Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
St. Paul wrote:What about the fiasco in Launceston with the "Docker Draw?" The AFL basically overthrew its own rule to award the points to Fremantle. It still rankles me to this day, as it meant the difference between finishing fourth and finishing sixth that year. Can you imagine what would've happened if Essondope or Colonwood copped that decision? The Supreme Court would've ended up deciding the issue. That's if the AFL even tried it on in the first place. They did it to us because they knew we'd cop it without complaint or action.
For over a century the rule was that a quarter is over when the umpire signals it.
- hence there have been incidents at Princes Park where the timekeeper had to run on the ground and inform the umpire after the siren failed
- Kerry Goode kicked a goal after a passage of play after the siren to win North a night premiership because the ump didn't hear it
But when it happened to us the AFL had an emergency meeting the next day and annulled Baker's point.
Nothing wrong with changing a rule, but to then apply it retrospectively is plain WRONG.
It remains the most DISGRACEFUL decision in AFL history.
I REMAIN BITTER AND CONVINCED OF A CONSPIRACY.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
St. Paul wrote:What about the fiasco in Launceston with the "Docker Draw?" The AFL basically overthrew its own rule to award the points to Fremantle. It still rankles me to this day, as it meant the difference between finishing fourth and finishing sixth that year. Can you imagine what would've happened if Essondope or Colonwood copped that decision? The Supreme Court would've ended up deciding the issue. That's if the AFL even tried it on in the first place. They did it to us because they knew we'd cop it without complaint or action.
For over a century the rule was that a quarter is over when the umpire signals it.
- hence there have been incidents at Princes Park where the timekeeper had to run on the ground and inform the umpire after the siren failed
- Kerry Goode kicked a goal after a passage of play after the siren to win North a night premiership because the ump didn't hear it
But when it happened to us the AFL had an emergency meeting the next day and annulled Baker's point.
Nothing wrong with changing a rule, but to then apply it retrospectively is plain WRONG.
It remains the most DISGRACEFUL decision in AFL history.
I REMAIN BITTER AND CONVINCED OF A CONSPIRACY.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
Then there was the "lights off" match when the AFL allowed The Dopers to bring James "botox" Turd into their side for the replay of the last quarter and a bit.
Another example of AFL VICTIMISATION of StKilda.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
St. Paul wrote:What about the fiasco in Launceston with the "Docker Draw?" The AFL basically overthrew its own rule to award the points to Fremantle. It still rankles me to this day, as it meant the difference between finishing fourth and finishing sixth that year. Can you imagine what would've happened if Essondope or Colonwood copped that decision? The Supreme Court would've ended up deciding the issue. That's if the AFL even tried it on in the first place. They did it to us because they knew we'd cop it without complaint or action.
For over a century the rule was that a quarter is over when the umpire signals it.
- hence there have been incidents at Princes Park where the timekeeper had to run on the ground and inform the umpire after the siren failed
- Kerry Goode kicked a goal after a passage of play after the siren to win North a night premiership because the ump didn't hear it
But when it happened to us the AFL had an emergency meeting the next day and annulled Baker's point.
Nothing wrong with changing a rule, but to then apply it retrospectively is plain WRONG.
It remains the most DISGRACEFUL decision in AFL history.
I REMAIN BITTER AND CONVINCED OF A CONSPIRACY.
The correct result in the end. The siren went and we lost the game, I don’t want to win games we clearly lost due to a dodgy technicality.
If the roles were reversed you would be screaming we won because the siren had gone.
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
Of course I would've TD. I bet you pennies to pounds, if the teams were reversed, the result would've stood. We would've bleated until the cows came home, but ultimately the rules are rules. It's no different to an umpire missing an obvious free kick in the dying stages of a game (Schneider, 2009, anyone?) or giving an incorrect decision that leads to a winning goal. The Kerry Good example is perfect. Blatantly wrong, but the rules were adhered to.
