that decision (I'll be the first)

[Johnny Member]

I can only think that Giecshen must have some real bad dirt on the AFL and that is how he keeps his job.
Decisions like that reflect how he instructs his umpires and it is just so wrong.
That umpire should be umpiring up near Echuca next week.

The reason Geischen keeps his job is because he does exactly what the AFL want him to do.
He's one of probably very few human beings that would trade in their dignity and integrity and happily stand up in public and lie and bulls*** for the AFL, over and over and over again.

They must love the bloke.

[Superboot]

Probably the worst deliberate-out-of-bounds decision made since the rule was introduced.

The McGuane decision seemed odd when replayed but I called it at the time before the umpire blew.

I both cases, I'm sure it would not have occurred to the umpire to pay a free had there been no appeal from an opposition player. Kneejerk response to pressure.

[BigMart]

Did you call it at the time because you were barricking for us???
The maguane call, because the decision was a shocker, riewlodt was 2 m behind maguane, if he turned into play he would have immediately been under pressure.....we would have screamed blue muder the other way around....esp since it cost them the points

The amount of times people in the crowd yell 'ball' at the footy, or 'deliberate' when it clearly is niether.....is funny, i suppose it is barricking.....

I pulled a guy up for it against richond, a saints supporter, and after he screamed ball, i politely said....do you actually think that was htb....the tackle didnt even stick.....he said, not at all....strange....

[Superboot]

Did you call it at the time because you were barricking for us???

Maybe, but I was also sitting behind the goal at the Ponsford end and didn't have a good view of it. Just looked to me in the instant it happened (i.e. before the whistle blew) that Maguane would have had other options and took the easy way out.

The most comical 'deliberate' decision I've seen was, ironically, against Jimmy Qwilt in the same game. I had a very good view of that one! Resulted in a Richmond goal.

[PJ]

If it's the correct interpretation does that mean you can't kick it forward unless it's going to a team mate? what part of the rule makes it correct? If a player has the ball and can't see a team mate forward is he not allowed to go forward because it may go out.
Deliberate out of bounds means there was no intension to keep it in. I don't believe that could be construed from what happened. Surely if the ball travels over 80 metres in a very forward direction it could go anywhere.

[joffaboy]

If it's the correct interpretation does that mean you can't kick it forward unless it's going to a team mate?

Look out elephant in the room. We are talking about a fundamental change to the game of football if that interpretation is correct. Maguanes decision was pretty bad and made on the spur of the moment, the way most umpiring decisions are made.

This decision was made after about 5 seconds of deliberation, the ball being kicked 50 metres, bouncing at right angles and then rolling end over end for another 20 metres.

As four time premiership coach Leigh Matthews said in commentary - if the ball had of bounced the other way and it went out next to the behind post would the umpire have called?

As the quote says, this interpretation basically say you cant kick it forward if you have nobody forward of the ball. After all the oval is just that, and oval so the ball is ALWAYS heading toward the boundary

what part of the rule makes it correct? If a player has the ball and can't see a team mate forward is he not allowed to go forward because it may go out.

It means Montagna just had to stand there and let the Lions players tackle him, or turn back towards his own goal and kick it or handball it backwards - then that player, if nobody was forward of him would have to pass it backwards. It is encouraging backward play.

Deliberate out of bounds means there was no intension to keep it in. I don't believe that could be construed from what happened. Surely if the ball travels over 80 metres in a very forward direction it could go anywhere.

Regardless of any logic you write some will try to cloud it by saying all umpiring mistakes are exactly the same and you are only one eyed.

It isn't about St.Kilda, but the way a fundamental rule of the game is interpreted and the repercussions on the game of football generally.

[degruch]

Did you call it at the time because you were barricking for us???

Maybe, but I was also sitting behind the goal at the Ponsford end and didn't have a good view of it. Just looked to me in the instant it happened (i.e. before the whistle blew) that Maguane would have had other options and took the easy way out.

The most comical 'deliberate' decision I've seen was, ironically, against Jimmy Qwilt in the same game. I had a very good view of that one! Resulted in a Richmond goal.

All of this is 100% fact. The Maguane decision was nothing, to compare it to last night's joke is a bigger joke in itself.

[plugger66]

Did you call it at the time because you were barricking for us???

Maybe, but I was also sitting behind the goal at the Ponsford end and didn't have a good view of it. Just looked to me in the instant it happened (i.e. before the whistle blew) that Maguane would have had other options and took the easy way out.

The most comical 'deliberate' decision I've seen was, ironically, against Jimmy Qwilt in the same game. I had a very good view of that one! Resulted in a Richmond goal.

All of this is 100% fact. The Maguane decision was nothing, to compare it to last night's joke is a bigger joke in itself.

No nothing at all. Cost them a goal and was clearly wrong as explained by the umpiring department. They drew the game. We won the game and the decision could be wrong. We wont hear about it though as it didnt matter. We won the game. One was talked about in the media, the other wont because apart from Saints supporters no one else will care.

