#Freekickhawthorn or Tall Poppy Syndrome?

From the outset, this is not an article to come out and bag Hawthorn saying they are lucky three-time premiers.

The proof is in the pudding with a hat-trick of dominant grand final victories, and they are looking pretty to line up for an extraordinary fifth consecutive grand-final appearance.

Against the Swans in 2013, it was total carnage. Despite the Swans’ continued on-field success, they have never been the same team since.

They ‘out-attritioned’ Ross Lyon’s Dockers with ease in 2014, and last year’s match against the Eagles,unfortunately for a neutral, had a sense of foreboding fait accompli; men against boys. 2012 was only a near miss in one of the all-time great ‘grannies’.

Concurrent to this period of wonderful success is the perception that the Hawks obtain the rub of the green at critical times of a match.

By way of example, start typing umpire Matt Stevic’s name into Google and the first suggested search is “Matt Stevic Hawthorn”.

As a Swans fan, I can recall a cracking round 22 contest at the SCG in 2012 where the Hawks snuck home, influenced significantly by a controversial free-kick paid to Paul Puopolo mid-way through the final term – a holding the ball decision was incorrectly paid as a high-tackle and resulted in a simple set-shot. The controlling umpire was Matt Stevic – coincidentally for his sins he has become the poster boy for #freekickhawthorn since.

Wind back to preliminary final 2014, and Port Adelaide fans have never forgiven Stevic for the second term, where a free kick count of 10-2 ‘swung’ the momentum of the game. Never mind that the Power should have had the match home and hosed in the opening stanza, but kicked themselves out of the contest with a 3.9 first quarter.

Preliminary final 2012, and it was again the City of Churches, in the form of the Crows, who felt aggrieved with decisions going the Hawks’ way at crucial stages. Despite this, the weight of statistics and the modern footy KPIs pointed to a clear Hawthorn dominance in general play.

Roll into 2016 and this perception has built into a tidal wave. Early in the season, Hawthorn survived three games, all with three-point margins. In two of those contests, against the Saints, and again the Crows, costly calls and non-calls at critical junctures impacted on very tight matches.

Fast-forward to last Thursday night and the #freekickhawthorn hash tag on twitter was the second highest trending topic in the Twittersphere in Australia. This trend continued a comedic litany of analogies and memes regarding Hawthorn’s ‘rub of the green’ that has become a staple on social media this year.

Personally, and as a Swans fan, I was left bemused by a lot of the calls on Thursday night’s match, albeit both ways – Sam Mitchell does not seem capable of being pinged for holding the footy, and likewise a wonderful Cyril Rioli tackle on Kieran Jack in the centre square went unrewarded – proving even die-hard fans can be somewhat unbiased!

A lot has been made of the two fifty metre penalties that led to two crucial Hawks goals. The second one in the last quarter is ruled out straight away as a good decision. Ben McGlynn clearly over-stepped the mark on Jonathon Ceglar and that would be paid and should be paid most days.

The decision to ping Kieran Jack in the twilight of the third term however was a howler.

My issue with the decision is that umpires could be heard earlier in the match providing Hawks’ players (including Cyril Rioli twice) with a warning to ‘stay out of the protected zone’. Jack did not get that warning, and was clearly chasing another opponent back towards the Hawk’s goal.

Unfortunately in a five-point ball-game it was a key contributor to deciding the outcome. Rather than analysing how good Shaun Burgoyne was from quarter time, or the reinforcement of Cyril Rioli as the best “12 possession player” in the game, the focus is again on key umpiring decisions.

So what creates the perception of bias? Do umpires need review and accountability on this issue, as Graeme Cornes somewhat parochially suggested? Has a sense of favouritism derived from Hawthorn getting away with playing ‘unsociable football’?

While crying in my beer watching the Swans giving up the opportunity to go first, and plummet to fifth following this weekend, I have come up with my own answer.

It is simply that the Hawks are that good, and the ball generally is in the right areas for the Brown and Golds at key stages of the game. When umpires have to adjudicate, and the decision goes to Hawthorn, they reap the maximum benefit of a goal. It will always thus be controversial.

So fellow Roarers – do Hawthorn get the rub of the green in the clinch, or are non-Hawks fans displaying ‘tall-poppy syndrome’ against historically one of the great teams? Or is it something else? Over to you.