Is umpire Umpire Foote a cheat or just blind

[The_Dud]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

I believe it was dumb to push him because it gives the umpire the opportunity to pay a 50.

I don't want to see free kicks/50's paid to players who flop/dive/duck their head.

If it was a legit push and he legit fell over then 50 all day.

Like I said, if every 50 was awarded to the letter of the law then there'd be dozens a game. The umpires are allowed to use their discretion.

Neale shouldn't have touched him but Butler shouldn't have flopped. Pull your heads in boys and get on with the game.

[saynta]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

Yep.

[Joffa Burns]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

I personally find Cameron Ling to be a fairly unbiased and honest commentator.

Ling clearly stated that Kent should have gotten a free kick for the push in the back at the ruck contest and that Butler had staged in falling to the ground when he got the push. 50 for the Butler push was technically there, but would have been as soft as butter and not warranted and it was academic in the end as Butler kicked the goal.

Had Butler pushed a Lion and he went down & then received a 50 in an identical situation, the same SS protagonists would be bemoaning the cheating umps who paid the free when there was nothing in the push.

[CURLY]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

I personally find Cameron Ling to be a fairly unbiased and honest commentator.

Ling clearly stated that Kent should have gotten a free kick for the push in the back at the ruck contest and that Butler had staged in falling to the ground when he got the push. 50 for the Butler push was technically there, but would have been as soft as butter and not warranted and it was academic in the end as Butler kicked the goal.

Had Butler pushed a Lion and he went down & then received a 50 in an identical situation, the same SS protagonists would be bemoaning the cheating umps who paid the free when there was nothing in the push.

He would have been labelled stupid and 100% the 50 was there .

[saynta]

I think we have already labelled Foot a cheat, but maybe he is just a tad stupid with a low IQ to go with his obvious bias.

He certainly is a very poor maggot. One of the worst I have seen in over 70 years of watching a ton of footy.

[Joffa Burns]

The more blatant error was the free-kick that was missed in the third against the Brisbane player directly in front when he got tackled and dropped the ball.

The other bad miss was when Kent was pushed in the back at the throw in.

Kent was blocking and that was either sheparding or in the back, my call is in the back.
Definitely missed one there IMO.
Romas was soft and wasn't that umpire #2?

I really cannot understand the focus on umpiring and the belief we get shafted every week.
It was 11/11 against the Lions and there were soft ones given to both and plenty missed for both.

If some could look objectively there would be perspective.

There is the odd game where we have a howler from the umps like the WC game this year and those where we were the beneficiary of the umpires shocker such as the PA game.

Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away.

Re the soft Roma free kick immediately after half time:

At half time the umpires are coached as well.

Perhaps it was brought to umpire Foote’s attention that he had not yet paid a free kick to St Kilda, that several had been missed and that he overlooked a definite 50 metre penalty.

Perhaps umpire Foote has this in mind when judging that contest where the free could have gone either way or he could have called play on. Instead he was super keen to pay the first free he could to a St Kilda player. It was a token effort to try to prove that he had no bias. To me it just said that the umpiring department have started to question whether he is perhaps biased and now he had to do something obvious to disprove it.

So your case is...

- hypothetically the umpires coach realized Foote is biased against St Kilda and spoke to him at half time
- hypothetically after being exposed, Foote consciously chose to gift St Kilda a free in front of goal to cover his tracks, that'll throw them off the trail thought Foote.

And you summarize that the umpiring department is NOW awake to the fact that umpire Foote hates St Kilda and deliberately cheats against us and the free to Roma was a cover?

Can't say I see a lot of logic in that theory BFUSA as you assume the umpires coach (who may or may not have been at the game, pulled him up at 1/2 time) has never noticed this blatant cheating until Sunday and that Footes performances against St kilda over the past seasons have not been reviewed. Or is it that the whole umpires department is part of the bias?

I'm planning to watch the replay this week, I never bother watching umpire numbers but I'll take notice if you can actually see the umpires awarding and see if Foote actually pays any frees to us.

I remember another poster stating Foote was 11/0 against us in one match as if it was a statistical fact, only for another poster to watch a replay and point out three frees paid to us in a quarter.

For what it is worth I find the persecution complex around umpiring inaccurate and one particular poster to be pulling the chain of all on this forum with their comments, but by blocking that poster on game day I am able to read through & enjoy the match day thread and only come across the ramblings when quoted by another.

[saynta]

The more blatant error was the free-kick that was missed in the third against the Brisbane player directly in front when he got tackled and dropped the ball.

The other bad miss was when Kent was pushed in the back at the throw in.

