Umpire treatment of our key forwards
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- matrix
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 21475
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 1:55pm
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
bruce got the wrap around treatment a fair bit, i dont think he got one free from that
they also missed about two to riewoldt
how on earth you cannot see a blokes arm around a defenders waist ill never know
they have to really clamp down on this rule because ALL teams do it and its gotta stop
they pay stupid dicky frees in front of goals yet then dont pay the obvious holding by a defender that stops a forward from actually getting a leap at the footy
they also missed about two to riewoldt
how on earth you cannot see a blokes arm around a defenders waist ill never know
they have to really clamp down on this rule because ALL teams do it and its gotta stop
they pay stupid dicky frees in front of goals yet then dont pay the obvious holding by a defender that stops a forward from actually getting a leap at the footy
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
plugger66 wrote:Sainter_Dad wrote:I am only talking the contact with Sinclair - which you obviously see as not high contact, as high contact is a free kick.plugger66 wrote: Why wasn't it a trip to the Freo player?
In answer to your quoted question - Quite simple - Sinclair was playing the ball - the Freo player was running in for the spoil - jumped to avoid contact - kneed Sinclair in the head.
Like saying the person who gets hit from behind because he stops for a child on the street is the instigator of an accident if someone runs into them from behind.
I have enjoyed our discussions in the past - but you have shown that you are beyond arguing with - I am reminded of the advise I was once told - 'Never argue with an idiot - they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience'
Good stuff SD. Plenty of players play the ball and get frees against them especially when they go low down and a player goes over the top of them. They get to the ball first and touch it but still get the free against for tripping. As I said I never want the free against want Sinclair did but I also don't want a free for that incidental contact to him. Its funny that no one seems to have seen the Goddard play when Goddard was elbowed in the head. Did you see it?
That's the rule for going in low with the potential to damage the knees of a player. That was on the back of what happened to the little red head guy from Sydney. It's still a fairly poorly administered free as there are two contradictory frees that could be paid. I understand it as the guy who goes in low at the ball when a guy is also coming into get it and has his legs impacted with the chance of sustaining damage will give away a free kick. If a guy uses his legs to drop into the players head while he is on the ground getting the ball it will be high contact and a free the other way. It relies on the umpire interpreting intent. Often they get them the wrong way round. Sinclair slipped and a guy charged into him while he was prone and his slipping contributed to the high contact. That's the only justifiable way it isn't a free- that he basically ducked to receive high contact, thus play on.
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8582
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 527 times
- Been thanked: 1532 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
Did anyone here say it should have been a free to Harry Taylor when Gardi took THAT mark?
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 820
- Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011 9:58am
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
Incidental contact in a marking contest is fine. I think everyone is aware of that, or should be. Marking contests are a different beast.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 23134
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 3:53pm
- Has thanked: 9076 times
- Been thanked: 3939 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
I see things pretty much the same where the umpires are concerned. Where was the 50 metre penalty when Silvagni threw the ball away after Roo was awarded a free,st.byron wrote:What I love about you is you're the archetypal dog with a bone. Single focus. Nothing...nothing at all will shake your determination to see things the way you do. Go get 'em.....CURLY wrote:Terrible umpiring the non free to Sinclair after the knee to the head was a classic along with the Savage head lock.st.byron wrote:Good work Curly. No need to wait until the end of the game.
Amazing McKenzie gets knocked out but concedes a free.
You can't say that the Afl doesn't condone cheating anymore after the Buddy fiasco. That showed that nothing was beyond the AFL to get its own way. The only question really is. What do the AFL have planned for the Saints?
On the Sinclair matter, I think posters are getting confused by what is a free-kick and what's reportable. The kick to the head was probably accidental, so it wasn't reportable, but was a free kick every day of the week.
There is also no doubt in my mind that a bigger tougher Freo side went out of their way to intimidate and hurt a very young Saints side. And they did. Full marks to the young 'uns for bouncing back after half time though.
