Did Nick get a free?

[plugger66]

My question was, did he receive a free? If this picture comes from the GF (and from what other posters have said, it does) then, to answer my own question, I had no alternative but to look up the stats of "that match", something I have not done until now. Nick did not receive any frees at all on the day. So the answer must be NO.

We have all heard supporters from every other club say that Nick is "protected", and to be fair, much in the same way as (say) Gary Ablett is referred to by some Saints supporters. On the other hand, he did get frees on GF day, three in fact, more than any other Geelong player. No doubt he deserved them.

I always find it somewhat amusing, that some who say that a particular thread is a complete waste of time, or should not exist at all, feel compelled to comment in it on numerous occasions. C'est la Vie!

Yes Ablett received a free kick for a slight holding of the jumper and kicked a goal from it.

In the last quarter Schnieder has his jumper pulled off to the point where it was almost in the Richmond Social Club with Ryan standing five metres away in perfect position and no free kick.

Also in the last quarter, the pic of Riewoldt clearly shows him getting manhandled from two players and again Umpire Shaun ( I have supported Geelong all my life ) Ryan calls play on!

Can someone find out who the goal umpire supported as a child?

I wonder who Steve McBurney supported as a kid?

[Moods]

Maybe they should have shown the still of Dawson smashing Buddy's teeth out in a marking contest in Tassie. Nil free given there, but as a saints supporter gives me a strange warm glow every time I see it.

Let's be honest, there are literally hundreds of frees missed each week. WE all bemoan the fact when umpy's pay everything. THis free with rooey was CLEARLY a free in hindsight. How many of us picked it up on the day though? I suggest that if ANY of us had it would have been discussed long before Feb 15 2010. My point is that maybe it wasn't CLEARLY a free at all and that taking a snapshot of a marking contest distorts the overall situation.

And for those supporters who actually care what opposition supporters say about Roo being a protected species (to be honest I'm probably one of them at times) the AFL have given us the perfect photo to show these morons to prove how wrong they are. I actually love the photo - shows what it takes to stop our champ, and the desperation of a GF.

[Dr Spaceman]

Maybe they should have shown the still of Dawson smashing Buddy's teeth out in a marking contest in Tassie. Nil free given there, but as a saints supporter gives me a strange warm glow every time I see it.

Let's be honest, there are literally hundreds of frees missed each week. WE all bemoan the fact when umpy's pay everything. THis free with rooey was CLEARLY a free in hindsight. How many of us picked it up on the day though? I suggest that if ANY of us had it would have been discussed long before Feb 15 2010. My point is that maybe it wasn't CLEARLY a free at all and that taking a snapshot of a marking contest distorts the overall situation.

And for those supporters who actually care what opposition supporters say about Roo being a protected species (to be honest I'm probably one of them at times) the AFL have given us the perfect photo to show these morons to prove how wrong they are. I actually love the photo - shows what it takes to stop our champ, and the desperation of a GF.

Agree 100% with all you have said. I also love this pic for the same reason.

[ThePunter]

I threw it out to the non-Sainter wolves

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=673983

[degruch]

I threw it out to the non-Sainter wolves

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=673983

Looks like you're a glutton for punishment, Punter.

IMO, if every free in the game had been paid, the result would have been the same...we lost, fair and square.

[Leo.J]

We had Geelong where we wanted them both times we played them, the first time we missed a few which could have put the game beyond doubt, yet they also missed a couple yet they made us pay for our misses over all.

In the GF we missed to many goals and made too many mistakes, they made barely any mistakes. We needed everything to go our way after all the errors we made, and it didn't.

This year DON'T RELY ON UMPIRES DOING THEIR JOB PROPERLY (BECAUSE THEY DON"T), AND DON"T RELY ON THE OPPOSITION MAKING MISTAKES...WE NEED TO PUT THE OPPOSTION AWAY WITH FLAWLESS, UNRELENTING SAINTS FOOTY.

Sorry about all that shouting...

[joffaboy]

the thing i want to know is where was the saints player putting the block on Scarlett ? where was the crumber to pick up the loose ball ??

The saints player would have been pinged for blocking and scarlett would have received a free.

plugger66 we'll be talking about this loss for the next 10 years.

Maybe so but to suggest we should have got a free because of the evidence of a still photo seems a real stretch.

So you advocate the deliberate breaking of the rules?

Fair Enough, as long as we know where you stand on issues such as these.

When did i say that. Do advocate we take still photos at games to decide if it is a free or not?

Fair enough as long as you are prepared for a 12 hour game.

So are you suggesting that the image is doctored and that the hand over the shoulder and the fact that Scarlett had no eyes for the ball and is crashing into Riewoldt, did not occur?

Is a hand over a shoulder a free kick or not?

Has noting to do with photo's, either it is a free kick or not.

You have advocated breaking the rules with your defence, or is the umpire useless?

[plugger66]

the thing i want to know is where was the saints player putting the block on Scarlett ? where was the crumber to pick up the loose ball ??