Kent was blocking and that was either sheparding or in the back, my call is in the back.
Definitely missed one there IMO.
Romas was soft and wasn't that umpire #2?

I really cannot understand the focus on umpiring and the belief we get shafted every week.
It was 11/11 against the Lions and there were soft ones given to both and plenty missed for both.

If some could look objectively there would be perspective.

There is the odd game where we have a howler from the umps like the WC game this year and those where we were the beneficiary of the umpires shocker such as the PA game.

Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away.

Re the soft Roma free kick immediately after half time:

At half time the umpires are coached as well.

Perhaps it was brought to umpire Foote’s attention that he had not yet paid a free kick to St Kilda, that several had been missed and that he overlooked a definite 50 metre penalty.

Perhaps umpire Foote has this in mind when judging that contest where the free could have gone either way or he could have called play on. Instead he was super keen to pay the first free he could to a St Kilda player. It was a token effort to try to prove that he had no bias. To me it just said that the umpiring department have started to question whether he is perhaps biased and now he had to do something obvious to disprove it.

So your case is...

- hypothetically the umpires coach realized Foote is biased against St Kilda and spoke to him at half time
- hypothetically after being exposed, Foote consciously chose to gift St Kilda a free in front of goal to cover his tracks, that'll throw them off the trail thought Foote.

And you summarize that the umpiring department is NOW awake to the fact that umpire Foote hates St Kilda and deliberately cheats against us and the free to Roma was a cover?

Can't say I see a lot of logic in that theory BFUSA as you assume the umpires coach (who may or may not have been at the game, pulled him up at 1/2 time) has never noticed this blatant cheating until Sunday and that Footes performances against St kilda over the past seasons have not been reviewed. Or is it that the whole umpires department is part of the bias?

I'm planning to watch the replay this week, I never bother watching umpire numbers but I'll take notice if you can actually see the umpires awarding and see if Foote actually pays any frees to us.

I remember another poster stating Foote was 11/0 against us in one match as if it was a statistical fact, only for another poster to watch a replay and point out three frees paid to us in a quarter.

For what it is worth I find the persecution complex around umpiring inaccurate and one particular poster to be pulling the chain of all on this forum with their comments, but by blocking that poster on game day I am able to read through & enjoy the match day thread and only come across the ramblings when quoted by another.

One poster. ? I actually thought that bfusa was spot on and would like to compliment him for his foresight.

Shame you have aligned yourself with a dud poster on this issue. 68 tackles for one HTB says it all really. Prick was also quick to pull the trigger on a couple of iffy frees to the brions which resulted in two goals.

King was also jumped on after marking the ball and should have earned a 50 metre penalty as should have Butler.

Proof is in the watching in this case, not the pudding.

[SaintJohn1956]

I didn't think the umpiring was too bad, but. . .If we are saying the push to Butler shouldn't have been paid because he staged although I'm not sure about that - he was pushed. The ones that really get on my goat are the kicks that don't go the 15 metres, how many of them are there a game. Get rid of that rule. Also the player in the protected area - wasn't that Brisbane player in the protected area who came from behind (was it Marshall?) and smothered the ball. You are allowed to follow your opponent and run really close to the player taking a kick but running past and not affecting the player by yourself can result in a 50, doesn't make sense. I'm sure if the game was earlier in the year we would have got a heap more holding the ball decisions go our way. Ruck infringements - sometimes the most innocuous touches result in a free - other times you can throw your opponent out of the way and no infringement - I can never figure that out.

[Joffa Burns]

The more blatant error was the free-kick that was missed in the third against the Brisbane player directly in front when he got tackled and dropped the ball.

The other bad miss was when Kent was pushed in the back at the throw in.

Kent was blocking and that was either sheparding or in the back, my call is in the back.
Definitely missed one there IMO.
Romas was soft and wasn't that umpire #2?

I really cannot understand the focus on umpiring and the belief we get shafted every week.
It was 11/11 against the Lions and there were soft ones given to both and plenty missed for both.

If some could look objectively there would be perspective.

There is the odd game where we have a howler from the umps like the WC game this year and those where we were the beneficiary of the umpires shocker such as the PA game.

Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away.

Re the soft Roma free kick immediately after half time:

At half time the umpires are coached as well.

Perhaps it was brought to umpire Foote’s attention that he had not yet paid a free kick to St Kilda, that several had been missed and that he overlooked a definite 50 metre penalty.

Perhaps umpire Foote has this in mind when judging that contest where the free could have gone either way or he could have called play on. Instead he was super keen to pay the first free he could to a St Kilda player. It was a token effort to try to prove that he had no bias. To me it just said that the umpiring department have started to question whether he is perhaps biased and now he had to do something obvious to disprove it.

