Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
plugger66 wrote:The last thing we need is more deliberates and more frees.
Why not? Anyway, that's a different discussion - my only point is that "it makes things harder for the defenders" is not a good argument against a rule change which might be good for other reasons.
Well more frees wouldnt worry me at all but if you take this forum after a game as a normal football crowd I think it would be mayhem. And they actually wouldnt have to change a rule, just make the interpretation stronger. Im still not sure what the problem is though but we all see things differently.
plugger66 wrote:]Well more frees wouldnt worry me at all but if you take this forum after a game as a normal football crowd I think it would be mayhem.
True, but if there were enough free kicks then some of the deadshits who think every umpire is biased against their team might just choke on their own bile.
plugger66 wrote:]Well more frees wouldnt worry me at all but if you take this forum after a game as a normal football crowd I think it would be mayhem.
True, but if there were enough free kicks then some of the deadshits who think every umpire is biased against their team might just choke on their own bile.
no...just one or two......and definitely biased against us for whatever reason when we happen to play port in adelaide....happened twice in a row now......if that makes me a deadshit, what does it make you??????
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
bergholt wrote:True, but if there were enough free kicks then some of the deadshits who think every umpire is biased against their team might just choke on their own bile.
no...just one or two......and definitely biased against us for whatever reason when we happen to play port in adelaide....happened twice in a row now......if that makes me a deadshit, what does it make you??????
My definition of deadshit was someone who thinks every umpire is biased against their team. You just said you think it's only one or two, so why do you think you're a deadshit?
bergholt wrote:True, but if there were enough free kicks then some of the deadshits who think every umpire is biased against their team might just choke on their own bile.
no...just one or two......and definitely biased against us for whatever reason when we happen to play port in adelaide....happened twice in a row now......if that makes me a deadshit, what does it make you??????
My definition of deadshit was someone who thinks every umpire is biased against their team. You just said you think it's only one or two, so why do you think you're a deadshit?
don't you mean...why do i think you were including me in that group......?????....you have form.....
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
bergholt wrote:My definition of deadshit was someone who thinks every umpire is biased against their team. You just said you think it's only one or two, so why do you think you're a deadshit?
don't you mean...why do i think you were including me in that group......?????....you have form.....
I don't know if you should be included in that group or not - to be honest, I don't pay that much attention to your opinions, except where they're political and intrude on the footy side.
bergholt wrote:My definition of deadshit was someone who thinks every umpire is biased against their team. You just said you think it's only one or two, so why do you think you're a deadshit?
don't you mean...why do i think you were including me in that group......?????....you have form.....
I don't know if you should be included in that group or not - to be honest, I don't pay that much attention to your opinions, except where they're political and intrude on the footy side.
and for the record and in my defence.....i don't
normally include political opinion on the footy side...unless the pollies for their own ends intrude on my sport......i wasn't the only one to each the conclusions i did......
and also for the record....i had never noticed you at all until you took me on for slamming a couple of fwit alp ministers......
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
not sure how getting annoyed with some soft pro home crowd umpiring makes you a deadshit.... strange argument. I think the things that makes supporters annoyed are 1) inconsistant. If you pay it early, call it all day. When one player is pinged for grabbing the ball, tackled by 4 players, ball held to him and its called holding the ball yet opposition player takes on the tackler, spins around, drops ball and its play on. Happens once, mistake, happens twice annoying.... 2) common sense. Player has arms around opposition, opposition falls forward. They caused the motion so should not get a free. Guy headbutts other player, gets free for over shoulder. common sense.
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
Life Long Saint wrote:3. Forceful contact below the knees.
The sliding component I have no problem with but now it has been extended to a player that is over the ball (expecting to be protected from problem rule number 2) that makes forceful contact - whatever that is - with a player below the knees will have a free kick paid against him.
To highlight the stupidity of this rule, see the third quarter free kick against Dunell v Swans on Sunday.
He gets low to the ground, picks up the ball and turns his body to protect his head, gently falls into the legs of the Sydney opponent and the umpire pays the free against him.
