The umpires tonight

[SaintPav]

I came into the smoko room in the last qtr to check the score to see the slo mo review of the Membrey goal. Didn’t know the circumstances of it but I watched and said that’s a goal and a second later it was given. It clearly goes from hand to foot then goal

You should choof away more often.

[Trixilver]

Ken Hinkley the next coach to bitch about the umpires. Watch his press conference. I agree with most of what he said because the rules shouldnt change week to week, but what specifically was he talking about when he said this was a 'strange' game?

[Sainter_Dad]

The explanation is easy - Saturday Night - Ladder Leader v Contender - FTA game - we got better - more consistent umpiring

Our fate is in our hands - be the Best - get the Best!

If we play attractive football - and don't get relegated to Sunday afternoon - we get the better umpires.

Not a conspiracy - just a fact - You don't send a barrister to plead 'no contest' to a parking ticket.

[StPeter]

Probably the best display of umpiring we have had for a very long time and maybe even the rub of the green went our way for a change.

I am sure last week's display, the subsequent publicity and dropping of at least one of the officiating umpires helped us last night.

Obviously, for a change, a very biased home crowd wasn't allowed to influence the decisions.

[remboy]

The explanation is easy - Saturday Night - Ladder Leader v Contender - FTA game - we got better - more consistent umpiring

Our fate is in our hands - be the Best - get the Best!

If we play attractive football - and don't get relegated to Sunday afternoon - we get the better umpires.

Not a conspiracy - just a fact - You don't send a barrister to plead 'no contest' to a parking ticket.

That’s a good point. I also think that better teams get a better run from the umpires. Never heard Clarko mention umpires when the Hawks were winning flags.

[johnearljames]

Umps were really good. Have to get one out of ten right I guess.

[SaintPav]

No.

This one result proves that we haven't been hard done by at interstate venues over the last 20 years.

[St.Roly]

Priceless

Just like that, the conspiracy lifts...

...until we next fall on the wrong side of the poor decisions.

One decent run in 8 games. Freo game Adelaide game horrendous

Don't worry about him. Suburban solicitor doesn't understand statistical analysis and can't read a graph.

Wrong, so wrong, about the position I hold in the legal community- but no surprises there.

You have already made me regret engaging a bit more on this forum. Having not done so much over the years I am less familiar than many with the “personality” of posters. I have since gone back to have a look at a sample of your posts over recent times on various topics. The approach you have demonstrated above of attacking the person rather than the argument is prevalent.

All I can say is that I hope your SaintPav persona is where you choose to vent your negative traits and that you are capable of being a less objectionable person to those who have contact with you in “real life”. I suspect you may be beyond the point of serious self-reflection and change as this can be more difficult with age but I nevertheless would encourage you to take a good look at the way you behave on this site.

[The Peanut]

... We won the free kick count, and kicked 4 from frees and another from a free that we got at half forward and pumped into the goal square- all of them correct decisions. They were not influenced by the noise of affirmation.

Probably because the Umpires manager phoned the saints to apologise about the quality of umpiring last week. All the umpies would be aware of that.

[StPeter]

Probably the best display of umpiring we have had for a very long time and maybe even the rub of the green went our way for a change.

I am sure last week's display, the subsequent publicity and dropping of at least one of the officiating umpires helped us last night.

Obviously, for a change, a very biased home crowd wasn't allowed to influence the decisions.

Kane Cornes on The Sunday Footy Show was complaining about last night's umpires and felt it was an over-correction from last week.

He highlighted several decisions that resulted in Saint's goals.

I watched a relay of the last quarter this morning and we definitely got the best of the decisions in that quarter.

[SaintPav]

Priceless

Just like that, the conspiracy lifts...

...until we next fall on the wrong side of the poor decisions.

One decent run in 8 games. Freo game Adelaide game horrendous

Don't worry about him. Suburban solicitor doesn't understand statistical analysis and can't read a graph.

Wrong, so wrong, about the position I hold in the legal community- but no surprises there.