So your case is...

- hypothetically the umpires coach realized Foote is biased against St Kilda and spoke to him at half time
- hypothetically after being exposed, Foote consciously chose to gift St Kilda a free in front of goal to cover his tracks, that'll throw them off the trail thought Foote.

And you summarize that the umpiring department is NOW awake to the fact that umpire Foote hates St Kilda and deliberately cheats against us and the free to Roma was a cover?

Can't say I see a lot of logic in that theory BFUSA as you assume the umpires coach (who may or may not have been at the game, pulled him up at 1/2 time) has never noticed this blatant cheating until Sunday and that Footes performances against St kilda over the past seasons have not been reviewed. Or is it that the whole umpires department is part of the bias?

I'm planning to watch the replay this week, I never bother watching umpire numbers but I'll take notice if you can actually see the umpires awarding and see if Foote actually pays any frees to us.

I remember another poster stating Foote was 11/0 against us in one match as if it was a statistical fact, only for another poster to watch a replay and point out three frees paid to us in a quarter.

For what it is worth I find the persecution complex around umpiring inaccurate and one particular poster to be pulling the chain of all on this forum with their comments, but by blocking that poster on game day I am able to read through & enjoy the match day thread and only come across the ramblings when quoted by another.

One poster. ? I actually thought that bfusa was spot on and would like to compliment him for his foresight.

Shame you have aligned yourself with a dud poster on this issue. 68 tackles for one HTB says it all really. Prick was also quick to pull the trigger on a couple of iffy frees to the brions which resulted in two goals.

King was also jumped on after marking the ball and should have earned a 50 metre penalty as should have Butler.

Proof is in the watching in this case, not the pudding.

Saynta, I have no issue with a differing a opinion from you or any other poster, but I'll pull you up on one comment as you are incorrect with the assessment that I have aligned myself with anyone in regard to umpires. My assessments are min alone.

My opinion is that those bemoaning the umpiring are St Kilda biased and largely incorrect in their assessment. The one poster I refer to, and I wont name him/her is in my opinion pulling the chains of forum members with his/her habitual umpire comments, but hey that's my opinion and I am wrong as often as I am correct.

Personally I think BFUSA post was hearsay at best, if not pure fantasy and was totally without basis or logic.
He assessed that the umpire was pulled up at 1/2 time by the coach and therefore tried to level the ledger with the soft free to Marshall. Where is the proof that this not actually but remotely possibly took place?
And if it did, why now when this guy has been supposedly biased against us for years?

I'd hate to go to a game and just bitch about umpires, it must be a miserable experience, personally I don't notice them, just the howlers but I see them both ways.

[The_Dud]

Good to see some people aren't opposed to watching the game with both eyes open occasionally!

[Joffa Burns]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

I personally find Cameron Ling to be a fairly unbiased and honest commentator.

Ling clearly stated that Kent should have gotten a free kick for the push in the back at the ruck contest and that Butler had staged in falling to the ground when he got the push. 50 for the Butler push was technically there, but would have been as soft as butter and not warranted and it was academic in the end as Butler kicked the goal.

Had Butler pushed a Lion and he went down & then received a 50 in an identical situation, the same SS protagonists would be bemoaning the cheating umps who paid the free when there was nothing in the push.

He would have been labelled stupid and 100% the 50 was there .

Curly, perhaps you can share with me a post of yours from the last 20 years or so where you have agreed with an umpires decision in awarding a free and subsequent 50 against a saints player.

[SaintPav]

This isn’t a science lab or a court of law so I couldn’t give a stuff about objectivity.

I’m a saints supporter and I look at things through these eyes.

Opposition supporters do the same.

Anyway, the usual high horse suspects have their own biases and prejudices which is blatantly obvious.

End of story.

[saynta]

I have said where the I think the maggots were wrong and I'm not backing down from that. I believe that those sticking up for the maggots no matter what are the ones that are one eyed and "incorrect."

The saints have been getting a raw deal for too long for it to be mere chance or poor play on the saints behalf.. Curly usually has a point imhfo and to simply write him off as simply " pulling the chains", is f****** insulting to curly but hey curly can look after himself and does so admirably.


"

[SaintPav]

I have said where the I think the maggots were wrong and I'm not backing down from that. I believe that those sticking up for the maggots no matter what are the ones that are one eyed and "incorrect."