[degruch]

Did you call it at the time because you were barricking for us???

Maybe, but I was also sitting behind the goal at the Ponsford end and didn't have a good view of it. Just looked to me in the instant it happened (i.e. before the whistle blew) that Maguane would have had other options and took the easy way out.

The most comical 'deliberate' decision I've seen was, ironically, against Jimmy Qwilt in the same game. I had a very good view of that one! Resulted in a Richmond goal.

All of this is 100% fact. The Maguane decision was nothing, to compare it to last night's joke is a bigger joke in itself.

No nothing at all. Cost them a goal and was clearly wrong as explained by the umpiring department. They drew the game. We won the game and the decision could be wrong. We wont hear about it though as it didnt matter. We won the game. One was talked about in the media, the other wont because apart from Saints supporters no one else will care.

EVERY football supporter, and player, should care - the rules are being changed during a St Kilda game once again and it effects every club. Maguane's stuff up (yes, it was there all day, and was a correct call) cost them a goal, the Gwilt call (was far worse) cost us a goal, and the soft deliberate against Blake, also the Monty call last night cost us a goal.

'Deliberate' has a new meaning, they players and the supporters obviously don't understand it, but you and the AFL once again are privvy to this exclusive information. Get a really hard grip.

[plugger66]

Did you call it at the time because you were barricking for us???

Maybe, but I was also sitting behind the goal at the Ponsford end and didn't have a good view of it. Just looked to me in the instant it happened (i.e. before the whistle blew) that Maguane would have had other options and took the easy way out.

The most comical 'deliberate' decision I've seen was, ironically, against Jimmy Qwilt in the same game. I had a very good view of that one! Resulted in a Richmond goal.

All of this is 100% fact. The Maguane decision was nothing, to compare it to last night's joke is a bigger joke in itself.

No nothing at all. Cost them a goal and was clearly wrong as explained by the umpiring department. They drew the game. We won the game and the decision could be wrong. We wont hear about it though as it didnt matter. We won the game. One was talked about in the media, the other wont because apart from Saints supporters no one else will care.

EVERY football supporter, and player, should care - the rules are being changed during a St Kilda game once again and it effects every club. Maguane's stuff up (yes, it was there all day, and was a correct call) cost them a goal, the Gwilt call (was far worse) cost us a goal, and the soft deliberate against Blake, also the Monty call last night cost us a goal.

'Deliberate' has a new meaning, they players and the supporters obviously don't understand it, but you and the AFL once again are privvy to this exclusive information. Get a really hard grip.

What happens if it was a mistake? That means the rule isnt any different. But lets bang on about it anyway.

How can anyone have a sensible conversation when you say the McGuane decision was correct. Get the blinkers off. And poor Saints again. Again that makes for another sensible conversation.

[degruch]

How can anyone have a sensible conversation when you say the McGuane decision was correct. Get the blinkers off. And poor Saints again. Again that makes for another sensible conversation.

Well, you'll continue to ignore the blatantly obvious...makes the 'discussion' pointless. I called Maguane the second it happened and, thinking of Boak's atrocious deliberate against us last season, said "thank god they've finally re-introduced the rule!". It was 100% correct.

Mistake? Maybe. How many 'mistakes' constitute a reinterpretation of the rule?

Poor St Kilda? If this had happened during a Collingwood, Carlton, Geelong, Hawthorn game, there'd be an inquest, regardless of its effect on the result.

[plugger66]

How can anyone have a sensible conversation when you say the McGuane decision was correct. Get the blinkers off. And poor Saints again. Again that makes for another sensible conversation.

Well, you'll continue to ignore the blatantly obvious...makes the 'discussion' pointless. I called Maguane the second it happened and, thinking of Boak's atrocious deliberate against us last season, said "thank god they've finally re-introduced the rule!". It was 100% correct.

Mistake? Maybe. How many 'mistakes' constitute a reinterpretation of the rule?

Poor St Kilda? If this had happened during a Collingwood, Carlton, Geelong, Hawthorn game, there'd be an inquest, regardless of its effect on the result.

If you called it must be right. If the umpires paid every free you called during the game I would imagine it would be 70 to us, 3 to them. Why would the umpiring department admit a mistake but we say they are wrong for admitting it then we whinge that they never admit mistakes. Paranoia. If it happened during those other sides games there would be an inquest. Seriously how do come up with these things

[degruch]

How can anyone have a sensible conversation when you say the McGuane decision was correct. Get the blinkers off. And poor Saints again. Again that makes for another sensible conversation.

Well, you'll continue to ignore the blatantly obvious...makes the 'discussion' pointless. I called Maguane the second it happened and, thinking of Boak's atrocious deliberate against us last season, said "thank god they've finally re-introduced the rule!". It was 100% correct.

Mistake? Maybe. How many 'mistakes' constitute a reinterpretation of the rule?

