Frees my A%$e!
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
The Linton Street Flash
- Club Player
- Posts: 467
- Joined: Sun 10 Aug 2008 7:42pm
- Has thanked: 75 times
- Been thanked: 99 times
Frees my A%$e!
Last edited by The Linton Street Flash on Wed 08 Sep 2010 7:52am, edited 1 time in total.
Look again it's the Flash!!
-
Thinline
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
What a simply spectacular compilation!
The only one I don't agree with is the Johnson ducked head free. Not sure there's much of a ducked head there. The Stokes one could have gone either way. But the Selwood one was a simple case of cheating.
The Gilbert holding the ball decision was revoltingly s***.
And how did they miss the Johnson push out????
The only one I don't agree with is the Johnson ducked head free. Not sure there's much of a ducked head there. The Stokes one could have gone either way. But the Selwood one was a simple case of cheating.
The Gilbert holding the ball decision was revoltingly s***.
And how did they miss the Johnson push out????
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
-
kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
-
bigred
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11463
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 7:39am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 609 times
Yeah he was falling over.The only one I don't agree with is the Johnson ducked head free
Soft as soft as soft free kick though. They got a pretty good run when you watch that...
The Gilbert prior opp one is a joke.
"Now the ball is loose, it gives St. Kilda a rough chance. Black. Good handpass. Voss. Schwarze now, the defender, can run and from a long way".....
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.
As I said umpires make mistakes but lets leave the whinging to the cats.
-
Thinline
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
Clearly, in the wake of the Fishlips sookfest (ie specifically "the other 15 that weren't paid" comment), the OP was illustrating the point that we had plenty to bleat about if we so chose.
In addition, of course, to the Hawkins poster of GF 09 which our good coach chose not to wail about even though he had every right.
Many decisions/non-decisions depicted in the clip, were wrong. Many of the decisions resulted in goals to Geelong.
I think that's relevant. If nothing else, it shows how umpires can fold in 'hot' games and it also shows how their apparent inability to get things right can have a direct bearing on the flow of a match.
Not an easy job, umpiring. In fact I can't think of a worse one beyond collecting office sanitary bins. But if mistakes aren't pointed out how on earth do they get avoided in the future? Or a bit like the MRP, do we simply ignore precedent - good and bad - and wing it as we go along?
Besides, if you personally don't think it's worth discussing then why not find something else to discuss? It's advice you've handed out to others in the past. Why not practice what you preach?
In addition, of course, to the Hawkins poster of GF 09 which our good coach chose not to wail about even though he had every right.
Many decisions/non-decisions depicted in the clip, were wrong. Many of the decisions resulted in goals to Geelong.
I think that's relevant. If nothing else, it shows how umpires can fold in 'hot' games and it also shows how their apparent inability to get things right can have a direct bearing on the flow of a match.
Not an easy job, umpiring. In fact I can't think of a worse one beyond collecting office sanitary bins. But if mistakes aren't pointed out how on earth do they get avoided in the future? Or a bit like the MRP, do we simply ignore precedent - good and bad - and wing it as we go along?
Besides, if you personally don't think it's worth discussing then why not find something else to discuss? It's advice you've handed out to others in the past. Why not practice what you preach?
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
-
gringo
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
To me Bomber and Mooney have used the media to intimidate the umpires into giving more free kicks their way. When there is a 50/50 decision to be made a little bit of Stevics subconcious says don't pull out the whistle or you will be punished in a trial by media. The rules against commenting on umpiring decisions is to stop a team from trying to gain an unfair advantage and to protect the umpires from public humiliation. Once again the AFL has been piss weak on something because they felt it had public opinion against further action. The media has been the ones driving popular opinion by presenting a unified crucifixion of Stevic. He will probably never make the sort of decision late in a game again. Good job AFL, now the standards of umpiring will be diminished and suburban umpires now get pissed supporters looking at any decision they don't like as not in the spirit of the game. Great leadership Andy.
-
yipper
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
Spot on. Weak, very weak from the AFL. Geelong should have been sanctioned - severely.gringo wrote:To me Bomber and Mooney have used the media to intimidate the umpires into giving more free kicks their way. When there is a 50/50 decision to be made a little bit of Stevics subconcious says don't pull out the whistle or you will be punished in a trial by media. The rules against commenting on umpiring decisions is to stop a team from trying to gain an unfair advantage and to protect the umpires from public humiliation. Once again the AFL has been piss weak on something because they felt it had public opinion against further action. The media has been the ones driving popular opinion by presenting a unified crucifixion of Stevic. He will probably never make the sort of decision late in a game again. Good job AFL, now the standards of umpiring will be diminished and suburban umpires now get pissed supporters looking at any decision they don't like as not in the spirit of the game. Great leadership Andy.
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
-
bigcarl
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 18579
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 1:36am
- Has thanked: 1905 times
- Been thanked: 841 times
Good points. How did Bomber escape the usual fine on this? More policy on the run by the master spin doctor Andy D.yipper wrote:Spot on. Weak, very weak from the AFL. Geelong should have been sanctioned - severely.gringo wrote:To me Bomber and Mooney have used the media to intimidate the umpires into giving more free kicks their way. When there is a 50/50 decision to be made a little bit of Stevics subconcious says don't pull out the whistle or you will be punished in a trial by media. The rules against commenting on umpiring decisions is to stop a team from trying to gain an unfair advantage and to protect the umpires from public humiliation. Once again the AFL has been piss weak on something because they felt it had public opinion against further action. The media has been the ones driving popular opinion by presenting a unified crucifixion of Stevic. He will probably never make the sort of decision late in a game again. Good job AFL, now the standards of umpiring will be diminished and suburban umpires now get pissed supporters looking at any decision they don't like as not in the spirit of the game. Great leadership Andy.
