A caller this afternoon to SEN stated that he thought Sydney/Paul Roos may have deliberately played 19 men.......which, who knows, may indeed be the case.
But good 'ol SEN outrighted dismissed this as being a foolish thing to think.
Is this SEN, part owned by the AFL, being censored in their real thoughts I wonder??
I reckon if we are within a goal in any game we play this year, we should chuck on an extra player, risk a 25K fine and try and win that way.
But no doubt if we, or another team, tries this stunt ("accidental" of course!), they'll throw the book down, take away premiership points, and be consistently inconsistent yet again.
Fools, damm fools the lot of 'em!
AFL contradictions
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
saintspremiers
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
The problem is that the AFl has painted and flexed the rules with such a broad brush, be they on the field umpire intrepretations or off field AFL rules, that they can never be wrong.
Anderson uses lawyer weasel word to get himself off the hook all the time. Same with the umpires and their interpretations.
However you can only fool the punters all of the time for so long.
Since the AFL blatantly
1) covered up Whispers in the Sky
2) corrupted the integrity of the competition with the Barry Hall farce in 2005 to allow him and Sydney to win the flag
3) Changed the rules in Sirengate to allow an interstate team to take two points
4) Change the rules to suspend Baker for 7 weeks (4 +3) for something nobody saw, was taken to investigtion on a lie, and the victim ran into the back of the player.
Bad luck to the Saints some say.
But wait. This year
1) Goodes gets off after video shows him blatantly elbowing a player in the head.
2) X gets stretchered off after a high hit. Again video evidence showing high contact and the tribunal admitting high contact about 10 metres off the ball - No case to answer. Whats more the St.Kilda player should have had more vision (but apparently Farmer doesn't have those rules apply).
3) Barry Hall King hits a bloke, video evidence abounds, comes on TV all contrite - cops ten, but inexplicably is given a 3 week reduction therefore he gets exactly the same as Baker (never mind semantics) for something blatant and indefensible (apparently Bakers never seen "block" is just as bad as a king hit.
4) Sydney cheating caught on video evidence, with Jolly - the 19th man involved in the last passage of play - no two ways about it, allowing them to get the point that draws the game. Even though the AFL has changed rules in 06 in Sirengate they give Sydney a paltry $25k fine.
I tend to go with incompetence over conspirarcy every time, however in this case Anderson and his corrupt cronies are too smart by half. They write the rules so they can apply any decision they see fit, and then smugly explain it away and can barely wipe the smiles from their faces.
Well as i said, you cant fool the punters all of the time, and the punters are screaming at the pathetic inconsistancy of this tribunal.
On and Sydney have just been "lucky" with all of this have they? FFS dont bulls*** a bullshitter.
Anderson uses lawyer weasel word to get himself off the hook all the time. Same with the umpires and their interpretations.
However you can only fool the punters all of the time for so long.
Since the AFL blatantly
1) covered up Whispers in the Sky
2) corrupted the integrity of the competition with the Barry Hall farce in 2005 to allow him and Sydney to win the flag
3) Changed the rules in Sirengate to allow an interstate team to take two points
4) Change the rules to suspend Baker for 7 weeks (4 +3) for something nobody saw, was taken to investigtion on a lie, and the victim ran into the back of the player.
Bad luck to the Saints some say.
But wait. This year
1) Goodes gets off after video shows him blatantly elbowing a player in the head.
2) X gets stretchered off after a high hit. Again video evidence showing high contact and the tribunal admitting high contact about 10 metres off the ball - No case to answer. Whats more the St.Kilda player should have had more vision (but apparently Farmer doesn't have those rules apply).
3) Barry Hall King hits a bloke, video evidence abounds, comes on TV all contrite - cops ten, but inexplicably is given a 3 week reduction therefore he gets exactly the same as Baker (never mind semantics) for something blatant and indefensible (apparently Bakers never seen "block" is just as bad as a king hit.
4) Sydney cheating caught on video evidence, with Jolly - the 19th man involved in the last passage of play - no two ways about it, allowing them to get the point that draws the game. Even though the AFL has changed rules in 06 in Sirengate they give Sydney a paltry $25k fine.
I tend to go with incompetence over conspirarcy every time, however in this case Anderson and his corrupt cronies are too smart by half. They write the rules so they can apply any decision they see fit, and then smugly explain it away and can barely wipe the smiles from their faces.
Well as i said, you cant fool the punters all of the time, and the punters are screaming at the pathetic inconsistancy of this tribunal.
On and Sydney have just been "lucky" with all of this have they? FFS dont bulls*** a bullshitter.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
-
saintspremiers
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
great post.joffaboy wrote:The problem is that the AFl has painted and flexed the rules with such a broad brush, be they on the field umpire intrepretations or off field AFL rules, that they can never be wrong.
Anderson uses lawyer weasel word to get himself off the hook all the time. Same with the umpires and their interpretations.
However you can only fool the punters all of the time for so long.
