Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
Scollop wrote:Sam Gilbert went right off at the umpire for calling play on when it was clearly dropping the ball by a Dees player in the goal square or just on front of their goals. Sam laid a good tackle after the Melbourne player hesitated and second guessed whether to handball, kick, or try and baulk.
That is clearly an instance where a player had prior opportunity. The ball was not handballed or kicked. It is incorrect disposal and Sam should have won the free. The umpy called it play on and another Dees player came running in and kicked the goal. Absolutely obvious decision, but for some strange reason they call it play on
+1
Unbelievable non-decision, and at a crucial stage of the game.
shrodes wrote:
Sorry folks, it would be great to see what our for and against stats show from the three quarter time perspective over the last 10 years, you know, that time in a game before they start evening things up but the game's GONE! ffs.
I would bet it would show me were even more royally screwed by the maggots.
Not saying anything just telling a story but I have a good friend who has a son who is an AFL umpire.
His son has a bad gambling habit. Reckons his son and his mates would bet on anything including two flies crawling uo a wall.
They are doing everything they can to break his habit.
That is unfortunate, and just one more thing you wouldn't want to wish upon anyone.
Can you please let him know how much he could make on a Saints win this week?
Maybe he has been betting for them to lose.
Or maybe he and his mates are waiting for our odds to blow out into double figures before making a real killing.
Ha, ha yes, but in reality they would all have to be terrible gamblers, and for many years to provide the statistics that we have in the for & against.
Something stinks, I don't know what it is but on face value, I can understand that there's going to be differing interpretations of rules in each game, simply due to there being 3 umpires. That can explain our frustration in a game i.e. umpire A. pays more of one type of free, whilst at the other end umpire B. just lets it go. Frustrating as hell and causes my blood to boil, but that doesn't explain why we have the worst overall figures consistently. That's where divine (AFL gods) intervention might seem the more plausible argument.
The gambling aspect and umpiring should really be investigated so that it can be ruled out.
Remember ‘no, we don’t need a royal commission into the banks’’
resaintlee wrote:The gambling aspect and umpiring should really be investigated so that it can be ruled out.
Remember ‘no, we don’t need a royal commission into the banks’’
Absolutely, as long as it doesn't have the same outcome as the royal commission into Unions...what did exactly happen there???
Only problem is that it'll turn out that Richo's been making a killing betting against us! ha, ha
Bartal mentioned a few times Sunday arvo how the Saints werent getting any of the cheap goals that get sides moving. When umpires ignore blatant frees 15 out directly in front of your goals it is defalting and breaks momentum and switches it. Twice we caught Melbourne players holding the ball basically in the square only to be called play on. They replayed these non calls numerous times dumb founded as to why we didnt get a free.
CURLY wrote:Bartal mentioned a few times Sunday arvo how the Saints werent getting any of the cheap goals that get sides moving. When umpires ignore blatant frees 15 out directly in front of your goals it is defalting and breaks momentum and switches it. Twice we caught Melbourne players holding the ball basically in the square only to be called play on. They replayed these non calls numerous times dumb founded as to why we didnt get a free.
Yep.
Interestingly, if it happens week in / week out, and consistently affects our games, and even commentators are seeing it, but it isn't blatant cheating, then what is it?
Add that to the one where the ruckman takes the mark OVER THE LINE! (without decent vision of it) This was also discussed heaps by commentators without suitable answers.
Actually, the commentators discussing these types of issues is becoming the norm. If we only had 1 umpire, we could see if it was cheating
23 - 16 our way even tho it was over in the West. 7 shots at goal from free kicks. I’m expecting outrage about the quality of umpiring, or is that only when we’re on the wrong side of the numbers..?
Umpires did all they could to hand us the game, Membrey (our best set shot by miles) kicking 1.5 killed us. Word on the street is he doesn’t mind a punt, I’m thinking someone needs to look into his gambling debt...
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
About f****** time, although that free to Freo after Carlyle knocked out by a knee from a careless and dangerous kicking in danger was a bit hard to take.
Maybe the AFL is starting to take notice about umpire bias against lower teams,
The maggots have certainly cracked down on incorrect disposal after Clarko highlighted their error.
About f****** time, although that free to Freo after Carlyle knocked out by a knee from a careless and dangerous kicking in danger was a bit hard to take.
Maybe the AFL is starting to take notice about umpire bias against lower teams,
The maggots have certainly cracked down on incorrect disposal after Clarko highlighted their error.
But how do you explain last night in regards to the specific conspiracy against St Kilda??
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
About f****** time, although that free to Freo after Carlyle knocked out by a knee from a careless and dangerous kicking in danger was a bit hard to take.
Maybe the AFL is starting to take notice about umpire bias against lower teams,
The maggots have certainly cracked down on incorrect disposal after Clarko highlighted their error.
But how do you explain last night in regards to the specific conspiracy against St Kilda??
Good question dud!
If the umpires cheat against us as believed by the stooger and the illiterate one when we are on the negative ratio, surely they cheated for us last night.
How do we get them to continually cheat in our favor like last night?
Hilariously the stooger was actually posting about the umpires favoring Freo last night
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
About f****** time, although that free to Freo after Carlyle knocked out by a knee from a careless and dangerous kicking in danger was a bit hard to take.
Maybe the AFL is starting to take notice about umpire bias against lower teams,
The maggots have certainly cracked down on incorrect disposal after Clarko highlighted their error.
But how do you explain last night in regards to the specific conspiracy against St Kilda??
I think I answered your question before you asked it.
Intensity was going really welluntil Savage was penalised , in the back, which gave them their first goal. Reckon there was an immediate and visible change after that.
resaintlee wrote:Intensity was going really welluntil Savage was penalised , in the back, which gave them their first goal. Reckon there was an immediate and visible change after that.
resaintlee, are you saying the team was switched on for 15 minutes but dropped their bundle collectively after conceding a goal through a free kick?