The correct decision is ultimately the one that is given on the spot and that has gone in the book. Crook decisions happen in every sport and game. Why did we get singled out? Because we are an AFL lightweight and our administration has, traditionally, never stood up to HQ.
St. Paul wrote:Of course I would've TD. I bet you pennies to pounds, if the teams were reversed, the result would've stood. We would've bleated until the cows came home, but ultimately the rules are rules. It's no different to an umpire missing an obvious free kick in the dying stages of a game (Schneider, 2009, anyone?) or giving an incorrect decision that leads to a winning goal. The Kerry Good example is perfect. Blatantly wrong, but the rules were adhered to.
The correct decision is ultimately the one that is given on the spot and that has gone in the book. Crook decisions happen in every sport and game. Why did we get singled out? Because we are an AFL lightweight and our administration has, traditionally, never stood up to HQ.
The result would have been overturned regardless of who the 2 teams were, as every supporter, media and AFL employee could clearly see what the correct decision should be. And trying to justify it by comparing it to a preseason game 40 years ago? Come on...
The right decision was made in the end, when the siren went at the end of the game we had lost, simple.
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
St. Paul wrote:Of course I would've TD. I bet you pennies to pounds, if the teams were reversed, the result would've stood. We would've bleated until the cows came home, but ultimately the rules are rules. It's no different to an umpire missing an obvious free kick in the dying stages of a game (Schneider, 2009, anyone?) or giving an incorrect decision that leads to a winning goal. The Kerry Good example is perfect. Blatantly wrong, but the rules were adhered to.
The correct decision is ultimately the one that is given on the spot and that has gone in the book. Crook decisions happen in every sport and game. Why did we get singled out? Because we are an AFL lightweight and our administration has, traditionally, never stood up to HQ.
The result would have been overturned regardless of who the 2 teams were, as every supporter, media and AFL employee could clearly see what the correct decision should be. And trying to justify it by comparing it to a preseason game 40 years ago? Come on...
The right decision was made in the end, when the siren went at the end of the game we had lost, simple.
At the end of the game, according to the rules of the day, and the previous 110 seasons, it was a draw. Retrospective rule changes are unjust and unethical. Imagine doing something that is perfectly legal today, and then tomorrow the government changes the law and locks you up for it, retrospectively. I imagine you'd be bleating rather loudly, Dudley, and rightly so. Time also has nothing to do with it. It was the law and the AFL had to cover its incompetence, the inadequacy of the equipment at the ground and the fiasco that followed. Simple. Not a conspiracy against the saints, but bias at best.
St. Paul wrote:Of course I would've TD. I bet you pennies to pounds, if the teams were reversed, the result would've stood. We would've bleated until the cows came home, but ultimately the rules are rules. It's no different to an umpire missing an obvious free kick in the dying stages of a game (Schneider, 2009, anyone?) or giving an incorrect decision that leads to a winning goal. The Kerry Good example is perfect. Blatantly wrong, but the rules were adhered to.
The correct decision is ultimately the one that is given on the spot and that has gone in the book. Crook decisions happen in every sport and game. Why did we get singled out? Because we are an AFL lightweight and our administration has, traditionally, never stood up to HQ.
The result would have been overturned regardless of who the 2 teams were, as every supporter, media and AFL employee could clearly see what the correct decision should be. And trying to justify it by comparing it to a preseason game 40 years ago? Come on...
The right decision was made in the end, when the siren went at the end of the game we had lost, simple.
At the end of the game, according to the rules of the day, and the previous 110 seasons, it was a draw. Retrospective rule changes are unjust and unethical. Imagine doing something that is perfectly legal today, and then tomorrow the government changes the law and locks you up for it, retrospectively. I imagine you'd be bleating rather loudly, Dudley, and rightly so. Time also has nothing to do with it. It was the law and the AFL had to cover its incompetence, the inadequacy of the equipment at the ground and the fiasco that followed. Simple. Not a conspiracy against the saints, but bias at best.
And luckily occasionally common sense wins. I wish it would happen more often.