- kosifantutti
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8582
- Joined: Fri 21 Jan 2005 9:06am
- Location: Back in town
- Has thanked: 527 times
- Been thanked: 1532 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
Everything you said in the first paragraph could equally well be said for the Gardiner mark but nobody thinks that was a free.Sainter_Dad wrote:Play on was the right call???? Are you serious? If it was not seen, okay that it was not paid (as I said earlier), but play on being the right call - NFW - It does not matter in todays football if the contact was unintentional, unavoidable or unwhatever - the contact was made to his head. My son was given a choice - even to Under 14 - wear a helmet or do not play - What you are advocating is kick a player in the head, but as long as you the action was deemed unavoidable, no free.kosifantutti wrote:The "kick in the head" was unavoidable. Sinclair fell in front of Barlow and he did his best to avoid him. Play on was the right call. We also got a free five seconds later.
And Plugger, what did you think of the elbow to Goddard's head?
This was a free, yesterday, today, next week and I hope for the sake of football, forever.
To say it was a missed free - I can accept that - but if the view of the umpires aligns itself with play on for that incident, Lord help us!!!
And what does getting a free 5 seconds later have to do with it - Are you saying it was a makeup free for the one that was missed - that you are claiming was play on???? Just there is why people are confused as to the interpretations of the umpires.
The free five seconds later was not a makeup free, it was a blatant holding the ball. My point was if people think we lost out by Sinclair not getting a free, it didn't matter because we got one anyhow. Unfortunately Lonie couldn't convert.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
saynta wrote:I see things pretty much the same where the umpires are concerned. Where was the 50 metre penalty when Silvagni threw the ball away after Roo was awarded a free,st.byron wrote:What I love about you is you're the archetypal dog with a bone. Single focus. Nothing...nothing at all will shake your determination to see things the way you do. Go get 'em.....CURLY wrote:Terrible umpiring the non free to Sinclair after the knee to the head was a classic along with the Savage head lock.st.byron wrote:Good work Curly. No need to wait until the end of the game.
Amazing McKenzie gets knocked out but concedes a free.
You can't say that the Afl doesn't condone cheating anymore after the Buddy fiasco. That showed that nothing was beyond the AFL to get its own way. The only question really is. What do the AFL have planned for the Saints?
On the Sinclair matter, I think posters are getting confused by what is a free-kick and what's reportable. The kick to the head was probably accidental, so it wasn't reportable, but was a free kick every day of the week.
There is also no doubt in my mind that a bigger tougher Freo side went out of their way to intimidate and hurt a very young Saints side. And they did. Full marks to the young 'uns for bouncing back after half time though.
Sorry but the Sinclair decision was the correct call. It was unavoidable contract. It was an intersection in the game that could not be avoided. Why if you are so certain that is a free then why isn't the Goddard elbow to his head a free. I don't believe you know all the rules based on some of your previous posting.
By the way we have had threads on the umpiring against every side this year so if the AFL are corrupt then it isn't to favour other sides, its to make sure the Saints get the dud deal. Can anyone give me any logical reason why they want us to have the dud deal. And mean logical not illogical.
And by the way you can be kicked in the head and the person doing the kicking can get a free and depending on the situation it can certainly be the correct call.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10446
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1328 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
Lets all be honest here the umpires pick and choose when they pay free kicks depending on who the player is, the club they play for, position on the ground and time of the game.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
CURLY wrote:Lets all be honest here the umpires pick and choose when they pay free kicks depending on who the player is, the club they play for, position on the ground and time of the game.
So obviously you think the AFL want them to umpire that way. Do you know how illogical that is? Anyway Curly do you ever write anything but criticizing something the club have no control in. It would nice to find out if you know anything about footy because clearly you sometimes no little about umpiring. I suppose Warburton got a dud deal as well this week.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10446
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1328 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
Perhaps the AFL do as its clear it flips and flops each week. Amazing that apparently the way the GF is umpired is the right way but its a one off each year.plugger66 wrote:CURLY wrote:Lets all be honest here the umpires pick and choose when they pay free kicks depending on who the player is, the club they play for, position on the ground and time of the game.