The saints player would have been pinged for blocking and scarlett would have received a free.

plugger66 we'll be talking about this loss for the next 10 years.

Maybe so but to suggest we should have got a free because of the evidence of a still photo seems a real stretch.

So you advocate the deliberate breaking of the rules?

Fair Enough, as long as we know where you stand on issues such as these.

When did i say that. Do advocate we take still photos at games to decide if it is a free or not?

Fair enough as long as you are prepared for a 12 hour game.

So are you suggesting that the image is doctored and that the hand over the shoulder and the fact that Scarlett had no eyes for the ball and is crashing into Riewoldt, did not occur?

Is a hand over a shoulder a free kick or not?

Has noting to do with photo's, either it is a free kick or not.

You have advocated breaking the rules with your defence, or is the umpire useless?

I know you must be joking because you have said you have followed footy for a while. A still shot could be 100th of a second where the hand was on the shoulder. Are you advocating that every time someone infringes for even 100th of a second we pay a free. That either means there would be at least 300 frees a game or for an umpire to spot all of them we would have to take still photos. Like I said if you want a 12 game well good on you. I am pretty happy with the current game myself.

[degruch]

I am pretty happy with the current game myself.

Yeah, but...what about multiball!?!

[plugger66]

I am pretty happy with the current game myself.

Yeah, but...what about multiball!?!

You seem keen on it. Sounds ok to me. Should we play it pre season or during the main season?

[degruch]

I am pretty happy with the current game myself.

Yeah, but...what about multiball!?!

You seem keen on it. Sounds ok to me. Should we play it pre season or during the main season?

As you know, I'm not generally for NAB Cup rule changes, so straight into the main season! The game will benefit players who can kick with both their left and right boot...at the same time.

[spert]

The team with the most goals wins -so Geelong beat us on the day. Roo did pretty well on a wet day for a big bloke on one leg -his opponent seems to have been regarded as a quality backman who has the measure of Roo..more like a hack in a good team who got lucky.

[joffaboy]

I know you must be joking because you have said you have followed footy for a while. A still shot could be 100th of a second where the hand was on the shoulder.

For a start, it is a physical impossibility for a player to hav etheir hand on an oppositions shoulder for 100th of a second.

Secondly, in the position the defender is in, his hand couldn't have just touched Riewoldt.

More likely the action was one of pulling Riewoldt by the shoulder.

There are assumption, but your blind acceptance that the defenders contact was incidental is amazing.

Are you advocating that every time someone infringes for even 100th of a second we pay a free.

I saw nothing of 100th of a second. that is your straw man, not mine.

That either means there would be at least 300 frees a game or for an umpire to spot all of them we would have to take still photos.

Only if you accept your straw man. Could you please tell me how it is physically possible for Scarlett to not have front on contact with Riewoldt while not looking at the ball.

How does Scarlett stop in mid air and not crash in Riewoldt? How is that physically possible? then again you believe in 100th odf a second incidental contact

Like I said if you want a 12 game well good on you. I am pretty happy with the current game myself.

You are the one building straw man arguments about fictitious 100th of a second contact, 300 free kicks, and 12 hour games.

Facts from that shot

1) Riewoldt is the only player with his eyes on the ball
2) the Geelong defender is physically impeding Riewoldt with his hand holding onto (it is clearly visable, look at his bicep flexing as he holds the shoulder) Riewoldt.
3) Scarlett is in mid air, one foot off the ground, holding onto Riewoldts jumper from the front, and about to crash into Riewoldt from the front.

How you can argue anything but that is beyond me. Obviously you advocate illegal play.

or you advocate umpire incompetence.

One of the two.

[plugger66]

I know you must be joking because you have said you have followed footy for a while. A still shot could be 100th of a second where the hand was on the shoulder.

For a start, it is a physical impossibility for a player to hav etheir hand on an oppositions shoulder for 100th of a second.

Secondly, in the position the defender is in, his hand couldn't have just touched Riewoldt.

More likely the action was one of pulling Riewoldt by the shoulder.

There are assumption, but your blind acceptance that the defenders contact was incidental is amazing.

Are you advocating that every time someone infringes for even 100th of a second we pay a free.

I saw nothing of 100th of a second. that is your straw man, not mine.

That either means there would be at least 300 frees a game or for an umpire to spot all of them we would have to take still photos.

Only if you accept your straw man. Could you please tell me how it is physically possible for Scarlett to not have front on contact with Riewoldt while not looking at the ball.

How does Scarlett stop in mid air and not crash in Riewoldt? How is that physically possible? then again you believe in 100th odf a second incidental contact

Like I said if you want a 12 game well good on you. I am pretty happy with the current game myself.

You are the one building straw man arguments about fictitious 100th of a second contact, 300 free kicks, and 12 hour games.

Facts from that shot

1) Riewoldt is the only player with his eyes on the ball
2) the Geelong defender is physically impeding Riewoldt with his hand holding onto (it is clearly visable) Riewoldt
3) Scarlett is in mid air, feet off the ground, about to crash into Riewoldt from the front.

