Frees my A%$e!

[bergholt]

Many decisions/non-decisions depicted in the clip, were wrong. Many of the decisions resulted in goals to Geelong.

that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

it would be 100% straightforward to make a clip just like that but from the geelong point-of-view. it would have the same result - there'd be some mistakes, some debatable, some which are definitely right.

here's a very specific example. sam gilbert put the ball deliberately out-of-bounds in the back pocket in the third quarter, under a little pressure. it wasn't paid, which was obviously wrong, and which meant that geelong missed out on a shot at goal. it appears in the clip linked above which is supposedly highlighting mistakes from a saints point-of-view!

all you imbeciles sooking about free kicks are wrong. that's all there is to it. yes, bomber was wrong as well to do the same thing, but that doesn't make you any more right. shut up and stop whinging.

[kosifantutti23]

Many decisions/non-decisions depicted in the clip, were wrong. Many of the decisions resulted in goals to Geelong.

that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

I have it on good authority that is exactly the point of the clip. As well as three soft frees in the last quarter that result in shots at goal.

it would be 100% straightforward to make a clip just like that but from the geelong point-of-view. it would have the same result - there'd be some mistakes, some debatable, some which are definitely right.

Go ahead, knock yourself out. I reckon it would be a lot shorter. By the way this one doesn't include the soccer goal to Mooney or the soft free in the marking contest that resulted in a free and goal to Mooney.

here's a very specific example. sam gilbert put the ball deliberately out-of-bounds in the back pocket in the third quarter, under a little pressure. it wasn't paid, which was obviously wrong, and which meant that geelong missed out on a shot at goal. it appears in the clip linked above which is supposedly highlighting mistakes from a saints point-of-view!

The ball would not have been near the boundary line if the free to Goddard had bee paid for Ling jumping into his back.

all you imbeciles sooking about free kicks are wrong. that's all there is to it. yes, bomber was wrong as well to do the same thing, but that doesn't make you any more right. shut up and stop whinging.

When all you hear all week is about THAT free rather than a mighty effort by the underdog saints, it is worthwhile pointing out that Geelong had a fair run with the umpires on the night.

[bergholt]

here's a very specific example. sam gilbert put the ball deliberately out-of-bounds in the back pocket in the third quarter, under a little pressure. it wasn't paid, which was obviously wrong, and which meant that geelong missed out on a shot at goal. it appears in the clip linked above which is supposedly highlighting mistakes from a saints point-of-view!

The ball would not have been near the boundary line if the free to Goddard had bee paid for Ling jumping into his back.

is that seriously your argument? i'm not sure how that changes the fact that it was a mistake in our favour, and that there were multiple of them through the night, as there were the other way.

all you imbeciles sooking about free kicks are wrong. that's all there is to it. yes, bomber was wrong as well to do the same thing, but that doesn't make you any more right. shut up and stop whinging.

When all you hear all week is about THAT free rather than a mighty effort by the underdog saints, it is worthwhile pointing out that Geelong had a fair run with the umpires on the night.

i reckon the umpiring was about even. at quarter-time the free kick count was something like 5-1 to st kilda. at half-time it was something like 10-4. (trying to remember from the stats on the night.) when the saints were playing better, they got the majority of free kicks. on the other hand, when the cats got on top in the second half, the cats started getting most of them. (second half something like 12-6 cats way.) it ended the night even.

i've left games this year thinking that the umpiring was poor. i didn't get that feeling from friday night - overall, it felt like a very good performance from the umps. there'll always be a few decisions supporters of both sides can pick out and whinge about, but there's no logical sense behind complaining about decisions against your side and not complaining about decisions against your side.

[stinger]

We call the cats sooks after whinging over frees after they lost and we pick up frees that may have not been there and whinge after winning. What is the point. Any game against any team could do it. What does it prove. That umpires make mistakes. We know that. There is a term called a good winner. Maybe we should try to be just that. I can see after GF and hopefully we finally win it there will be a similar thread.