He did not go to ground to get the ball, did not slide into the contest and did not constitute a dangerous act in any way at all. Yet he is pinged.
If that was umpired correctly then the rule stinks!
Life Long Saint wrote:To highlight the stupidity of this rule, see the third quarter free kick against Dunell v Swans on Sunday.
He gets low to the ground, picks up the ball and turns his body to protect his head, gently falls into the legs of the Sydney opponent and the umpire pays the free against him.
He did not go to ground to get the ball, did not slide into the contest and did not constitute a dangerous act in any way at all. Yet he is pinged.
If that was umpired correctly then the rule stinks!
That was appalling. Dunell was penalised for getting the ball first, while never putting himself or his opponent in danger.
With that said, we were on the right end of some absolute stinkers as well. Far too many free kicks are being paid for 'incidents' that have no bearing on the play.
mad saint guy wrote:With that said, we were on the right end of some absolute stinkers as well. Far too many free kicks are being paid for 'incidents' that have no bearing on the play.
I thought the umpiring was pretty solid in that game, didn't notice too many decisions, and the ones I did notice we were on the right side of.
Life Long Saint wrote:To highlight the stupidity of this rule, see the third quarter free kick against Dunell v Swans on Sunday.
He gets low to the ground, picks up the ball and turns his body to protect his head, gently falls into the legs of the Sydney opponent and the umpire pays the free against him.
He did not go to ground to get the ball, did not slide into the contest and did not constitute a dangerous act in any way at all. Yet he is pinged.
If that was umpired correctly then the rule stinks!
That was appalling. Dunell was penalised for getting the ball first, while never putting himself or his opponent in danger.
With that said, we were on the right end of some absolute stinkers as well. Far too many free kicks are being paid for 'incidents' that have no bearing on the play.
That's pretty much the problem right there-too many for things that have no impact on the game. Call it understanding the nuances of the game, letting the game play what ever but just let the play go on if it isn't important.
Life Long Saint wrote:To highlight the stupidity of this rule, see the third quarter free kick against Dunell v Swans on Sunday.
He gets low to the ground, picks up the ball and turns his body to protect his head, gently falls into the legs of the Sydney opponent and the umpire pays the free against him.
He did not go to ground to get the ball, did not slide into the contest and did not constitute a dangerous act in any way at all. Yet he is pinged.
If that was umpired correctly then the rule stinks!
That was appalling. Dunell was penalised for getting the ball first, while never putting himself or his opponent in danger.
With that said, we were on the right end of some absolute stinkers as well. Far too many free kicks are being paid for 'incidents' that have no bearing on the play.
That's pretty much the problem right there-too many for things that have no impact on the game. Call it understanding the nuances of the game, letting the game play what ever but just let the play go on if it isn't important.
The free was a mistake but the rule has good intentions because players are going to ground more and more like a rugby union player to knock the oppostion over with their body.
plugger66 wrote:
The free was a mistake but the rule has good intentions because players are going to ground more and more like a rugby union player to knock the oppostion over with their body.
I haven't heard the AFL come out and that the free was a mistake. I am not holding my breath.
It looked awfully similar to a number of examples on the DVD.
plugger66 wrote:
The free was a mistake but the rule has good intentions because players are going to ground more and more like a rugby union player to knock the oppostion over with their body.
I haven't heard the AFL come out and that the free was a mistake. I am not holding my breath.
It looked awfully similar to a number of examples on the DVD.
I thought it was different but im pretty sure they arent going to come out and say it was a mistake. There was probably 100 on the weekend that were wrong. Dont know about you but it would pretty boring going through every mistake.
plugger66 wrote:
The free was a mistake but the rule has good intentions because players are going to ground more and more like a rugby union player to knock the oppostion over with their body.
I haven't heard the AFL come out and that the free was a mistake. I am not holding my breath.
It looked awfully similar to a number of examples on the DVD.
I thought it was different but im pretty sure they arent going to come out and say it was a mistake. There was probably 100 on the weekend that were wrong. Dont know about you but it would pretty boring going through every mistake.
