terrible ground to play a Grand Final on?

Sure you can fit a few in there and the view is fairly good, but its always incredibly windy, and IMO it's a bit of a waste of the year (maybe wrong choice of words there) to play the granny on a ground where the wind impacts the football.

Wouldn't be surprised if there is a change with the decision of the location of the Grand Final. Imo it makes sense to have this weeks matches at Dunnstown, where the ground has had 2 weeks to recover, and even then the weather was dry for those games.

And then have the Grand Final at Bungaree for the simple fact, that; its one of the best grounds(both size and condition), you can cater for everyman and his dog there. Plenty of room for parking, Plenty of spots to watch the game from, only has a reserves team training on it atm, which may not make the Grand Final. So will be in good condition for the big one. Also means that the netballers get what they want.

Tip for tomorrow nights League B&F

Cummins(Bung) or Jose(Dunn)
and Jackson Murphy for rookie of the year.

 

[cowboy8]

wattsy 2 bring home the silverware

 

[TheFAn]

Wouldn't be surprised if there is a change with the decision of the location of the Grand Final. Imo it makes sense to have this weeks matches at Dunnstown, where the ground has had 2 weeks to recover, and even then the weather was dry for those games.

And then have the Grand Final at Bungaree for the simple fact, that; its one of the best grounds(both size and condition), you can cater for everyman and his dog there. Plenty of room for parking, Plenty of spots to watch the game from, only has a reserves team training on it atm, which may not make the Grand Final. So will be in good condition for the big one. Also means that the netballers get what they want.

Tip for tomorrow nights League B&F

Cummins(Bung) or Jose(Dunn)
and Jackson Murphy for rookie of the year.

Who is Jackson Murphy? There seems to be all this talk about him and i've never heard his name before. I was there tonight and unless i wasn't paying enough attention he didn't get a vote. While other rookies (Conroy, Hayes, and Maher and probably others) did. If those who decide who the rookie of the year is without being able to see all of the games played they'd have to recognise the votes.

Also, did anyone think Watts' speech was a bit disrespectful to the family (I'm sorry but i can't remember the name atm) that the award is named for?