8 - 5 becomes 13 - 20

[samuraisaint]

It wasn't what the umpires paid to the 'Dogs which I thought were completely reasonable and correct.
It was how we weren't rewarded for our tackling pressure which I thought was poor on the umpire's part. That was the reason for the differential.

[To the top]

The free kick count was what it was - so the advantage was with the WB, as it has been to the advantage of St Kilda’s opponents in a number of games

It is not what is rewarded with a free kick but also includes what is not paid - and that is where the difference hurts and can cost games

You are not going to get both sides having an equal number of free kicks, obviously, but it does come down to consistency

We continue to see a lack of consistency no matter Richardson’s comments of last week and hence the free kick NUMBERS being where they were at today

We won despite some puzzling decisions to our detriment because of a lack of consistency

[skeptic]

The only thing that’s consistent is a lack of consistency...

Oh wait... apparently it only happens to us

[Sainter_Dad]

The issue that I have is not the free kick count - but why the change - I know that games ebb and flow - but it seems that we got off to a good clean start - and to my eyes nothing changed - but we went from 8 - 5 in the first to 5 - 15 thereafter and then 5 - 7.

It was the middle part that reflected the Doggies re-insertion into the game - and I choose my words with intent.

TBH - I did not notice that we changed the way that we played throughout the course of the game - we did not go from clean play to sniping - we tackled with the same endeavor - I just could not see why the change.

I do not expect the free kick count to be even - or track evenly etc - but when a serious change in trendlines occur - there must be questions asked.

[kosifantutti]

Yep that was a mistake. Umpire said he was on the wrong side and couldn’t tell who touched it, so he can’t call it.

How about the 3 frees and 2 goal 1 to Lonie in the first? I suppose you guys don’t think they were soft at all?

Pity we don't have more than one umpire, if one was unsighted another could say that's a clear mark, as it was.

You really should stop making things up about Lonie.

He kicked three goals one in the first.
One goal from a mark
One goal from a snap from the boundary
One goal from a free kick which was a blatant high tackle.
One point from open play

Curly might not be the most unbiased reviewer of a game, but he does at least watch the game.

[ace]

Umpires start looking at ways to get the Dogs in the game. The 50 against Savage was horrendous

The Bulldog player ran toward Savage to move the exclusion zone.
A filthy maggot fell for it.

If the maggots want respect they can earn it.

[ace]

5 frees for, 15 against that's fair.

[ace]

Umpires start looking at ways to get the Dogs in the game. The 50 against Savage was horrendous

50 was there, learn the rules.

Roo didn’t have a problem with it. Give your mate Gears a call and see what he thinks

Watch the replay
The Dog takes the mark.
Savage is well clear of the exclusion zone but the Dog runs back quickly, moving the exclusion zone to cover Savage.
Savage immediately tries to move clear.
The maggot gave him no time.

If the rule says free kick in those circumstances then the rule is MORONIC.
I prefer the umpire was INCOMPETENT.

[Sainter_Dad]

Umpires start looking at ways to get the Dogs in the game. The 50 against Savage was horrendous

50 was there, learn the rules.

Roo didn’t have a problem with it. Give your mate Gears a call and see what he thinks

Watch the replay
The Dog takes the mark.
Savage is well clear of the exclusion zone but the Dog runs back quickly, moving the exclusion zone to cover Savage.
Savage immediately tries to move clear.
The maggot gave him no time.

If the rule says free kick in those circumstances then the rule is MORONIC.
I prefer the umpire was INCOMPETENT.

I honestly think that The Dud is being difficult - just because he can - seems to give him/her perverse pleasure if just arguing the case - Lonie was taken high - a little soft maybe - but no softer than a lot of ones that are paid against us - however it was there - much like the bump that saw him leave the ground!

[CURLY]

Umpires start looking at ways to get the Dogs in the game. The 50 against Savage was horrendous

The Bulldog player ran toward Savage to move the exclusion zone.
A filthy maggot fell for it.

If the maggots want respect they can earn it.

If the dud is correct which is isnt a player could take a make and just run 100 meters at a opposition player and it would be a 50 meter penalty.

[saynta]

It is not only us.

The Roos certainly got screwed over at the weekend,

Obviously the AFL want Brisbane to suceed.

They have already stated that the free against Thomson that resulted in a goal after the mark was takeb off him was clearly a mistake. then add this, from herald sun,com

"But footage has emerged which shows Zorko stabbing four fingers into Simpkin’s calf as teammate Marcus Adams also tackles the North Melbourne player.

Zorko appears to be raking his fingers down the calf, which could explain why he kicked out at the Lions star, who won six free kicks in a quarter in the narrow victory."

[Life Long Saint]

The Roos certainly got screwed over at the weekend,

That's a first!
Although the bits that I saw showed they got their share of soft frees...Like they usually do.

[saynta]

The Roos certainly got screwed over at the weekend,

That's a first!
Although the bits that I saw showed they got their share of soft frees...Like they usually do.