As I said umpires make mistakes but lets leave the whinging to the cats.

ahh..no...your maggot friends are either moral cheats, corrupt, or incompetent.....i'm not sure which...but we have been screwed all year by the pr!cks.......

[plugger66]

We call the cats sooks after whinging over frees after they lost and we pick up frees that may have not been there and whinge after winning. What is the point. Any game against any team could do it. What does it prove. That umpires make mistakes. We know that. There is a term called a good winner. Maybe we should try to be just that. I can see after GF and hopefully we finally win it there will be a similar thread.

As I said umpires make mistakes but lets leave the whinging to the cats.

ahh..no...your maggot friends are either moral cheats, corrupt, or incompetent.....i'm not sure which...but we have been screwed all year by the pr!cks.......

That makes sense. As if anyone who writes rubbish like that could even be a cleaner for a lawyer.

[Animal Enclosure]

What about when Mini had the ball, Ling ran at him practically straight away, so the umpire called play on....was it just me, or was that red hot?

Was directly in line with that one... Mini went back in a straight line with no deviation. It was the incorrect line if you took a line from the centre of the goal line to where the mark/free kick was taken. Normally an umpire 're-aligns' the player but on this occasion the umpire called play on & Ling was ready to pounce.

I don't think Ling ran before the play on call but Mini was still thinking that he had time to take the kick & was looking for options in the F50 & not expecting to have play on called.

[kosifantutti23]

here's a very specific example. sam gilbert put the ball deliberately out-of-bounds in the back pocket in the third quarter, under a little pressure. it wasn't paid, which was obviously wrong, and which meant that geelong missed out on a shot at goal. it appears in the clip linked above which is supposedly highlighting mistakes from a saints point-of-view!

The ball would not have been near the boundary line if the free to Goddard had bee paid for Ling jumping into his back.

is that seriously your argument? i'm not sure how that changes the fact that it was a mistake in our favour, and that there were multiple of them through the night, as there were the other way.

all you imbeciles sooking about free kicks are wrong. that's all there is to it. yes, bomber was wrong as well to do the same thing, but that doesn't make you any more right. shut up and stop whinging.

When all you hear all week is about THAT free rather than a mighty effort by the underdog saints, it is worthwhile pointing out that Geelong had a fair run with the umpires on the night.

i reckon the umpiring was about even. at quarter-time the free kick count was something like 5-1 to st kilda. at half-time it was something like 10-4. (trying to remember from the stats on the night.) when the saints were playing better, they got the majority of free kicks. on the other hand, when the cats got on top in the second half, the cats started getting most of them. (second half something like 12-6 cats way.) it ended the night even.

i've left games this year thinking that the umpiring was poor. i didn't get that feeling from friday night - overall, it felt like a very good performance from the umps. there'll always be a few decisions supporters of both sides can pick out and whinge about, but there's no logical sense behind complaining about decisions against your side and not complaining about decisions against your side.

Free kick count means nothing. There is no rule that says free kicks should be even. If frees are there, they should be paid. It's how many mistakes the umpires make that says whether you were favoured or not.

My impression was that we got a bad run with the umpires. Obviously you don't agree, that's fine. But the whole focus after the game was on ONE decision that went our way. The video shows that there were multiple decisions that went Geelong's way. A number of those resulted in goals or shots at goal in a very tight game.

[Thinline]

Many decisions/non-decisions depicted in the clip, were wrong. Many of the decisions resulted in goals to Geelong.

that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

I fail to see what was stupid about the quote you've lifted from my post, either in or out of its original context.

What I stated was a fact in as much as the video applied to 'Geelong' incidents and in the context of placing the issue of the week - Bombers sulking - in its correct framework.

I'm yet to see the 'St Kilda' version of the video. Have you? Can't really say much about it until I do.

At no stage have I whinged. You're making that up.

FWIW I don't agree with you re Gilbert's 'deliberate' - rarely gets pinged - but then I also don't reckon all the incidents depicted in the video are free kicks anyway.

Thought I'd been pretty clear on these matters either expressly or implicitly, really.