Since the AFL blatantly
1) covered up Whispers in the Sky
2) corrupted the integrity of the competition with the Barry Hall farce in 2005 to allow him and Sydney to win the flag
3) Changed the rules in Sirengate to allow an interstate team to take two points
4) Change the rules to suspend Baker for 7 weeks (4 +3) for something nobody saw, was taken to investigtion on a lie, and the victim ran into the back of the player.
Bad luck to the Saints some say.
But wait. This year
1) Goodes gets off after video shows him blatantly elbowing a player in the head.
2) X gets stretchered off after a high hit. Again video evidence showing high contact and the tribunal admitting high contact about 10 metres off the ball - No case to answer. Whats more the St.Kilda player should have had more vision (but apparently Farmer doesn't have those rules apply).
3) Barry Hall King hits a bloke, video evidence abounds, comes on TV all contrite - cops ten, but inexplicably is given a 3 week reduction therefore he gets exactly the same as Baker (never mind semantics) for something blatant and indefensible (apparently Bakers never seen "block" is just as bad as a king hit.
4) Sydney cheating caught on video evidence, with Jolly - the 19th man involved in the last passage of play - no two ways about it, allowing them to get the point that draws the game. Even though the AFL has changed rules in 06 in Sirengate they give Sydney a paltry $25k fine.
I tend to go with incompetence over conspirarcy every time, however in this case Anderson and his corrupt cronies are too smart by half. They write the rules so they can apply any decision they see fit, and then smugly explain it away and can barely wipe the smiles from their faces.
Well as i said, you cant fool the punters all of the time, and the punters are screaming at the pathetic inconsistancy of this tribunal.
On and Sydney have just been "lucky" with all of this have they? FFS dont bulls*** a bullshitter.
And as for Anderson, the little weasel has to live with all this lying and cheating for a long time, given he's only in his early 30's and may be on this planet for another 50+ years.
I hope he understands that reputation carries with you when you go from one job to another.
He's not going to have long career at the AFL - surely that couldn't happen.
He will pay for his incompetence for many, many years in the future.
Very sad for him.
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
-
satchmo
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6656
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:24pm
- Location: Hotel Bastardos
- Has thanked: 198 times
- Been thanked: 166 times
- Contact:
I think that mic has summed it up nicely.bigmicka wrote:Sorry plugger but I don't commit to the Record crowds/Ratings prove the game is better than it ever has been. That's Andrew Demetrious line when asked anything other than how are the crowds and ratings.
Reporter: So Andrew what was your opinion on the Swans/North draw?
Andrew: The game has never been in a better position $800 million tv contract, With record crowds.
Reporter: So the 19th player on the field had no meaning on the result?
Andrew: With this record growth we are going to expand onto the Gold Coast and Western Sydney, our bottom line has never been better.
Sorry but those lines don't mean a crap to the average supporter.
I wan't to hear about the tribunal getting the decisions right.
I wan't to hear about umpires making fewer mistakes and what steps they are taking to improve decision making.
I wan't to hear about an equitable draw where teams play the same amount of times over a few years. This means St Kilda not playing Freo at Freo 16 times in 16 years.
I wan't to hear about changes to the rules due to developments in the game and technology. This means revising the rules on say the 19 players proactively instead of reactively.
If you see this as us having a whinge about the saint's playing poorly thats your perogative. Just don't call us that, when you are just an apologist for the worst administration the game has ever had during my lifetime.
mic
The afl is effectively an authoritarian regime.
*Allegedly.
Bring back Lucky Burgers, and nobody gets hurt.
You can't un-fry things.
Last Post
Bring back Lucky Burgers, and nobody gets hurt.
You can't un-fry things.
Last Post
-
To the top
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3266
- Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2007 4:05pm
- Been thanked: 390 times
Again, in this "professional" competition we have an employee of a Club (a Coach) bemoaning that the Timekeepers from 2 competing Clubs (PLURAL) got it wrong.
And the game was halted 14 seconds early - in the opinion of this Official who is to complain to "the AFL".
To be consistent with a previous adjudication, "the AFL" should adjudicate on the claim (using video evidence) and play the extra 14 seconds to arrive at a fair and proper result. What a farce this has turned into courtesy of these second guessing, over paid, ego fuelled idiots, managing by crisis and more interested in Ben Cousins (who is not the subject of any prosecution in Civil Courts - in fact he received compensation) - merely "the AFL" is embarrassed that its drug regime did not catch a high profile player out - and the player fessed up otherwise "the AFL" would never have known!
Plus, we now have a competition where you can strike a player but, because it is deemed "in play", no action is taken.
This includes head high contact in a game where the head was always sacrocant.
We have a trend where certain teams aim to put players out of the contest by ensuring that a tackle or "hit" puts them on the ground and needing to recover to regain their composure and again impact on any contest for the ball.
The off the ball wrapping up of Riewoldt and throwing him to the ground, given that I have licence to bias I'll change that to pummelling him into the ground, is indicative of this growing instruction by some coaches.