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
Indeed, TD. I can't think of another example of the AFL allowing common sense to rule the day. It doesn't have a great track record in the area. I don't believe it did on this occasion, either, but let's agree to disagree on this one.
VFL Season 1900
"The Round 1 match between St Kilda and Melbourne ended in a draw, but the result was changed to a St Kilda victory on protest after it was noted that the umpire did not signal the end of the third quarter in the correct fashion after hearing the bell. This was St Kilda's first ever VFL win (after 48 losses), their first win since the 1896 VFA season"
There was one other game overturned on protest in 1909.
""In the match, Geelong v. St. Kilda, last Saturday, the St. Kilda club played W. Stewart, who had, it is alleged, been disqualified by the Bendigo association. The St. Kilda club won the match by one point, and Geelong has lodged a protest on the ground that Stewart was not eligible to play. The matter will be dealt with to-morrow evening."
Geelong was awarded the victory.
So three games in total - all involving the Saints. What are the odds?
"The starting point of all achievement is desire. "
25 years ago this month was the last time the club stuck it up the VFL/AFL. The club hasn’t showed any gonads since it went into voluntary receivership a few years later.
Last edited by SaintPav on Wed 25 Apr 2018 10:01pm, edited 1 time in total.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
I will never forget that match and was clear evidence of foul play.
"I think, 'You kick a footy mate, you kick a footy. It's not like you've got a cure for cancer. You kick a footy, stop thinking you are so special'." - Samantha Black
I will never forget that match and was clear evidence of foul play.
From memory, losing that game worked out well for us as we ended having to play a semi final in Adelaide against the Crows two weeks later, which we won, instead of having to play the Eagles in Perth.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
Think we played Brisbane at home the next week and Hamill flattened Aker, and Milne kicked a swag. However, the umpires clearly changed the result the week before and deliberately so.
"I think, 'You kick a footy mate, you kick a footy. It's not like you've got a cure for cancer. You kick a footy, stop thinking you are so special'." - Samantha Black
SaintPav wrote:25 years ago this month was the last time the club stuck it up the VFL/AFL. The club hasn’t showed any gonads since it went into voluntary receivership a few years later.
35 years ago ... although I would like to be 10years younger
AwayInUSA no longer ... have based myself back in Melbourne for a decade of Saintsational Success (with regular trips back to the USA)
SaintPav wrote:25 years ago this month was the last time the club stuck it up the VFL/AFL. The club hasn’t showed any gonads since it went into voluntary receivership a few years later.
35 years ago ... although I would like to be 10years younger
That long..
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
desertsaint wrote:VFL Season 1900
"The Round 1 match between St Kilda and Melbourne ended in a draw, but the result was changed to a St Kilda victory on protest after it was noted that the umpire did not signal the end of the third quarter in the correct fashion after hearing the bell. This was St Kilda's first ever VFL win (after 48 losses), their first win since the 1896 VFA season"
There was one other game overturned on protest in 1909.
""In the match, Geelong v. St. Kilda, last Saturday, the St. Kilda club played W. Stewart, who had, it is alleged, been disqualified by the Bendigo association. The St. Kilda club won the match by one point, and Geelong has lodged a protest on the ground that Stewart was not eligible to play. The matter will be dealt with to-morrow evening."
Geelong was awarded the victory.
So three games in total - all involving the Saints. What are the odds?
That Geelong game from 1909 still causes trouble today.
The final scores were allowed to stand but Geelong were deemed to have won and got the 4 points.
But when statisticians comb the scores database to build tables they often mistakenly record StK with one extra win as they miss the caveat the Geel were deemed to have won.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
my little primary school got flogged at everything we participated in
(except 1 game of cricket)
then at high school basically the same routine for another 4 years
even the inter suburb stuff we organised as teenagers saw us getting flogged
(basically the primary school mob grown up a bit)
we got cheated out of a (more than deserved) victory in that stanza
which still pisses me as i write it
i should send my brother around
.name the ways , thought manipulates the State of Presence away.