The saints have been getting a raw deal for too long for it to be mere chance or poor play on the saints behalf.. Curly usually has a point imhfo and to simply write him off as simply " pulling the chains", is f****** insulting to curly but hey curly can look after himself and does so admirably.


"

Too right.

If Curly is accused of trolling the board on umpires, then if you apply the same standard, his detractors are also trolling when they consistently deny poor and blatantly incorrect umpiring decisions AND deny posters even the right to question umpiring because they don’t like it, because they’re not being “OBJECTIVE”.

But I’m sure, they have never gone off at poor umpiring.

NEVER.

EVER.



Yeah, right.

Lol. Give us a break.

I’ve got news for you: no one is objective on here.

No

One.

[Joffa Burns]

I have said where the I think the maggots were wrong and I'm not backing down from that. I believe that those sticking up for the maggots no matter what are the ones that are one eyed and "incorrect."

The saints have been getting a raw deal for too long for it to be mere chance or poor play on the saints behalf.. Curly usually has a point imhfo and to simply write him off as simply " pulling the chains", is f****** insulting to curly but hey curly can look after himself and does so admirably.


"

If your post refers to me I am wondering where I may have stuck up for a maggot?

I have provided examples of where we were not awarded a free I think we should have gotten and also cited one we received that was a gift. If that is sticking up for maggots I'll agree to disagree with you, I think its looking at the match from a more objective point of view.

I thoroughly enjoyed the match and was on the edge of my chair to the last minute, great game that we unfortunately lost.

I believe a poster is pulling the chain when commenting on umpires as I do not believe it is humanly possible to have absolutely no objectivity, but if I am wrong so be it. As I wrote I block said poster on match day thread so I can enjoy reading without the spamming.

I'm sure plenty of posters would enjoying blocking me too, but I would not find it insulting.

I hope you guys continue with your conspiracy theories about cheating, fantasies about umpire coaches giving a heads up at half time leading to a evener at the start of the 3rd, preferential treatment etc and I'll enjoy reading it and issuing my rebuttal.

[takeaway]

I don't think you will see Butler doing that sort of thing again. May risk a fine for staging.

[Joffa Burns]

This isn’t a science lab or a court of law so I couldn’t give a stuff about objectivity.

I’m a saints supporter and I look at things through these eyes.

Opposition supporters do the same.

Anyway, the usual high horse suspects have their own biases and prejudices which is blatantly obvious.

End of story.

I'm glad you admit that the opinion is formed from bias, I agree with you.

Personally I couldn't give a rats ringer about umpires, I barely notice them and can't comprehend the obsession with their cheating, but each to their own.

[Joffa Burns]

I have said where the I think the maggots were wrong and I'm not backing down from that. I believe that those sticking up for the maggots no matter what are the ones that are one eyed and "incorrect."

The saints have been getting a raw deal for too long for it to be mere chance or poor play on the saints behalf.. Curly usually has a point imhfo and to simply write him off as simply " pulling the chains", is f****** insulting to curly but hey curly can look after himself and does so admirably.


"

Too right.

If Curly is accused of trolling the board on umpires, then if you apply the same standard, his detractors are also trolling when they consistently deny poor and blatantly incorrect umpiring decisions AND deny posters even the right to question umpiring because they don’t like it, because they’re not being “OBJECTIVE”.

But I’m sure, they have never gone off at poor umpiring.

NEVER.

EVER.



Yeah, right.

Lol. Give us a break.

I’ve got news for you: no one is objective on here.

No

One.

My issue with said poster was that I could not read the match day thread without sorting through his spam.
I then incorrectly responded to that spam causing ,mayhem on the thread.

A poster was kind enough to alert me to the friend and foe function via a PM which I activate on game day and I am back enjoying the thread without comment.

WIN/WIN for all

[CURLY]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

I personally find Cameron Ling to be a fairly unbiased and honest commentator.

Ling clearly stated that Kent should have gotten a free kick for the push in the back at the ruck contest and that Butler had staged in falling to the ground when he got the push. 50 for the Butler push was technically there, but would have been as soft as butter and not warranted and it was academic in the end as Butler kicked the goal.

Had Butler pushed a Lion and he went down & then received a 50 in an identical situation, the same SS protagonists would be bemoaning the cheating umps who paid the free when there was nothing in the push.

He would have been labelled stupid and 100% the 50 was there .

Curly, perhaps you can share with me a post of yours from the last 20 years or so where you have agreed with an umpires decision in awarding a free and subsequent 50 against a saints player.

Perhaps you can show me a StKilda player doing what Neale did and not give away a 50.

Then find one where a player takes a mark then a StKilda player dives on his back then swears at the umpire without conceding a 50.