So all that said, what's your point?

Or like some weird forum politician do you just enjoy hacking out random grabs from people's online utterances to give yourself something to type about?

[St Ick]

I almost got into a blue with a Cats supporter in the MCC bar over that Gilbert holding the ball decision.

Simple fact is that Geelong think they are bigger than the game now. Same thing happened after we beat them midyear, I think Ling got fined for umpiring comments and I am pretty sure Thompson had said a few words. The in the back free was there, and they had a bloody good run on friday night. Not once have they acknowledged the Saints actually won the game, or played well, that can only give us more motivation.

I thought it was also disgusting watching Geelongs pleading with the umpires for free kicks when there was nothing there. Best example was when GAJ fell over in the centre of the ground and didn't bother chasing - just sooked for a free. Anyway, that ended up in a saints goal and the rest is history.

I'm almost starting to hate Geelong players, coaches and supporters more than the filth - see what a little bit of success does?!

[Dr Spaceman]

I'm almost starting to hate Geelong players, coaches and supporters more than the filth - see what a little bit of success does?!

Don't worry St Ick, that feeling won't last too long

[St Ick]

I'm almost starting to hate Geelong players, coaches and supporters more than the filth - see what a little bit of success does?!

Don't worry St Ick, that feeling won't last too long

I did say almost... But gee I reckon we've all got a (Cats supporter) mate who used to be reasonable when it came to talking about footy who is now a bit too lippy for their own good!

[bergholt]

So all that said, what's your point?

my point is simple. stop whinging about frees. it applies to mark thompson, and it applies to everyone on this board.

after every game there's a thread on saintsational which picks out specific incidents from the game, views them through a partisan lens and then decides that the umpires are against us. every game, this happens. it makes no sense. some games we get a poor run, some games a good run, but every game we sook about it. boy who cried wolf - if we're always complaining then why would anyone listen?

you may not have been sooking. but that's certainly the impression i got from this:

Many decisions/non-decisions depicted in the clip, were wrong. Many of the decisions resulted in goals to Geelong.

you may say it's logic - but there's no logic in failing to also consider the other side of the argument.

[ralphsmith]

Very interesting video.

Frustrating as well.

[Mr Magic]

So all that said, what's your point?

my point is simple. stop whinging about frees. it applies to mark thompson, and it applies to everyone on this board.

after every game there's a thread on saintsational which picks out specific incidents from the game, views them through a partisan lens and then decides that the umpires are against us. every game, this happens. it makes no sense. some games we get a poor run, some games a good run, but every game we sook about it. boy who cried wolf - if we're always complaining then why would anyone listen?

you may not have been sooking. but that's certainly the impression i got from this:

Many decisions/non-decisions depicted in the clip, were wrong. Many of the decisions resulted in goals to Geelong.

you may say it's logic - but there's no logic in failing to also consider the other side of the argument.

Having gone back to the OP and the original post by Thinline, I'm staggered that you've decided to weigh in on this.

It is patently obvious that Thinline commented on the video LintonStreetFlash posted.
Nothing more, nothing less.

There was no plea/request to make a statement on the overall umpiring of the game.
Only a video highlighting some 'contentious decisions' that didn't go our way.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read threads/posts you don't agree with.
BUT you feel the need to personally abuse posters for 'things you think they wanted to say'?

Maybe a simple
'I think the umpiring was ok' would have been sufficient to put your perspective?

[bergholt]

Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read threads/posts you don't agree with.
BUT you feel the need to personally abuse posters for 'things you think they wanted to say'?

nah, there wasn't any personal abuse. if anyone reading this thread is insulted by me saying that people who bitch and moan about free kicks are stupid then that's their own prerogative. i'd rather they didn't choose to lump themselves in with mark thompson.