So obviously you think the AFL want them to umpire that way. Do you know how illogical that is? Anyway Curly do you ever write anything but criticizing something the club have no control in. It would nice to find out if you know anything about footy because clearly you sometimes no little about umpiring. I suppose Warburton got a dud deal as well this week.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
CURLY wrote:Perhaps the AFL do as its clear it flips and flops each week. Amazing that apparently the way the GF is umpired is the right way but its a one off each year.plugger66 wrote:CURLY wrote:Lets all be honest here the umpires pick and choose when they pay free kicks depending on who the player is, the club they play for, position on the ground and time of the game.
So obviously you think the AFL want them to umpire that way. Do you know how illogical that is? Anyway Curly do you ever write anything but criticizing something the club have no control in. It would nice to find out if you know anything about footy because clearly you sometimes no little about umpiring. I suppose Warburton got a dud deal as well this week.
Yep the best umpires and the best players who probably don't give as many stupid frees away. Our local footy had the best umpires this week and it was one of the best umpired games of the year. When we were bottom last year we got the worst umpires and it was very ordinary umpiring. Same goes for the AFL. As we get up the ladder we will get the better umpires and our players will be more skilled.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9142
- Joined: Wed 29 Jun 2005 10:39pm
- Location: A distant beach
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 437 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
Is there a clause in the rules about unavoidable head-high contact? It's a thin line, as it could be argued that much head-high contact is unavoidable, yet free kicks are paid on a whim.plugger66 wrote:saynta wrote:I see things pretty much the same where the umpires are concerned. Where was the 50 metre penalty when Silvagni threw the ball away after Roo was awarded a free,st.byron wrote:What I love about you is you're the archetypal dog with a bone. Single focus. Nothing...nothing at all will shake your determination to see things the way you do. Go get 'em.....CURLY wrote:Terrible umpiring the non free to Sinclair after the knee to the head was a classic along with the Savage head lock.st.byron wrote:Good work Curly. No need to wait until the end of the game.
Amazing McKenzie gets knocked out but concedes a free.
You can't say that the Afl doesn't condone cheating anymore after the Buddy fiasco. That showed that nothing was beyond the AFL to get its own way. The only question really is. What do the AFL have planned for the Saints?
On the Sinclair matter, I think posters are getting confused by what is a free-kick and what's reportable. The kick to the head was probably accidental, so it wasn't reportable, but was a free kick every day of the week.
There is also no doubt in my mind that a bigger tougher Freo side went out of their way to intimidate and hurt a very young Saints side. And they did. Full marks to the young 'uns for bouncing back after half time though.
Sorry but the Sinclair decision was the correct call. It was unavoidable contract. It was an intersection in the game that could not be avoided. Why if you are so certain that is a free then why isn't the Goddard elbow to his head a free. I don't believe you know all the rules based on some of your previous posting.
By the way we have had threads on the umpiring against every side this year so if the AFL are corrupt then it isn't to favour other sides, its to make sure the Saints get the dud deal. Can anyone give me any logical reason why they want us to have the dud deal. And mean logical not illogical.
And by the way you can be kicked in the head and the person doing the kicking can get a free and depending on the situation it can certainly be the correct call.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10446
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1328 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
plugger66 wrote:CURLY wrote:Perhaps the AFL do as its clear it flips and flops each week. Amazing that apparently the way the GF is umpired is the right way but its a one off each year.plugger66 wrote:CURLY wrote:Lets all be honest here the umpires pick and choose when they pay free kicks depending on who the player is, the club they play for, position on the ground and time of the game.
So obviously you think the AFL want them to umpire that way. Do you know how illogical that is? Anyway Curly do you ever write anything but criticizing something the club have no control in. It would nice to find out if you know anything about footy because clearly you sometimes no little about umpiring. I suppose Warburton got a dud deal as well this week.