Yes, a free kick was given because the ball was in the hands of someone else who was handballing to someone else scooting around the boundary line.
That is how far removed from the contest for the ball Riewoldt was at the time.
But he was still "fair game", despite a free kick being paid for him being pummelled into the ground (doing the damage it did to a ball player) when he was not in the immediate contest for the ball.
This is just another area "the AFL" needs to clean up and in a hury because it has compromised itself into a typically fine mess.
Or should Riewolt had a 6th sense that this was going to occur, therefore it was his fault - as it was the fault of X. Clarke, Koschitzke and the like (again showing a St Kilda bias)?
"The AFL" is preoccupied with the "image" of the game, and the fact that mothers will not allow their sons to play the game for fear of serious injury yet these incidents continue to occur - and players can be "hit", including to the head, by fists and elbows but it is "OK" because the AFL says it is "in play" - despite the player being hit not having the ball, not contesting the ball and having no impact on the play.
Again I repeat, the AFL is out to lunch.
Who's paying?
Because certain of them may well need their remuneration to service their mortgages in these times of entrenched and spiralling inflation - they are now paying very nearly 10% for their multi million dollar mortgages.
And the interest bill on their home mortgage is not tax deductible!
So they can not afford to pay for lunch.
Which begs the question of who does pay for their lunches, and their life style?
Exactly who is pandering to the egos of "the AFL"?
And the game was halted 14 seconds early - in the opinion of this Official who is to complain to "the AFL".
To be consistent with a previous adjudication, "the AFL" should adjudicate on the claim (using video evidence) and play the extra 14 seconds to arrive at a fair and proper result. What a farce this has turned into courtesy of these second guessing, over paid, ego fuelled idiots, managing by crisis and more interested in Ben Cousins (who is not the subject of any prosecution in Civil Courts - in fact he received compensation) - merely "the AFL" is embarrassed that its drug regime did not catch a high profile player out - and the player fessed up otherwise "the AFL" would never have known!
Plus, we now have a competition where you can strike a player but, because it is deemed "in play", no action is taken.
This includes head high contact in a game where the head was always sacrocant.
We have a trend where certain teams aim to put players out of the contest by ensuring that a tackle or "hit" puts them on the ground and needing to recover to regain their composure and again impact on any contest for the ball.
The off the ball wrapping up of Riewoldt and throwing him to the ground, given that I have licence to bias I'll change that to pummelling him into the ground, is indicative of this growing instruction by some coaches.
Yes, a free kick was given because the ball was in the hands of someone else who was handballing to someone else scooting around the boundary line.
That is how far removed from the contest for the ball Riewoldt was at the time.
But he was still "fair game", despite a free kick being paid for him being pummelled into the ground (doing the damage it did to a ball player) when he was not in the immediate contest for the ball.
This is just another area "the AFL" needs to clean up and in a hury because it has compromised itself into a typically fine mess.
Or should Riewolt had a 6th sense that this was going to occur, therefore it was his fault - as it was the fault of X. Clarke, Koschitzke and the like (again showing a St Kilda bias)?
"The AFL" is preoccupied with the "image" of the game, and the fact that mothers will not allow their sons to play the game for fear of serious injury yet these incidents continue to occur - and players can be "hit", including to the head, by fists and elbows but it is "OK" because the AFL says it is "in play" - despite the player being hit not having the ball, not contesting the ball and having no impact on the play.
Again I repeat, the AFL is out to lunch.
Who's paying?
Because certain of them may well need their remuneration to service their mortgages in these times of entrenched and spiralling inflation - they are now paying very nearly 10% for their multi million dollar mortgages.
And the interest bill on their home mortgage is not tax deductible!
So they can not afford to pay for lunch.
Which begs the question of who does pay for their lunches, and their life style?
Exactly who is pandering to the egos of "the AFL"?
-
tweedaletomanning
- Club Player
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Thu 17 Apr 2008 2:30am
Great article by Tim Lane in today's Sunday Age!
Roo was off play - it was unduly rough play - but it's ok, just a St.Kilda player.
On radio call said at one stage Kosi reported by emerg ump - have others heard more about this?
Does anyone have any idea what the free kick to Simmonds was for in fwd pock in 2nd quarter. We sat surrounded by Tigers and even they thought it was an absolute "gift"
and while I'm on a roll - twice in first half the Richmond runner impeded play to ST.Kilda's detriment (1 resulted in Tig goal) yet no free kick/no nothing from umps!!!!!
Roo was off play - it was unduly rough play - but it's ok, just a St.Kilda player.
On radio call said at one stage Kosi reported by emerg ump - have others heard more about this?
Does anyone have any idea what the free kick to Simmonds was for in fwd pock in 2nd quarter. We sat surrounded by Tigers and even they thought it was an absolute "gift"
and while I'm on a roll - twice in first half the Richmond runner impeded play to ST.Kilda's detriment (1 resulted in Tig goal) yet no free kick/no nothing from umps!!!!!