You should have watched more of the game then/

27 frees to 19 doesn't sound like fair share to me, soft or otherwise.

[Life Long Saint]

The Roos certainly got screwed over at the weekend,

That's a first!
Although the bits that I saw showed they got their share of soft frees...Like they usually do.

You should have watched more of the game then/

27 frees to 19 doesn't sound like fair share to me, soft or otherwise.

Oh well...
I can't feel any pity for them at all.

[saynta]

The Roos certainly got screwed over at the weekend,

That's a first!
Although the bits that I saw showed they got their share of soft frees...Like they usually do.

You should have watched more of the game then/

27 frees to 19 doesn't sound like fair share to me, soft or otherwise.

Oh well...
I can't feel any pity for them at all.

Me neither actually.

[Sainter_Dad]

It is not only us.

The Roos certainly got screwed over at the weekend,

Okay - that makes it all good!

[stevie]

afl admitted the thug Thompson one was incorrect but I say it’s a free all day! It was like a block giving no chance to the lion guy. F*** norf! And who is their bogan mullet defender who was whinging? Where do they find these players lol

[saynta]

afl admitted the thug Thompson one was incorrect but I say it’s a free all day! It was like a block giving no chance to the lion guy. F*** norf! And who is their bogan mullet defender who was whinging? Where do they find these players lol

Wasn't a block as Thompson was the player who bumped him sideways. A block would involve a third player.

[stevie]

I hear ya saynta It’s still interference to me If he doesn’t do it then the lions guy marks it

[saynta]

I hear ya saynta It’s still interference to me If he doesn’t do it then the lions guy marks it

Maybe, but what the roo player did was within the rules, a fact acknowledged by the AFL.

[stevie]

Yeah I guess so Anyway worked out well and the thug can F*** off!!

[The_Dud]

Umpires start looking at ways to get the Dogs in the game. The 50 against Savage was horrendous

50 was there, learn the rules.

Roo didn’t have a problem with it. Give your mate Gears a call and see what he thinks

Watch the replay
The Dog takes the mark.
Savage is well clear of the exclusion zone but the Dog runs back quickly, moving the exclusion zone to cover Savage.
Savage immediately tries to move clear.
The maggot gave him no time.

If the rule says free kick in those circumstances then the rule is MORONIC.
I prefer the umpire was INCOMPETENT.

Yep, that’s the rule, and it is moronic, just like the ‘below the knees’ and ‘blocking in the ruck’ rules.

The first needs to be softened and the other two need to go.

[The_Dud]

Yep that was a mistake. Umpire said he was on the wrong side and couldn’t tell who touched it, so he can’t call it.

How about the 3 frees and 2 goal 1 to Lonie in the first? I suppose you guys don’t think they were soft at all?

Pity we don't have more than one umpire, if one was unsighted another could say that's a clear mark, as it was.

You really should stop making things up about Lonie.

He kicked three goals one in the first.
One goal from a mark
One goal from a snap from the boundary
One goal from a free kick which was a blatant high tackle.
One point from open play

Curly might not be the most unbiased reviewer of a game, but he does at least watch the game.

He kicked a goal from a high free.
He kicked a goal from the goal square after a 50 metre penalty.
Did he not also have a shot from a holding free before those, it might have counted as rushed?

[kosifantutti]

Lonie kicked a point from a holding free.
He kicked a goal from a high free.
He kicked a goal from the goal square after a 50 metre penalty.

Now the question is, what were you watching?

The kick from the holding free dropped short.
The kick from the high free was a goal. Well done, you got that right.
The 50m was after a mark. You said three scoring shots from frees. Curly would know the difference.

One out of three for you. We needed a new Mr 33% and it looks like we’ve got one.

[The_Dud]

Lonie kicked a point from a holding free.
He kicked a goal from a high free.
He kicked a goal from the goal square after a 50 metre penalty.

Now the question is, what were you watching?

The kick from the holding free dropped short.
The kick from the high free was a goal. Well done, you got that right.
The 50m was after a mark. You said three scoring shots from frees. Curly would know the difference.

One out of three for you. We needed a new Mr 33% and it looks like we’ve got one.

Is that how we’re playing it?

3 shots at goal from frees, resulting in 2 goals and a miss

The mark was less than 50% chance of goaling, turned into a certain goal. Ask the dogs fans what they thought of the umpiring in the first quarter. But they’re clueless flogs, right?

Explain how giving us multiple shots at goal from frees throughout the game fits into the umpiring conspiracy against us?

Explain why the mark to Parker wasn’t paid. Did the umpire see it was a clear mark and just decide not to pay it? Or was he not sure?

The fact that some posters are so reluctant to even consider that sometimes we get the rub of the green with umpiring, but are then falling over each other to perpetuate AFL backed umpiring conspiracies against us baffles me.

We had a great win in a well umpired game, try enjoy it!

But alas some sad souls are only happy when they’re having a whinge.