Yep the best umpires and the best players who probably don't give as many stupid frees away. Our local footy had the best umpires this week and it was one of the best umpired games of the year. When we were bottom last year we got the worst umpires and it was very ordinary umpiring. Same goes for the AFL. As we get up the ladder we will get the better umpires and our players will be more skilled.
bulls*** bulls*** bulls***. The two teams that play in the GF play against each other during the year and the umpires all umpire throughout the year.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
So you watch every game that carefully that you remember the times the 2 teams played each other during the season and how the game was umpired. Now that is bulls*** and you know it. And were the best umpires doing their game during the year. Very doubtful. I bet you though our GF were poorly umpired. I call bulls*** on your bulls***. By the way do you know anything about our club apart from us getting picked on? Doubtful. Poor Warburton or should I say poor umpires when they play Warburton.CURLY wrote:
bulls*** bulls*** bulls***. The two teams that play in the GF play against each other during the year and the umpires all umpire throughout the year.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10446
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1328 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
I know plenty and unlike yourself I can agree with other rather than be that annoying clown every club has that chooses to go against the norm just to be a flog.plugger66 wrote:So you watch every game that carefully that you remember the times the 2 teams played each other during the season and how the game was umpired. Now that is bulls*** and you know it. And were the best umpires doing their game during the year. Very doubtful. I bet you though our GF were poorly umpired. I call bulls*** on your bulls***. By the way do you know anything about our club apart from us getting picked on? Doubtful. Poor Warburton or should I say poor umpires when they play Warburton.CURLY wrote:
bulls*** bulls*** bulls***. The two teams that play in the GF play against each other during the year and the umpires all umpire throughout the year.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
CURLY wrote:I know plenty and unlike yourself I can agree with other rather than be that annoying clown every club has that chooses to go against the norm just to be a flog.plugger66 wrote:So you watch every game that carefully that you remember the times the 2 teams played each other during the season and how the game was umpired. Now that is bulls*** and you know it. And were the best umpires doing their game during the year. Very doubtful. I bet you though our GF were poorly umpired. I call bulls*** on your bulls***. By the way do you know anything about our club apart from us getting picked on? Doubtful. Poor Warburton or should I say poor umpires when they play Warburton.CURLY wrote:
bulls*** bulls*** bulls***. The two teams that play in the GF play against each other during the year and the umpires all umpire throughout the year.
Im not sure that's English but I would suggest you don't know a lot based on your lack of knowledge of the umpiring. I would suggest starting 18 threads in 18 weeks on how we get picked on in the umpiring is really flog worthy.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10446
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1328 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
Its not 18 from 18 but it could easily be as the treatment of Roo and Bruce has been shitful.plugger66 wrote:CURLY wrote:I know plenty and unlike yourself I can agree with other rather than be that annoying clown every club has that chooses to go against the norm just to be a flog.plugger66 wrote:So you watch every game that carefully that you remember the times the 2 teams played each other during the season and how the game was umpired. Now that is bulls*** and you know it. And were the best umpires doing their game during the year. Very doubtful. I bet you though our GF were poorly umpired. I call bulls*** on your bulls***. By the way do you know anything about our club apart from us getting picked on? Doubtful. Poor Warburton or should I say poor umpires when they play Warburton.CURLY wrote:
bulls*** bulls*** bulls***. The two teams that play in the GF play against each other during the year and the umpires all umpire throughout the year.
Im not sure that's English but I would suggest you don't know a lot based on your lack of knowledge of the umpiring. I would suggest starting 18 threads in 18 weeks on how we get picked on in the umpiring is really flog worthy.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
Were you away one week?CURLY wrote:
Its not 18 from 18 but it could easily be as the treatment of Roo and Bruce has been shitful.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10446
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1328 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
That would sound more likely than them getting a fair run.plugger66 wrote:Were you away one week?CURLY wrote:
Its not 18 from 18 but it could easily be as the treatment of Roo and Bruce has been shitful.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
CURLY wrote:That would sound more likely than them getting a fair run.plugger66 wrote:Were you away one week?CURLY wrote:
Its not 18 from 18 but it could easily be as the treatment of Roo and Bruce has been shitful.