Poor St Kilda? If this had happened during a Collingwood, Carlton, Geelong, Hawthorn game, there'd be an inquest, regardless of its effect on the result.

If you called it must be right. If the umpires paid every free you called during the game I would imagine it would be 70 to us, 3 to them. Why would the umpiring department admit a mistake but we say they are wrong for admitting it then we whinge that they never admit mistakes. Paranoia. If it happened during those other sides games there would be an inquest. Seriously how do come up with these things

I don't usually call frees...I'm a very moderate supporter, more an 'observer'. When I call a free, it IS a free. I scoffed that the umpiring department put on this right/wrong charade every week (normally to defend their appalling calls with vague and ambiguous reasoning), and of all the unbelievable 'mistakes' they've made against us this season, they have the gall to call that one incorrect.

Dare I say...typical.

Anyway, back to last night...a long pass 80m across the ground toward our F50 is now a deliberate free...sure. How do THEY come up with these things.

[matrix]

[AnythingsPossibleSaints]

ffs plugger just agree for fucksake

Good luck with that!

[plugger66]

How can anyone have a sensible conversation when you say the McGuane decision was correct. Get the blinkers off. And poor Saints again. Again that makes for another sensible conversation.

Well, you'll continue to ignore the blatantly obvious...makes the 'discussion' pointless. I called Maguane the second it happened and, thinking of Boak's atrocious deliberate against us last season, said "thank god they've finally re-introduced the rule!". It was 100% correct.

Mistake? Maybe. How many 'mistakes' constitute a reinterpretation of the rule?

Poor St Kilda? If this had happened during a Collingwood, Carlton, Geelong, Hawthorn game, there'd be an inquest, regardless of its effect on the result.

If you called it must be right. If the umpires paid every free you called during the game I would imagine it would be 70 to us, 3 to them. Why would the umpiring department admit a mistake but we say they are wrong for admitting it then we whinge that they never admit mistakes. Paranoia. If it happened during those other sides games there would be an inquest. Seriously how do come up with these things

I don't usually call frees...I'm a very moderate supporter, more an 'observer'. When I call a free, it IS a free. I scoffed that the umpiring department put on this right/wrong charade every week (normally to defend their appalling calls with vague and ambiguous reasoning), and of all the unbelievable 'mistakes' they've made against us this season, they have the gall to call that one incorrect.

Dare I say...typical.

Anyway, back to last night...a long pass 80m across the ground toward our F50 is now a deliberate free...sure. How do THEY come up with these things.

Again it may have been a mistake. Now the umpiring departement are against us by making us angry by saying a decision was wrong even though you thought it was right. They did it to upset you. It is obvious.

[Superboot]

The elephant in the room, as Joffa puts it, is the concept of 'deliberate'.

Implies intent, and you'd have to be a mind reader to sort that one out.

Every other new rule brought in over the past 20 years requires the umpires to make an interpretation in one way or another. Last night's example was one of the best yet. Was Joey intending to put the ball out of bounds? Was he intending to do it and pretending not to? Brilliant effort if that's the case.

[ozrulestrace]

Well it wasn't certainly one that John Beckwith would be proud of, it's not like Joey tried to float it along the boundary line before it went out over the line.

It was a kick that turned more into a Shane Warne googly rather than a deliberate attempt to kick out over the line and if that is how the rules of the game is heading god help this game.

Can't wait to hear how the Geisch and his good mate the Humper justify this decision in their review of free kicks.

But couldn't believe Finey after the game. He said it wasn't a bad decision and we couldn't complain because of the Dal Santo decision.

It was a terrible decision by the umpires and that umpire should be sent back to Manangatang Thirds next week.

[BigMart]

I someone seriously saying they called the maguane decision at the time, how one eyed is that....it was horrendeous, a mistake.....like last night...


Unlike last night, it changed the result of the game...


Hardwicks over reaction

It was a mistake, we cant worry about that, we cant control the mistakes by others, so why worry about that, we had opportunities....

Not.....very pragmatic

[savatage]

Jesus Christ, two pages of "my dick is bigger than yours" over what was obviously a shithouse call. Finished.

[PJ]

Jesus Christ, two pages of "my dick is bigger than yours" over what was obviously a shithouse call. Finished.

You've got me confused - how is discussing a rule a dick swinging comp?

[Bernard Shakey]

Who is this Jimmy Quilt mentioned above?

[Superboot]

Who is this Jimmy Quilt mentioned above?

Nice pick-up

I guess, on the occasion in question, Jimmy was stitched up by the umpire!

[PJ]

guess, on the occasion in question, Jimmy was stitched up by the umpire!

That would seam to be the case.[/b]

[dcstkfc]

Jesus Christ, two pages of "my dick is bigger than yours" over what was obviously a shithouse call. Finished.

You've got me confused - how is discussing a rule a dick swinging comp?

No need to get Rooey and Dal involved