Maybe a simple
'I think the umpiring was ok' would have been sufficient to put your perspective?

nah, i've given that one a go in the past. this time i've raised the ante. thinline probably wasn't the most deserving recipient of my tirade, so for that i apologise, but i'm sick of saints supporters whinging illogically.

i like it when people think through their posts - but going to all the trouble of creating a video just to "prove" that the umpires were biased against us makes no sense. agreeing that the video shows that we got the raw end also makes no sense. create a video for both sides, objectively categorize every umpire mistake in the match, add up an estimate of how much each of them cost the team and then you'll have some idea of which team came out better. but a single video proves nothing, even though many people in this thread seem to think it does.

ffs, the world isn't against the saints and it isn't against any of us just because we're saints supporters. it's luck, for better or worse, not a conspiracy. just because we're footy fans doesn't mean we need to suspend our rationality.

[Mr Magic]

Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read threads/posts you don't agree with.
BUT you feel the need to personally abuse posters for 'things you think they wanted to say'?

nah, there wasn't any personal abuse. if anyone reading this thread is insulted by me saying that people who bitch and moan about free kicks are stupid then that's their own prerogative. i'd rather they didn't choose to lump themselves in with mark thompson.

Maybe a simple
'I think the umpiring was ok' would have been sufficient to put your perspective?

nah, i've given that one a go in the past. this time i've raised the ante. thinline probably wasn't the most deserving recipient of my tirade, so for that i apologise, but i'm sick of saints supporters whinging illogically.

i like it when people think through their posts - but going to all the trouble of creating a video just to "prove" that the umpires were biased against us makes no sense. agreeing that the video shows that we got the raw end also makes no sense. create a video for both sides, objectively categorize every umpire mistake in the match, add up an estimate of how much each of them cost the team and then you'll have some idea of which team came out better. but a single video proves nothing, even though many people in this thread seem to think it does.

ffs, the world isn't against the saints and it isn't against any of us just because we're saints supporters. it's luck, for better or worse, not a conspiracy. just because we're footy fans doesn't mean we need to suspend our rationality.

But you're still missing my point.

Nowhere does the OP or Thinline make any observation other than here is a video of 'contentious decisions' against St Kilda.
You've decided that their motive was to 'whinge (your description).
I'm merely pointing out that neither of them stated anything about 'a poor run' and posted purely about that video.

You're the one who's ascribed a motive other than 'the face value' posts they made.

That's my point:-
You're up in arms over something that was never stated but you believe was the 'real motive' behind the posts.

And then you state (paraphrased by me) 'that you didn't abuse anybody and if that's what they read, 'it's their problem'.

IMO, you can't have it both ways.
On one hand you read what you want into others posts,
and on the other hand,
you tell posters who do that that it's 'their problem' for not reading the posts verbatim?

[stinger]

We call the cats sooks after whinging over frees after they lost and we pick up frees that may have not been there and whinge after winning. What is the point. Any game against any team could do it. What does it prove. That umpires make mistakes. We know that. There is a term called a good winner. Maybe we should try to be just that. I can see after GF and hopefully we finally win it there will be a similar thread.

As I said umpires make mistakes but lets leave the whinging to the cats.

ahh..no...your maggot friends are either moral cheats, corrupt, or incompetent.....i'm not sure which...but we have been screwed all year by the pr!cks.......

That makes sense. As if anyone who writes rubbish like that could even be a cleaner for a lawyer.

why would i think anything would make sense to you albert....a chip of the old einstein block you are not.....

[Moods]

Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read threads/posts you don't agree with.
BUT you feel the need to personally abuse posters for 'things you think they wanted to say'?

nah, there wasn't any personal abuse. if anyone reading this thread is insulted by me saying that people who bitch and moan about free kicks are stupid then that's their own prerogative. i'd rather they didn't choose to lump themselves in with mark thompson.