Yes because its so logical the AFL only pick on the saints.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10446
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1328 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
Yeah and they never looked after GWS or Sydney thats all a myth......oh
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
I'm pretty sure that's a tribunal ruling not an umpiring decision. If you hit the head unavoidable or not it should be a free kick.spert wrote:Is there a clause in the rules about unavoidable head-high contact? It's a thin line, as it could be argued that much head-high contact is unavoidable, yet free kicks are paid on a whim.plugger66 wrote:saynta wrote:I see things pretty much the same where the umpires are concerned. Where was the 50 metre penalty when Silvagni threw the ball away after Roo was awarded a free,st.byron wrote:What I love about you is you're the archetypal dog with a bone. Single focus. Nothing...nothing at all will shake your determination to see things the way you do. Go get 'em.....CURLY wrote:Terrible umpiring the non free to Sinclair after the knee to the head was a classic along with the Savage head lock.st.byron wrote:Good work Curly. No need to wait until the end of the game.
Amazing McKenzie gets knocked out but concedes a free.
You can't say that the Afl doesn't condone cheating anymore after the Buddy fiasco. That showed that nothing was beyond the AFL to get its own way. The only question really is. What do the AFL have planned for the Saints?
On the Sinclair matter, I think posters are getting confused by what is a free-kick and what's reportable. The kick to the head was probably accidental, so it wasn't reportable, but was a free kick every day of the week.
There is also no doubt in my mind that a bigger tougher Freo side went out of their way to intimidate and hurt a very young Saints side. And they did. Full marks to the young 'uns for bouncing back after half time though.
Sorry but the Sinclair decision was the correct call. It was unavoidable contract. It was an intersection in the game that could not be avoided. Why if you are so certain that is a free then why isn't the Goddard elbow to his head a free. I don't believe you know all the rules based on some of your previous posting.
By the way we have had threads on the umpiring against every side this year so if the AFL are corrupt then it isn't to favour other sides, its to make sure the Saints get the dud deal. Can anyone give me any logical reason why they want us to have the dud deal. And mean logical not illogical.
And by the way you can be kicked in the head and the person doing the kicking can get a free and depending on the situation it can certainly be the correct call.
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
CURLY wrote:Yeah and they never looked after GWS or Sydney thats all a myth......oh
Got any stats to prove that? I agree. A myth. Unless you are talking off the field and that's fact and hasn't been denied. Still no footy talk. And what has that to do with my question anyway. Obviously just to hard to answer.
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
gringo wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's a tribunal ruling not an umpiring decision. If you hit the head unavoidable or not it should be a free kick.
So gringo you thought Goddard should have got a free as he was elbowed in the head? And what about people who are kicked in the head when they slide in to get the ball. They actually give away a free. There is no rule that says if you are hit in the head it is a free and thank goodness for that. You need to actually see what happened.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
Re: Umpire treatment of our key forwards
plugger66 wrote:gringo wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's a tribunal ruling not an umpiring decision. If you hit the head unavoidable or not it should be a free kick.
So gringo you thought Goddard should have got a free as he was elbowed in the head? And what about people who are kicked in the head when they slide in to get the ball. They actually give away a free. There is no rule that says if you are hit in the head it is a free and thank goodness for that. You need to actually see what happened.
There is incidental contact that isn't sufficient force to bother with. I didn't see what happened to Goddard so can't comment. The kick in the head for a sliding in player is a contentious ruling put in place after the slide in that did Gary Rohan's knee and has pretty much run contrary to 100+ years of football rulings. It still isn't properly administered often.