How you can argue anything but that is beyond me. Obviously you advocate illegal play.

or you advocate umpire incompetence.

One of the two.

All your bullet points are impressive but I will some it up a bit more simply. Frees are not paid from still shots of photos. Never have and hopefully never will be. If they were it would be a long game as the umpires would be looking at a lot of photos. Cant you get your head around the fact that we dont want 300 frees in a game. I have no idea if this a free or not because I cant recall the incident at the ground.

[perfectionist]

Play ons aren't paid from photos either, so there's no point there.

We have one piece of evidence, the photo. From it, it looks like a free. Other pieces of evidence may exist, but we don't have them (as yet anyway). Therefore, we cannot claim from missing evidence that it is not a free.

However, we all (well almost all) know that it was free which was missed. Whether similar ones were missed for Geelong we can only speculate.

I thought it was a very interesting photo to run to promote a tipping competition. If I was at the St Kilda Football Club I would certainly be using that photo for motivation at an appropriate time. I would also be quite happy for the AFL to use the photo with the caption, "Saints Captain Nick Riewoldt with eyes on the ball , Grand Final Day, 2009"

[saintdooley]

I know you must be joking because you have said you have followed footy for a while. A still shot could be 100th of a second where the hand was on the shoulder.

For a start, it is a physical impossibility for a player to hav etheir hand on an oppositions shoulder for 100th of a second.

Secondly, in the position the defender is in, his hand couldn't have just touched Riewoldt.

More likely the action was one of pulling Riewoldt by the shoulder.

There are assumption, but your blind acceptance that the defenders contact was incidental is amazing.

Are you advocating that every time someone infringes for even 100th of a second we pay a free.

I saw nothing of 100th of a second. that is your straw man, not mine.

That either means there would be at least 300 frees a game or for an umpire to spot all of them we would have to take still photos.

Only if you accept your straw man. Could you please tell me how it is physically possible for Scarlett to not have front on contact with Riewoldt while not looking at the ball.

How does Scarlett stop in mid air and not crash in Riewoldt? How is that physically possible? then again you believe in 100th odf a second incidental contact

Like I said if you want a 12 game well good on you. I am pretty happy with the current game myself.

You are the one building straw man arguments about fictitious 100th of a second contact, 300 free kicks, and 12 hour games.

Facts from that shot

1) Riewoldt is the only player with his eyes on the ball
2) the Geelong defender is physically impeding Riewoldt with his hand holding onto (it is clearly visable) Riewoldt
3) Scarlett is in mid air, feet off the ground, about to crash into Riewoldt from the front.

How you can argue anything but that is beyond me. Obviously you advocate illegal play.

or you advocate umpire incompetence.

One of the two.

All your bullet points are impressive but I will some it up a bit more simply. Frees are not paid from still shots of photos. Never have and hopefully never will be. If they were it would be a long game as the umpires would be looking at a lot of photos. Cant you get your head around the fact that we dont want 300 frees in a game. I have no idea if this a free or not because I cant recall the incident at the ground.

im only quoting this as it is probably confusing everyone.....so yeah

[Milan Faletic]

Can't believe this is still going.

A picture really does tell a thousand words.

Thank goodness footy starts this Friday. Can't come soon enough.

[plugger66]

Play ons aren't paid from photos either, so there's no point there.

We have one piece of evidence, the photo. From it, it looks like a free. Other pieces of evidence may exist, but we don't have them (as yet anyway). Therefore, we cannot claim from missing evidence that it is not a free.

However, we all (well almost all) know that it was free which was missed. Whether similar ones were missed for Geelong we can only speculate.

I thought it was a very interesting photo to run to promote a tipping competition. If I was at the St Kilda Football Club I would certainly be using that photo for motivation at an appropriate time. I would also be quite happy for the AFL to use the photo with the caption, "Saints Captain Nick Riewoldt with eyes on the ball , Grand Final Day, 2009"

Anyone who thinks a split photo tells a true story is really living in fantasy land. Perfect example is a picture in the herald Sun today of Hudson elbowing a Brisbane player. Looks like he should get weeks but seeing that incident oon TV in real motion shows it was a nothing incident at all.

As for using the photo as motivation, well who is going to be motivated. What is RL going to say. Look at Rooy he has his eyes on the ball and those naughty Geelong players are trying to stop him. What motivation.
And we all know the free was missed. Who is all. The 5 on here is that the all.
It is a great photo and that is the end of the story.

[bigred]

Why on earth would you take it to Bigfooty.

And why on earth would I go and look at the thread there?

F*** Hawthorn supporters are cabbages.

Yes, as a whole, cabbages. Not just one or two.

[saint66au]

I cannot belive the amount of crazy talk over a freaking promotional photo

Some people clearly need to build a bridge.

[saintsfan301]

he's a legend and probably did mark it and if he didn't mark then i dout he got a free

[saintsfan301]

he might of marked it but if he didn't than i doubt he got a free

[I Love Peter Kiel]

all i can say is the sc%m scarlett will "get his" eventually......