Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
The Fireman wrote:the umpires can make it easier on themselves by keeping that whistle away from their mouths.
I think the game is better with more frees than less. Over the years frees have dropped off and people say the umpiring is worse. Umpire to the rules and if that means there are 50 frees a game so be it. If it means 30 then fine.
I disagree, less frees =less bad calls..a more free flowing game, less crowd angst = more enjoyable game , only blow it when the free is absolutely obvious . Many complaints are about over officiating
You do realise that not giving a free can be a bad call. Just as bad as giving the wrong free. We have much less frees now than 20 years ago so you must think the umpiring is good now? And it is more free flowing with frees because it stops packs due to the numbers around the ball.
The Fireman wrote:the umpires can make it easier on themselves by keeping that whistle away from their mouths.
I think the game is better with more frees than less. Over the years frees have dropped off and people say the umpiring is worse. Umpire to the rules and if that means there are 50 frees a game so be it. If it means 30 then fine.
I disagree, less frees =less bad calls..a more free flowing game, less crowd angst = more enjoyable game , only blow it when the free is absolutely obvious . Many complaints are about over officiating
You do realise that not giving a free can be a bad call. Just as bad as giving the wrong free. We have much less frees now than 20 years ago so you must think the umpiring is good now? And it is more free flowing with frees because it stops packs due to the numbers around the ball.
Id rather a no call than a bad call anyday. as I said only call it when it is bleeding obvious so I would like to see less frees now, frees hold up the game..packs usually sort themselves out. Sure blow when a the ball definately can't be moved.
Now I'm sure you want to continue this conversation to impress your view upon me, no need..you have seen my case..now ask others their preference by poll or whatever.
The Fireman wrote:the umpires can make it easier on themselves by keeping that whistle away from their mouths.
I think the game is better with more frees than less. Over the years frees have dropped off and people say the umpiring is worse. Umpire to the rules and if that means there are 50 frees a game so be it. If it means 30 then fine.
I disagree, less frees =less bad calls..a more free flowing game, less crowd angst = more enjoyable game , only blow it when the free is absolutely obvious . Many complaints are about over officiating
You do realise that not giving a free can be a bad call. Just as bad as giving the wrong free. We have much less frees now than 20 years ago so you must think the umpiring is good now? And it is more free flowing with frees because it stops packs due to the numbers around the ball.
Id rather a no call than a bad call anyday. as I said only call it when it is bleeding obvious so I would like to see less frees now, frees hold up the game..packs usually sort themselves out. Sure blow when a the ball definately can't be moved.
Now I'm sure you want to continue this conversation to impress your view upon me, no need..you have seen my case..now ask others their preference by poll or whatever.
Im not sure you are getting it. A no call could easily be a bad call. Its a mistake. And I will continue to say my point. If you don't want to continue then don't. And there are many less frees now than years ago and people still aren't happy. Most of that though is that no one is happy with umpires in any year of the AFL and probably many years of the VFL.
Cant help but feel for the umpires.
Different directive every week. Ridiculous.
Even heard Campbell saying that they got the directive wrong and paid too many frees this weekend.
Not sure that Wayne Campbell is the man for the job.
The Fireman wrote:the umpires can make it easier on themselves by keeping that whistle away from their mouths.
I think the game is better with more frees than less. Over the years frees have dropped off and people say the umpiring is worse. Umpire to the rules and if that means there are 50 frees a game so be it. If it means 30 then fine.
I disagree, less frees =less bad calls..a more free flowing game, less crowd angst = more enjoyable game , only blow it when the free is absolutely obvious . Many complaints are about over officiating
You do realise that not giving a free can be a bad call. Just as bad as giving the wrong free. We have much less frees now than 20 years ago so you must think the umpiring is good now? And it is more free flowing with frees because it stops packs due to the numbers around the ball.
Id rather a no call than a bad call anyday. as I said only call it when it is bleeding obvious so I would like to see less frees now, frees hold up the game..packs usually sort themselves out. Sure blow when a the ball definately can't be moved.
Now I'm sure you want to continue this conversation to impress your view upon me, no need..you have seen my case..now ask others their preference by poll or whatever.
Im not sure you are getting it. A no call could easily be a bad call. Its a mistake. And I will continue to say my point. If you don't want to continue then don't. And there are many less frees now than years ago and people still aren't happy. Most of that though is that no one is happy with umpires in any year of the AFL and probably many years of the VFL.
Oh dear..you couldn't help yourself. If you can't comprehend the point I'm trying to make...simply move on.
The Fireman wrote:Oh dear..you couldn't help yourself. If you can't comprehend the point I'm trying to make...simply move on.
Strange. I would have thought the one who doesn't want someone else to respond would stop posting but no you were the one who couldn't help it. And I get your point but it is clearly wrong. No if you don't want me to respond again then why don't you stop responding.
The Fireman wrote:Oh dear..you couldn't help yourself. If you can't comprehend the point I'm trying to make...simply move on.
Strange. I would have thought the one who doesn't want someone else to respond would stop posting but no you were the one who couldn't help it. And I get your point but it is clearly wrong. No if you don't want me to respond again then why don't you stop responding.
a bit childish ? and my point is clearly wrong ? in your eyes ? Wow you really can't help yourself can you
The Fireman wrote:Oh dear..you couldn't help yourself. If you can't comprehend the point I'm trying to make...simply move on.
