![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Umpiring
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Umpiring
We complain when we get the short end of the stick, so it's only fair to acknowledge when we come out on top... which today we did. Kicking in danger, multiple out on the fulls paid as marks, etc. Eagles fans understandably upset, but after the last couple of weeks we were due some easy frees ![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Feature article: KFC's "Double Down" burger!
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1315
- Joined: Tue 15 Sep 2009 10:28pm
- Been thanked: 11 times
The only times we were hardly done by were the Hayes holding the ball decision and the Fisher ran too far call. Besides those two, I can't think of any given against us that weren't there.wasaintsfan wrote:we got caught holding the ball many a time when it clearly wasnt so fairs fair
Feature article: KFC's "Double Down" burger!
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006 8:34am
- Location: Jurassic Park
That free was there I think, although there is no doubt Schnadzo exaggerated the impact a tad.westy wrote:And Scneider even got a free!
Feature article: KFC's "Double Down" burger!
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Re: Umpiring
battye wrote:We complain when we get the short end of the stick, so it's only fair to acknowledge when we come out on top... which today we did. Kicking in danger, multiple out on the fulls paid as marks, etc. Eagles fans understandably upset, but after the last couple of weeks we were due some easy frees
A couple of holding the man, and high tackles wernt paid to the Eagles too.
And we got a good run!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1315
- Joined: Tue 15 Sep 2009 10:28pm
- Been thanked: 11 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1315
- Joined: Tue 15 Sep 2009 10:28pm
- Been thanked: 11 times
I think he instinctively would have made another attempt to try and kick it if he felt he did not get boot to ball.Beej wrote:Was that a goal by McKinley? Didn't look like he got any contact on the ball.
Frustrated me when the commentators refused to acknowledge that it was a close call as soon it happened. They just watched replay after replay in silence.
I don't think it was a goal.
Feature article: KFC's "Double Down" burger!
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
TV Ratings: Hey Hey It's Saturday ratings overview
Do you know what C# is? .NET? Then you need to know this: XSD
Look we got a poor run tonight but what do you expect. We played an interstate side and apparently they are always favoured and we always get a poor run whoever we play.Beej wrote:Was that a goal by McKinley? Didn't look like he got any contact on the ball.
Frustrated me when the commentators refused to acknowledge that it was a close call when it happened.
I don't think it was a goal.
In full motion the 2 'out of bounds marks' did look out but in slow motion they actually looked correct, more so the Joey one I think was correct, McEvoy you could say that his arms were inside but also umpire was blocked by the runner.
I personally think the kicking in danger one was a bit soft, but then, as posted above, there was that goal that really didn't look like it touched his boot.
Anyway, fair few bad decisions but it was pretty equal for both sides, probably just favoured the Saints a little bit more.
I personally think the kicking in danger one was a bit soft, but then, as posted above, there was that goal that really didn't look like it touched his boot.
Anyway, fair few bad decisions but it was pretty equal for both sides, probably just favoured the Saints a little bit more.
That's true but was the ball already over the line before he could make another attempt so decided he'd just celebrate anyway to con the umpire?battye wrote:I think he instinctively would have made another attempt to try and kick it if he felt he did not get boot to ball.Beej wrote:Was that a goal by McKinley? Didn't look like he got any contact on the ball.
Frustrated me when the commentators refused to acknowledge that it was a close call as soon it happened. They just watched replay after replay in silence.
I don't think it was a goal.
Couldn't see any clear deviation from the ball off the boot. May have got the slightest of contact but I didn't see it.
I suppose the umpire being one metre away suggests he heard it hit the boot or at least saw it. It annoys me they dont use a camera a 100 metres away to see it.Beej wrote:That's true but was the ball already over the line before he could make another attempt so decided he'd just celebrate anyway to con the umpire?battye wrote:I think he instinctively would have made another attempt to try and kick it if he felt he did not get boot to ball.Beej wrote:Was that a goal by McKinley? Didn't look like he got any contact on the ball.
Frustrated me when the commentators refused to acknowledge that it was a close call as soon it happened. They just watched replay after replay in silence.