As for being bad winners, Plugger, i think the prevailing view from our supporters is that we deserved our victory, a fact entirely lost on Thompson and Mooney.
Last edited by bigcarl on Wed 08 Sep 2010 10:10am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Moods
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4887
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 330 times
- Been thanked: 465 times
First up plugger, it's not the club whinging it's supporters on an unofficial forum - not really the same. Secondly I reckon all the O.P. is doing is highlighting the fact that there was more than one contentious decision that resulted in a goal for the opposition or a scoring opportunity. The way the cats have carried on, you would have thought they had been robbed, bashed and violated on the night by the umpy's. I don't agree with all the highlighted incidents but I reckon it gives food for thought to all footy fans. You could go through an entire game every week and find decisions or non decisions I agree. Perhaps the cats fans need to remember that. At absolute worst Gwilts free was debateable. You'd think the decision was as abvious as his frizzy hair the way they have banged on about it. All this thread does is highlight that there were plenty of other 'debateable' calls that didn't favour the saints.plugger66 wrote: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.
-
Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
And perhaps if the AFL had fined Bomber, and media loudmouths such as Sheehan, Robinson, Hutchinson etc hadn't carried on so much with the "Geelong was robbed" drivel, there would have been no need at all for this thread!Moods wrote:First up plugger, it's not the club whinging it's supporters on an unofficial forum - not really the same. Secondly I reckon all the O.P. is doing is highlighting the fact that there was more than one contentious decision that resulted in a goal for the opposition or a scoring opportunity. The way the cats have carried on, you would have thought they had been robbed, bashed and violated on the night by the umpy's. I don't agree with all the highlighted incidents but I reckon it gives food for thought to all footy fans. You could go through an entire game every week and find decisions or non decisions I agree. Perhaps the cats fans need to remember that. At absolute worst Gwilts free was debateable. You'd think the decision was as abvious as his frizzy hair the way they have banged on about it. All this thread does is highlight that there were plenty of other 'debateable' calls that didn't favour the saints.plugger66 wrote: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.
-
Thinline
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
Exactly my point. Only more succinctly put.Moods wrote:First up plugger, it's not the club whinging it's supporters on an unofficial forum - not really the same. Secondly I reckon all the O.P. is doing is highlighting the fact that there was more than one contentious decision that resulted in a goal for the opposition or a scoring opportunity. The way the cats have carried on, you would have thought they had been robbed, bashed and violated on the night by the umpy's. I don't agree with all the highlighted incidents but I reckon it gives food for thought to all footy fans. You could go through an entire game every week and find decisions or non decisions I agree. Perhaps the cats fans need to remember that. At absolute worst Gwilts free was debateable. You'd think the decision was as abvious as his frizzy hair the way they have banged on about it. All this thread does is highlight that there were plenty of other 'debateable' calls that didn't favour the saints.plugger66 wrote: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.
It's one thing to argue the 'debatability' of Gwilts (pretty short debate IMO
) and another all together to leave the Johnson push, the Gilbert holding the ball, and the Selwood duck completely ignored."The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
Some of those "head highs" were ridiculous. THe rule was originally brought in to protect the guy going low from getting injured.
In the Johnson and Stokes cases it is obvious that the tacklers are trying to avoid getting the guy in the head, yet they still got pinged!
(I actually agreed with the Selwood free).
SO many 50/50s that went Geelong's way and plenty of clear frees not given.
THe Johnson and Ling pushes were ridiculous, particularly given the close proximity of the umpires and the blatant hands in the back pf the defenders.
In the Johnson and Stokes cases it is obvious that the tacklers are trying to avoid getting the guy in the head, yet they still got pinged!
(I actually agreed with the Selwood free).
SO many 50/50s that went Geelong's way and plenty of clear frees not given.
THe Johnson and Ling pushes were ridiculous, particularly given the close proximity of the umpires and the blatant hands in the back pf the defenders.
Hird... The unflushable one is now... just a turd...
-
gringo
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
The ducking into a tackle or sliding down in a tackle should be taken to Gieshen for clarification. I have no idea wether the rule is enforced any more. It used to be that a player deliberately ducking into the tackle wouldn't get a free.
As for the Stokes high, I can't see when he was actually even contacted above the shoulders. He actually tried to make a bit of a stage then stops himself, still gets the free. Milne and Schnides might get that kind of protection if they did that too. Lets get Gieshen to tell us the rule and we can practise it for the prelim.
As for the Stokes high, I can't see when he was actually even contacted above the shoulders. He actually tried to make a bit of a stage then stops himself, still gets the free. Milne and Schnides might get that kind of protection if they did that too. Lets get Gieshen to tell us the rule and we can practise it for the prelim.
-
Superboot
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Tue 14 Jun 2005 9:11pm
- Location: Behind the goal, South Road end
- Has thanked: 32 times
- Been thanked: 38 times
Mini may have gone slightly off his line but I maintain that it's simply his natural arcSainterK wrote: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?
Not the first time we've had those weird holding the ball decisions against us this season. I'd be interested to know whether the umpire actually called play on in this case and whether it was before or after Ling made the move.
The umpire called play on because he took too long. Ling was at most 3 metres from McQualter when the umpire made the call. To my understanding that should be a 50m penalty, shouldn't it?saintDal wrote:Yeah I'm not sure Mini moved off the line at all. Pretty stiff.SainterK wrote: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?