I think it's important on the new rules.
I can't speak for all fans but I'd rather have an understanding of the correct/incorrect applications of the new rules.
There was one more thing that amused me yesterday. I heard it reported that Andy D said that the clubs better get used to the 80 interchange limit pretty quick because it will be in next season. I thought that it was being trialled in the NAB Cup, not previewed. It seems that the AFL have already determined the it will be in. Despite feedback from those directly affected, the players.
The coaches are also not happy.
As a fan, I thought the last five minutes was the most clumsy and mistake-riddled part of the game. I don't want to see that.
Life Long Saint wrote:
I haven't heard the AFL come out and that the free was a mistake. I am not holding my breath.
It looked awfully similar to a number of examples on the DVD.
I thought it was different but im pretty sure they arent going to come out and say it was a mistake. There was probably 100 on the weekend that were wrong. Dont know about you but it would pretty boring going through every mistake.
I think it's important on the new rules.
I can't speak for all fans but I'd rather have an understanding of the correct/incorrect applications of the new rules.
There was one more thing that amused me yesterday. I heard it reported that Andy D said that the clubs better get used to the 80 interchange limit pretty quick because it will be in next season. I thought that it was being trialled in the NAB Cup, not previewed. It seems that the AFL have already determined the it will be in. Despite feedback from those directly affected, the players.
The coaches are also not happy.
As a fan, I thought the last five minutes was the most clumsy and mistake-riddled part of the game. I don't want to see that.
They always said there was going to be a cap on interchange next year. They are trailing 80 but it may change. I certainly knew it was coming in because KB told me about 50 times on SEN in the last 4 months. As a fan I thought we kicked 4 goals in the last 5 minutes because we completely outran the Swans. Looked pretty good footy to me. Maybe we should let everything stay the same and have 26 around the ball. This new rule may actually work. We had about 80 interchanges a game 4 years ago. Surely the reason there is more around the ball now is we have about 130.
To stop the big numbers around the ball the umpires only have to use the tools at their disposal today.
Blow the whistle quicker when a pack forms and don't wait 30 seconds for someone to try get the ball out only to wrapped up in another tackle.
Throw the ball up quickly so teams don't have time to set up properly.
Trial that for a season and then see if we have too many people around the ball.
Life Long Saint wrote:To stop the big numbers around the ball the umpires only have to use the tools at their disposal today.
Blow the whistle quicker when a pack forms and don't wait 30 seconds for someone to try get the ball out only to wrapped up in another tackle.
Throw the ball up quickly so teams don't have time to set up properly.
Trial that for a season and then see if we have too many people around the ball.
There has to be a reason to blow the whistle and anyway it takes about 2 seonds to get players around the ball. Anyway off to work. Write later.
Life Long Saint wrote:To stop the big numbers around the ball the umpires only have to use the tools at their disposal today.
Blow the whistle quicker when a pack forms and don't wait 30 seconds for someone to try get the ball out only to wrapped up in another tackle.
Throw the ball up quickly so teams don't have time to set up properly.
Trial that for a season and then see if we have too many people around the ball.
There has to be a reason to blow the whistle and anyway it takes about 2 seonds to get players around the ball. Anyway off to work. Write later.
I'm not advocating blowing the whistle for no reason.
Just don't give the ball as long to get out. The longer it takes for the umpire to blow the whistle for a ball-up, the more players gravitate to the pack.
Blow the whistle quicker, throw it up instead of bouncing it (which they are now doing) and watch the game open up.
Umpires 'bouncing' the ball up really is an unnecessary element to the game isn't it?
I mean does anyone (apart from you pluggs) go to the footy to marvel at how well the umpire is bouncing the ball? Obviously it would take a lot of skill, but we aren't there to be wowed by the skills of the umpires are we?
Calling the ball back after a bad bounce really is embarrassing for everyone IMO,
"oops sorry, can I try that again?"
The game really is hard enough to adjudicate as it is without doing tricks aswell.