I don't think it was a goal.
Couldn't see any clear deviation from the ball off the boot. May have got the slightest of contact but I didn't see it.
I don't think you could hear a slight touch of boot to ball like that with 30,000 people roaring him on to kick it.plugger66 wrote:I suppose the umpire being one metre away suggests he heard it hit the boot or at least saw it. It annoys me they dont use a camera a 100 metres away to see it.Beej wrote:That's true but was the ball already over the line before he could make another attempt so decided he'd just celebrate anyway to con the umpire?battye wrote:I think he instinctively would have made another attempt to try and kick it if he felt he did not get boot to ball.Beej wrote:Was that a goal by McKinley? Didn't look like he got any contact on the ball.
Frustrated me when the commentators refused to acknowledge that it was a close call as soon it happened. They just watched replay after replay in silence.
I don't think it was a goal.
Couldn't see any clear deviation from the ball off the boot. May have got the slightest of contact but I didn't see it.
I think the umpire saw McKinley's arms go up in the air so thought to himself, "he must've kicked it".
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
Thanks to the umps, no doubt.
We got the rub of the green when it counted.
No doubt next week will be a different story - boot on the other foot - us at home against an interstate team.
Perhaps the AFL/or the Geesh has directly spoken to the umps about avoiding bias at interstate venues.
Must admit, must be hard for the umps not to play to a crowd of 36K, or which 95% were Weagles fans!
We got the rub of the green when it counted.
No doubt next week will be a different story - boot on the other foot - us at home against an interstate team.
Perhaps the AFL/or the Geesh has directly spoken to the umps about avoiding bias at interstate venues.
Must admit, must be hard for the umps not to play to a crowd of 36K, or which 95% were Weagles fans!
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 12:29am
- Location: everywhere
- Has thanked: 47 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Correct decision by the goal umpire - not too sure he heard it hit the boot - not as if it was a full blooded 60 metre woof with a very quiet background and not 37,000 baying Eagle supportersplugger66 wrote:I suppose the umpire being one metre away suggests he heard it hit the boot or at least saw it. It annoys me they dont use a camera a 100 metres away to see it.Beej wrote:That's true but was the ball already over the line before he could make another attempt so decided he'd just celebrate anyway to con the umpire?battye wrote:I think he instinctively would have made another attempt to try and kick it if he felt he did not get boot to ball.Beej wrote:Was that a goal by McKinley? Didn't look like he got any contact on the ball.
Frustrated me when the commentators refused to acknowledge that it was a close call as soon it happened. They just watched replay after replay in silence.
I don't think it was a goal.
Couldn't see any clear deviation from the ball off the boot. May have got the slightest of contact but I didn't see it.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Sun 27 Apr 2008 12:29am
- Location: everywhere
- Has thanked: 47 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
That's the way I saw it as well - no complaints from me about this weeks umpiring. It is good when it goes our way - because rest assured ..............battye wrote:The only times we were hardly done by were the Hayes holding the ball decision and the Fisher ran too far call. Besides those two, I can't think of any given against us that weren't there.wasaintsfan wrote:we got caught holding the ball many a time when it clearly wasnt so fairs fair
- kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
Or he just made a mistake. Only Healy asked when they were showing a replay at one of the quarter breaks "did he actually make contact with that"plugger66 wrote:I suppose the umpire being one metre away suggests he heard it hit the boot or at least saw it. It annoys me they dont use a camera a 100 metres away to see it.Beej wrote:That's true but was the ball already over the line before he could make another attempt so decided he'd just celebrate anyway to con the umpire?battye wrote:I think he instinctively would have made another attempt to try and kick it if he felt he did not get boot to ball.Beej wrote:Was that a goal by McKinley? Didn't look like he got any contact on the ball.
Frustrated me when the commentators refused to acknowledge that it was a close call as soon it happened. They just watched replay after replay in silence.
I don't think it was a goal.
Couldn't see any clear deviation from the ball off the boot. May have got the slightest of contact but I didn't see it.
The ball seemed to just drop on its end and went through the goal.
Furtius Quo Rdelious