[saynta]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

I personally find Cameron Ling to be a fairly unbiased and honest commentator.

Ling clearly stated that Kent should have gotten a free kick for the push in the back at the ruck contest and that Butler had staged in falling to the ground when he got the push. 50 for the Butler push was technically there, but would have been as soft as butter and not warranted and it was academic in the end as Butler kicked the goal.

Had Butler pushed a Lion and he went down & then received a 50 in an identical situation, the same SS protagonists would be bemoaning the cheating umps who paid the free when there was nothing in the push.

He would have been labelled stupid and 100% the 50 was there .

Curly, perhaps you can share with me a post of yours from the last 20 years or so where you have agreed with an umpires decision in awarding a free and subsequent 50 against a saints player.

Perhaps you can show me a StKilda player doing what Neale did and not give away a 50.

Then find one where a player takes a mark then a StKilda player dives on his back then swears at the umpire without conceding a 50.

Yeah, even the commentator apologised for that brian's swearing. Clearly heard.

[SaintPav]

This isn’t a science lab or a court of law so I couldn’t give a stuff about objectivity.

I’m a saints supporter and I look at things through these eyes.

Opposition supporters do the same.

Anyway, the usual high horse suspects have their own biases and prejudices which is blatantly obvious.

End of story.

I'm glad you admit that the opinion is formed from bias, I agree with you.

Personally I couldn't give a rats ringer about umpires, I barely notice them and can't comprehend the obsession with their cheating, but each to their own.

Well, even the AFL provide comment on umpiring errors.

But again Joffa, why do you keep strawmanning me?

Like my question in the other post about winning the game, where did I write they were cheating?

It’s a cheap shot.

Your personal choice to not “give a rats ringer about umpires” but that is also a bias. Your personal bias.

[saynta]

I have said where the I think the maggots were wrong and I'm not backing down from that. I believe that those sticking up for the maggots no matter what are the ones that are one eyed and "incorrect."

The saints have been getting a raw deal for too long for it to be mere chance or poor play on the saints behalf.. Curly usually has a point imhfo and to simply write him off as simply " pulling the chains", is f****** insulting to curly but hey curly can look after himself and does so admirably.


"

Too right.

If Curly is accused of trolling the board on umpires, then if you apply the same standard, his detractors are also trolling when they consistently deny poor and blatantly incorrect umpiring decisions AND deny posters even the right to question umpiring because they don’t like it, because they’re not being “OBJECTIVE”.

But I’m sure, they have never gone off at poor umpiring.

NEVER.

EVER.



Yeah, right.

Lol. Give us a break.

I’ve got news for you: no one is objective on here.

No

One.

My issue with said poster was that I could not read the match day thread without sorting through his spam.
I then incorrectly responded to that spam causing ,mayhem on the thread.

A poster was kind enough to alert me to the friend and foe function via a PM which I activate on game day and I am back enjoying the thread without comment.

WIN/WIN for all

Well a word of advice, not that you will take kindly to it. If you are not reading curly's comments then don't f****** comment on them or him. Then it's a win for both curly and you.

As if you didn't know about the friend or foe function.

[The_Dud]

Looks like Curly, Larry and Moe have banded back together again!

A bit rich in one breath admitting your bias, then in the next saying “but I’m still right and you’re wrong!”

There’s a difference between being frustrated with umpiring mistakes and constantly calling them cheaters, inventing conspiracies and flooding the match day thread and forum with multiple topics about it!

Butler flopped, he tried to draw a 50 and it didn’t work, get over it!

[SaintPav]

The biggest troll on here has spoken.

[Joffa Burns]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

I personally find Cameron Ling to be a fairly unbiased and honest commentator.

Ling clearly stated that Kent should have gotten a free kick for the push in the back at the ruck contest and that Butler had staged in falling to the ground when he got the push. 50 for the Butler push was technically there, but would have been as soft as butter and not warranted and it was academic in the end as Butler kicked the goal.

Had Butler pushed a Lion and he went down & then received a 50 in an identical situation, the same SS protagonists would be bemoaning the cheating umps who paid the free when there was nothing in the push.

He would have been labelled stupid and 100% the 50 was there .

Curly, perhaps you can share with me a post of yours from the last 20 years or so where you have agreed with an umpires decision in awarding a free and subsequent 50 against a saints player.

Perhaps you can show me a StKilda player doing what Neale did and not give away a 50.

Then find one where a player takes a mark then a StKilda player dives on his back then swears at the umpire without conceding a 50.

Thank you for conceding you could not back up your statement with an example.