Robert "Finchwit"

[big_matt]

Hindmarsh dropped it cold. No penalty required.

Agreed. I've watched the reply and can't see any interference on hindmarsh. Hindy was clearly blaming himself afterwards instead of Smith.

 

[_Johnsy]

That was my point exactly, neither hindmarsh or the slater incident warranted a penalty.

 

[Lambretta]

Ummm, no it wasn't he dropped it cold.

I see you are not advocating a penalty for hindmarsh when a melbourne players knee knocked the ball from his hands when playing the ball.

Try being objective, just once.

I reckon it was one of those 50, 50's that could have been called either way. Yes he dropped the ball and therefore there wasnt control and it was a knock on, but he was being interfered with an therefore it's a penalty.

It all comes down to opinion and like it or not we have to live with the opinions of others and get on with life.

I would have been perfectly happy regardless of the way the call went because it was a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other.

 

[Lambretta]

Agreed. I've watched the reply and can't see any interference on hindmarsh. Hindy was clearly blaming himself afterwards instead of Smith.

100% correct. Hindmarsh dropped it cold without assitance.

 

[big_matt]

That was my point exactly, neither hindmarsh or the slater incident warranted a penalty.

thats because you are saying that Kingston didnt hit Slaters arm. Even the Parra fans agree Kingston did hit his arm. They just dont agree with Archer saying Slater was held too long.

 

[big_matt]

I reckon it was one of those 50, 50's that could have been called either way. Yes he dropped the ball and therefore there wasnt control and it was a knock on, but he was being interfered with an therefore it's a penalty.

It all comes down to opinion and like it or not we have to live with the opinions of others and get on with life.

I would have been perfectly happy regardless of the way the call went because it was a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Agree.
You can argue the rules of the game were correctly applied, or you can argue that moimoi was hard done by.

Either way, the uproar about the call in the media is unjustified.

 

[Lambretta]

FMD, from an unbiased view (dislike them both) Fui's was a try,

Absolutely 100% correct. There was nothing wrong with Fui's try. Perfectly legit.

In order for a no try to have been given it would have to have been CLEAR that he was in touch. It was not clear. Far from it. It looked about 99% in favour that he was in.

There is an arguement that he "might" have gone into touch right at the time the ball was grounded - but the camera angle couldn't establish that for certain. It looked far more likely that the ball hit the ground first. As benefit is giving to attacking team - then the decision to award the try was correct.

 

[Cerne Abbas Giant]

Melbourne should have been awarded penalties when Inglis and Johnson were taken out by a high tackles.

 

[Lambretta]

Melbourne should have been awarded penalties when Inglis and Johnson were taken out by a high tackles.

Taking out Dallas Johnson with a high shot should only ever result in a medal being awarded.

f**kn' Queenslanders

 

[Hanscholo]

All i ask of Robert Finch:

1. Please ask your referees to enforce all laws of the game all of the time.
2. Write or re write rules to make simple sense.
3. Stop over complicating rules that never needed to be changed.
4. Stop selling out your referees, take it on the chin.
5. review the surrender tackle rule, its a fkn joke.

Apart from that, mistakes happen and he isnt overly to blame for most of them. What he is to blame for is 10 video replays for a simple call, wrestling in tackles to fulfill the dominant requirement, a massive over complication of the shepherd rule - which NEVER needed changing. Its not that hard to fix the core problems...either he does that and survives or the likes of gould get rid of him in 12 months. Its simple Robert, how much do you like your job, or are you prepared to sticl with your guns and go back to making sandwhiches.

 

[eels2009]

Robert finch is a tool.

 

[skeepe]

I would really like to see some consistency in the "surrender" and "dominant" calls.

How many times have teams been penalised for holding down because it was a clear dominant tackle but the referee hasn't called it?

At the same time, it's ridiculous when you see a player hit the defence, make another 5 or 6 metres with players trying to pull him down, and then for the referee to yell "dominant" when he hits the ground.

Actually f**k it. Scrap "surrender" and "dominant" altogether. We don't need them.

 

[big_matt]

I agree.

 

[1999]

premiers 09 woooooooooooooo !

 

[myanonymoususername]

The correct answer on the Fuifui penalty should have been along the lines of "it was a penalty for holding in the tackle, yes it was borderline but the referee was entitled to judge it was a penalty". All the other stuff about the ball being knocked out is irrelevant to why the penalty was given and is just bullsh*t to deflect criticism and try to justify why the ref was right even if he was actually wrong, or harsh, in giving the penalty for the reason he did. It just makes Finch look like he's making stuff up on the run(hang on, thats exactly what he does do to justify decisions ).

 

[donkeywong]

Im an eels fan to the bone,and the best side won on the day!!the inconsistant decision handed down from Finch not only in the G.F but many ,many other games on ''days of the week''have been nothing short of disgusting.So while this rubbish takes up the headlines week in and week out for variuos stupid calls,its time to go FINCH!!stop stuffing our game.