Maybe a simple
'I think the umpiring was ok' would have been sufficient to put your perspective?

nah, i've given that one a go in the past. this time i've raised the ante. thinline probably wasn't the most deserving recipient of my tirade, so for that i apologise, but i'm sick of saints supporters whinging illogically.

i like it when people think through their posts - but going to all the trouble of creating a video just to "prove" that the umpires were biased against us makes no sense. agreeing that the video shows that we got the raw end also makes no sense. create a video for both sides, objectively categorize every umpire mistake in the match, add up an estimate of how much each of them cost the team and then you'll have some idea of which team came out better. but a single video proves nothing, even though many people in this thread seem to think it does.

ffs, the world isn't against the saints and it isn't against any of us just because we're saints supporters. it's luck, for better or worse, not a conspiracy. just because we're footy fans doesn't mean we need to suspend our rationality.

Bergholt - I reckon you've missed the point of the video. I don't reckon it was made to prove the saints got the raw end of the deal. I reckon it was made to prove that there was many contentious frees that were paid/not paid Friday night as there are in any game. My take is that this video could have been made after ANY game. Yes it's slanted our way, but in context not sure that's relevant. Cats supporters and the media to an extent have either overtly or inadvertently attempted to paint our victory as somewhat of a stroke of good fortune. Most articles have referred to how poor the cats played in the first half, rather than acknowledge how well we played, and have concluded by focussing on one possibly contentious decision. The point of the video is that there were numerous contentious decisions - that actually could have gone our way. Second half cats definitely got the rub of the green - however they were in for the ball first as a rule so lucky frees (like the Stokes one) is always more likely than not to favour them.

I actually agree with you, in that every week there appears to be a thread on here about how we were ripped off by the umpy's. I rarely read those threads myself.

AS a footnote, the irony of the Gilbert non free re deliberate out of bounds, is that if a free was paid then the cats would have been far less likely to score a goal from that angle than the resulting free given seconds later to Stevie Johnson.

[Dr Spaceman]

Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to read threads/posts you don't agree with.
BUT you feel the need to personally abuse posters for 'things you think they wanted to say'?

nah, there wasn't any personal abuse. if anyone reading this thread is insulted by me saying that people who bitch and moan about free kicks are stupid then that's their own prerogative. i'd rather they didn't choose to lump themselves in with mark thompson.

Maybe a simple
'I think the umpiring was ok' would have been sufficient to put your perspective?

nah, i've given that one a go in the past. this time i've raised the ante. thinline probably wasn't the most deserving recipient of my tirade, so for that i apologise, but i'm sick of saints supporters whinging illogically.

i like it when people think through their posts - but going to all the trouble of creating a video just to "prove" that the umpires were biased against us makes no sense. agreeing that the video shows that we got the raw end also makes no sense. create a video for both sides, objectively categorize every umpire mistake in the match, add up an estimate of how much each of them cost the team and then you'll have some idea of which team came out better. but a single video proves nothing, even though many people in this thread seem to think it does.

ffs, the world isn't against the saints and it isn't against any of us just because we're saints supporters. it's luck, for better or worse, not a conspiracy. just because we're footy fans doesn't mean we need to suspend our rationality.

Bergholt - I reckon you've missed the point of the video. I don't reckon it was made to prove the saints got the raw end of the deal. I reckon it was made to prove that there was many contentious frees that were paid/not paid Friday night as there are in any game. My take is that this video could have been made after ANY game. Yes it's slanted our way, but in context not sure that's relevant. Cats supporters and the media to an extent have either overtly or inadvertently attempted to paint our victory as somewhat of a stroke of good fortune. Most articles have referred to how poor the cats played in the first half, rather than acknowledge how well we played, and have concluded by focussing on one possibly contentious decision. The point of the video is that there were numerous contentious decisions - that actually could have gone our way. Second half cats definitely got the rub of the green - however they were in for the ball first as a rule so lucky frees (like the Stokes one) is always more likely than not to favour them.

I actually agree with you, in that every week there appears to be a thread on here about how we were ripped off by the umpy's. I rarely read those threads myself.

AS a footnote, the irony of the Gilbert non free re deliberate out of bounds, is that if a free was paid then the cats would have been far less likely to score a goal from that angle than the resulting free given seconds later to Stevie Johnson.

Bottom line is that if Thompson had shut up, Mooney had shut up and the Media had shut up, there would have been no video made and no thread started.