Strange. I would have thought the one who doesn't want someone else to respond would stop posting but no you were the one who couldn't help it. And I get your point but it is clearly wrong. No if you don't want me to respond again then why don't you stop responding.
a bit childish ? and my point is clearly wrong ? in your eyes ? Wow you really can't help yourself can you
Its wrong because you said a no decision is different to a bad decision. Simple. Clearly wrong. Keep replying because its fun.
can someone please set up a poll on what we think could improve the umpiring..along the lines of..paying less frees by paying the very obvious or change the rules etc ?
The Fireman wrote:can someone please set up a poll on what we think could improve the umpiring..along the lines of..paying less frees by paying the very obvious or change the rules etc ?
Why don't you start it. There are less frees than 20 years ago. Do you think the umpiring is better today?
Bunk_Moreland wrote:When umpires are given a directive like they were on the weekend to pay the free kicks that are there, the Saints get a fair go.
The umpiring was good yesterday, not because we got more frees (even though we deserved to get them) but because they were as consistent as they could be on a difficult wet, crowded around the ball day.
Still let a raft of frees go that should get paid to Riewoldt however we are used to him being screwed by the umpires, but on the whole they paid what was there to both sides.
When they are allowed to umpire properly, we get a fair deal. More free kicks in a game? Sure, but most were there and they were consistent, so even if we lost the free count I wouldn't have complained.
Has nothing to do with more free...the combination of umps were on for us.
Some Umps cheat, umps cheat more when allowed (direction to pay more frees). St Kilda is better off when umps are letting the 50/50s go for both sides. I'm sure Rich/footscray (who over the years have been favoured by umps) would also like them paying more frees.
The Fireman wrote:Oh dear..you couldn't help yourself. If you can't comprehend the point I'm trying to make...simply move on.
Strange. I would have thought the one who doesn't want someone else to respond would stop posting but no you were the one who couldn't help it. And I get your point but it is clearly wrong. No if you don't want me to respond again then why don't you stop responding.
a bit childish ? and my point is clearly wrong ? in your eyes ? Wow you really can't help yourself can you
Its wrong because you said a no decision is different to a bad decision. Simple. Clearly wrong. Keep replying because its fun.
no decision is better than a bad one..I'm sure most would agree with that. In other words if the infringement is minor then rather that the umpire be pedantic he simply lets it go rather than making a decision that could be seen as controversial or plainly wrong.
You seem to be struggling with this...does anyone else understand what I'm trying to put across to him ?
The Fireman wrote:Oh dear..you couldn't help yourself. If you can't comprehend the point I'm trying to make...simply move on.
Strange. I would have thought the one who doesn't want someone else to respond would stop posting but no you were the one who couldn't help it. And I get your point but it is clearly wrong. No if you don't want me to respond again then why don't you stop responding.
a bit childish ? and my point is clearly wrong ? in your eyes ? Wow you really can't help yourself can you
Its wrong because you said a no decision is different to a bad decision. Simple. Clearly wrong. Keep replying because its fun.
no decision is better than a bad one..I'm sure most would agree with that. In other words if the infringement is minor then rather that the umpire be pedantic he simply lets it go rather than making a decision that could be seen as controversial or plainly wrong.
You seem to be struggling with this...does anyone else understand what I'm trying to put across to him ?
Looking for help firey. Get teffers to help you. He seems to jump on your other posts. And now there is a rider on the no decision. Wasn't previously.
The Fireman wrote:Oh dear..you couldn't help yourself. If you can't comprehend the point I'm trying to make...simply move on.
Strange. I would have thought the one who doesn't want someone else to respond would stop posting but no you were the one who couldn't help it. And I get your point but it is clearly wrong. No if you don't want me to respond again then why don't you stop responding.
a bit childish ? and my point is clearly wrong ? in your eyes ? Wow you really can't help yourself can you
Its wrong because you said a no decision is different to a bad decision. Simple. Clearly wrong. Keep replying because its fun.
no decision is better than a bad one..I'm sure most would agree with that. In other words if the infringement is minor then rather that the umpire be pedantic he simply lets it go rather than making a decision that could be seen as controversial or plainly wrong.
You seem to be struggling with this...does anyone else understand what I'm trying to put across to him ?
Looking for help firey. Get teffers to help you. He seems to jump on your other posts. And now there is a rider on the no decision. Wasn't previously.
Help? lol, I think you maybe the one in need of some help You can't seem to comprehend what I am saying...maybe others can help you better than I can.
Freebird wrote:Umps can pay 500 frees a game and constitute it....we do not want umps having more influence on who wins and loses than the players.
When in doubt leave the whistle alone.
The umps did not give Melb a good/fair display. It was our first win from umps this year.
FFS fireman, don't argue with fools
He wasn't arguing with you. Im 100% sure that umps don't pay frees when in doubt. They would think it is a free but it could be a mistake just like not paying a free when it is a free. Still haven't come up with that name freebird. That was a pathetic lie. But it does sum up your posting style. I was shocked the other day. I think you had an opinion.
People will NEVER be happy with the umpires, even if they claim they will be. I've been watching footy for close on 40 years, and I reckon my football mad parents first comment every week when I see them is 'Weren't the umpires terrible?' - Maybe Curly is their lovechild?????
Less frees are generally better. How many times have we seen GF's and ppl have said, 'why can't every game be umpired like that?' Doesn't mean no frees should get paid, but really I reckon every ball sport is better, (basketball, Netball, soccer) when the umpire lets the game flow and pulls up the obvious ones.
And I need to add, we were given an armchair ride by the umpy's on Sunday. Nothing wrong with that, we were due, but we definitely got the good end of the umpys. I would have been filthy if I were a demons fan.