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
resaintlee wrote:Intensity was going really welluntil Savage was penalised , in the back, which gave them their first goal. Reckon there was an immediate and visible change after that.
Is that the one where Savage brushed the Shocker with his chest?
resaintlee wrote:Intensity was going really welluntil Savage was penalised , in the back, which gave them their first goal. Reckon there was an immediate and visible change after that.
Is that the one where Savage brushed the Shocker with his chest?
Not a free kick, never was, never will be.
If you bump the opposition player in the back trying to spoil and get nowhere near the ball, like Savage, you’re going to leave yourself open to giving away a free. All he had to do was spoil the actual ball and it would have been fine.
How about the 50m penalty (and goal) Newnes (I think) received from a Docker trying to get out of the restricted space? Had have gone the other way you would be on here having a good old whinge, but say nothing when it goes our way, hmmmm...
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
resaintlee wrote:Intensity was going really welluntil Savage was penalised , in the back, which gave them their first goal. Reckon there was an immediate and visible change after that.
Is that the one where Savage brushed the Shocker with his chest?
Not a free kick, never was, never will be.
If you bump the opposition player in the back trying to spoil and get nowhere near the ball, like Savage, you’re going to leave yourself open to giving away a free. All he had to do was spoil the actual ball and it would have been fine.
How about the 50m penalty (and goal) Newnes (I think) received from a Docker trying to get out of the restricted space? Had have gone the other way you would be on here having a good old whinge, but say nothing when it goes our way, hmmmm...
Someone wake you up did they.
Dont presume to tell me what I think ffs.
The free and 50 metres to Newnes was there, end of story Mr Dud one.
Also you should brush up on the rules. The free against Savage just wasn't there, a fact acknowledged by the commentators at the time.
resaintlee wrote:Intensity was going really welluntil Savage was penalised , in the back, which gave them their first goal. Reckon there was an immediate and visible change after that.
Is that the one where Savage brushed the Shocker with his chest?
Not a free kick, never was, never will be.
If you bump the opposition player in the back trying to spoil and get nowhere near the ball, like Savage, you’re going to leave yourself open to giving away a free. All he had to do was spoil the actual ball and it would have been fine.
How about the 50m penalty (and goal) Newnes (I think) received from a Docker trying to get out of the restricted space? Had have gone the other way you would be on here having a good old whinge, but say nothing when it goes our way, hmmmm...
Someone wake you up did they.
Dont presume to tell me what I think ffs.
The free and 50 metres to Newnes was there, end of story Mr Dud one.
Also you should brush up on the rules. The free against Savage just wasn't there, a fact acknowledged by the commentators at the time.
Never said it wasn’t there, just saying you would have sooked if the situation was reversed, which is a fact.
The commentators said so? Like many commentators agreed the free against Carlisle in the GWS game wasn’t there also? You can’t pick and choose when to take their word.
You also can’t take an opposition player out of a marking contest and get nowhere near the ball yourself, happens all the time players getting pinged flying for hangers.
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
resaintlee wrote:Intensity was going really welluntil Savage was penalised , in the back, which gave them their first goal. Reckon there was an immediate and visible change after that.
Is that the one where Savage brushed the Shocker with his chest?
Not a free kick, never was, never will be.
If you bump the opposition player in the back trying to spoil and get nowhere near the ball, like Savage, you’re going to leave yourself open to giving away a free. All he had to do was spoil the actual ball and it would have been fine.
How about the 50m penalty (and goal) Newnes (I think) received from a Docker trying to get out of the restricted space? Had have gone the other way you would be on here having a good old whinge, but say nothing when it goes our way, hmmmm...
Reckon Roo would have got at least 300 more goals if that was the case
About f****** time, although that free to Freo after Carlyle knocked out by a knee from a careless and dangerous kicking in danger was a bit hard to take.
Maybe the AFL is starting to take notice about umpire bias against lower teams,
The maggots have certainly cracked down on incorrect disposal after Clarko highlighted their error.
But how do you explain last night in regards to the specific conspiracy against St Kilda??
When we got to 8 points down the non controlling umpire from 150 meters away paid a free to Cerra and he goaled. You know the non controlling umpire that couldn't see Carlisle get his head taken off against GWS.
resaintlee wrote:Intensity was going really welluntil Savage was penalised , in the back, which gave them their first goal. Reckon there was an immediate and visible change after that.
Is that the one where Savage brushed the Shocker with his chest?
Not a free kick, never was, never will be.
If you bump the opposition player in the back trying to spoil and get nowhere near the ball, like Savage, you’re going to leave yourself open to giving away a free. All he had to do was spoil the actual ball and it would have been fine.
How about the 50m penalty (and goal) Newnes (I think) received from a Docker trying to get out of the restricted space? Had have gone the other way you would be on here having a good old whinge, but say nothing when it goes our way, hmmmm...
Thanks for proving you have no idea about the rules.
resaintlee wrote:Intensity was going really welluntil Savage was penalised , in the back, which gave them their first goal. Reckon there was an immediate and visible change after that.
Is that the one where Savage brushed the Shocker with his chest?
Not a free kick, never was, never will be.
If you bump the opposition player in the back trying to spoil and get nowhere near the ball, like Savage, you’re going to leave yourself open to giving away a free. All he had to do was spoil the actual ball and it would have been fine.
How about the 50m penalty (and goal) Newnes (I think) received from a Docker trying to get out of the restricted space? Had have gone the other way you would be on here having a good old whinge, but say nothing when it goes our way, hmmmm...
Reckon Roo would have got at least 300 more goals if that was the case