[bergholt]

You're the one who's ascribed a motive other than 'the face value' posts they made.

the title of the thread is "Frees my Arse". what does that mean?

thinline's first reply says "...the Selwood one was a simple case of cheating."

cheating? that (as per discussion in another thread) comes with a clear inference of bias or motive.

here's a quote from another post (the fifth in the thread) which is a great summary of the sentiment which the original compilation was bound to evoke:

"They got a pretty good run when you watch that..."

of course they did. because the compilation was selective.

and one from stinger (possibly tongue-in-cheek):

"but we have been screwed all year by the pr!cks......."

[bergholt]

Bottom line is that if Thompson had shut up, Mooney had shut up and the Media had shut up, there would have been no video made and no thread started.

i hope that's true. but we all know there would have been threads about all the umpiring decisions/non-decisions against us, because these threads exist every week. and they always seem to lead to the conclusion that we got screwed by the umpires.

[Mr Magic]

You're the one who's ascribed a motive other than 'the face value' posts they made.

the title of the thread is "Frees my Arse". what does that mean?

thinline's first reply says "...the Selwood one was a simple case of cheating."

cheating? that (as per discussion in another thread) comes with a clear inference of bias or motive.

here's a quote from another post (the fifth in the thread) which is a great summary of the sentiment which the original compilation was bound to evoke:

"They got a pretty good run when you watch that..."

of course they did. because the compilation was selective.

and one from stinger (possibly tongue-in-cheek):

"but we have been screwed all year by the pr!cks......."

So I take it you now accept that you've 'ascribed' motives that were never stated?
If so, thanks fo making my case.

and BTW - I could/would mount an argument that the 'cheating' you refer to in the Selwood one is the poster accusing Selwood and not the umpires.
Again you seem to put your own 'spin' on what others are posting to further your own argument, instead of just letting other posters words speak for themselves.

I trust you understand the point I'm making?
I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with your pov, just pointing out that you're stating things that were never stated by others.

[St Ick]

AS a footnote, the irony of the Gilbert non free re deliberate out of bounds, is that if a free was paid then the cats would have been far less likely to score a goal from that angle than the resulting free given seconds later to Stevie Johnson.

IMO that screamed square-up, especially considering the hugely negative crowd reaction as the deliberate had been shown on the screen. It was almost as though he realised there was a missed one so would pay the next half free. Just an observation and might have been coincidence, but I tend to be a little more cyncical with the umps.

For example, how often does the team with the momentum get the free kicks? Its almost as though the umpire starts to watch the team taking the game on moreso than the actual contests. Also, I have said for years that the free kick count is squared up come the second half or last quarter. I believe it happens because at the end of the match, it looks better to be an even count rather than in a certain teams favour but thats just my observations.

One last thing, why do we keep turning on each other? Too quickly it gets personal on here, I'm thick skinned, but ffs, we've all got our opinion and most of us know a fair bit about footy so just let everyone have their say.

[Thinline]

So all that said, what's your point?

my point is simple. stop whinging about frees. it applies to mark thompson, and it applies to everyone on this board.

after every game there's a thread on saintsational which picks out specific incidents from the game, views them through a partisan lens and then decides that the umpires are against us. every game, this happens. it makes no sense. some games we get a poor run, some games a good run, but every game we sook about it. boy who cried wolf - if we're always complaining then why would anyone listen?

you may not have been sooking. but that's certainly the impression i got from this:

Many decisions/non-decisions depicted in the clip, were wrong. Many of the decisions resulted in goals to Geelong.

you may say it's logic - but there's no logic in failing to also consider the other side of the argument.

So on the one hand I'm labelled a whinger and yet on the other I 'may not have been sooking'.

Mate, you're nonsensical.

[Solar]

confirms to me that we were a little stiff during periods of the game.

Thompson et al should shut the hell up. Big difference between the fans bitching about umpires and the players and coach moaning ad nausim (pushed on by the biased media) blaming a decision or two costing them a match.