You have already made me regret engaging a bit more on this forum. Having not done so much over the years I am less familiar than many with the “personality” of posters. I have since gone back to have a look at a sample of your posts over recent times on various topics. The approach you have demonstrated above of attacking the person rather than the argument is prevalent.

All I can say is that I hope your SaintPav persona is where you choose to vent your negative traits and that you are capable of being a less objectionable person to those who have contact with you in “real life”. I suspect you may be beyond the point of serious self-reflection and change as this can be more difficult with age but I nevertheless would encourage you to take a good look at the way you behave on this site.

LOL.

Ok, sorry Your Honour.

Apart from being innumerate, it appears that you have very poor reasoning skills.

I believe the legal term for this is called self-righteous, hypocritical and selective bollocks.

For starters, who came on here last night trolling Curly and others about umpires?

And, who attacked me about the legal PRINCIPLE of ’wilful ignorance’? You couldn't even articulate a proper counter-argument or explain why it was wrong; you just played the condescending ”I'm the legal expert” card ”what would you know”. That is just the height of arrogance.

What you claim to do in real life is irrelevant on here Roly Poly, but with your critical thinking skills on display, no wonder our legal system is so farked.

Like I said, very hypocritical, selective and arrogant so make sure your own behaviour on here is squeaky clean before dishing out advice to others. Thanks.

[bigcarl]

For once we had a decent run interstate.

I suspect umpires have been directed to be aware of “the noise of affirmation” - a crackdown on home-town decisions.

Also because we are earning respect as a team on the up. Often, it’s been easy for the umps to think, “It’s only St Kilda”.

[desertsaint]

thought it went foot-hand-foot myself.

[samuraisaint]

To be fair I didn't see too much wrong with the interpretations against the Dockers, thought we just played badly for the last three quarters.
Last night was good, umpiring wise and every other way as well, tbh.
Next week we play the Swans who I think have a far greater case for unfair bias against them than we do. I reckon they get a large proportion of 50/50s paid against them.

And I grew up as a little kid in a household who were all card carrying members of St Kilda (VFL) (hated South - historically way back from the Lake premiership days) and were Port Melbourne members (VFA) - and all Port supporters despised South Melbourne. A real inter code rivalry there.
Needless to say I was barracking for the 'Dogs in 2016 and even I could see it, with only one eye open.

So, next week no excuses - although it will be tougher without Hannebury and Ross.

[saynta]

Priceless

Just like that, the conspiracy lifts...

...until we next fall on the wrong side of the poor decisions.

One decent run in 8 games. Freo game Adelaide game horrendous

Don't worry about him. Suburban solicitor doesn't understand statistical analysis and can't read a graph.

Come across dozens of suburban solicitors during my working life. Most of them are as dumb as dog s***. The young ones, particularly the females, are a tad better but only a tad.

[ralphsmith]

Normally we would have lost that game due to umpiring.

Mainly due to umpiring decisions that did not go our way. Last night they went our way, fairly.

[CURLY]

It’s amazing when we get a decent run it cops a section on a Footy Show. We have copped far worse for years with nothing at all said. The ruck frees are and always be a shambles but last we got a fair run not a cheat like run.

[remboy]

It’s amazing when we get a decent run it cops a section on a Footy Show. We have copped far worse for years with nothing at all said. The ruck frees are and always be a shambles but last we got a fair run not a cheat like run.

Only from Kane Cornes, who is a deadset lunatic.

[St.Roly]

Priceless

Just like that, the conspiracy lifts...

...until we next fall on the wrong side of the poor decisions.

One decent run in 8 games. Freo game Adelaide game horrendous

Don't worry about him. Suburban solicitor doesn't understand statistical analysis and can't read a graph.

Wrong, so wrong, about the position I hold in the legal community- but no surprises there.

You have already made me regret engaging a bit more on this forum. Having not done so much over the years I am less familiar than many with the “personality” of posters. I have since gone back to have a look at a sample of your posts over recent times on various topics. The approach you have demonstrated above of attacking the person rather than the argument is prevalent.

All I can say is that I hope your SaintPav persona is where you choose to vent your negative traits and that you are capable of being a less objectionable person to those who have contact with you in “real life”. I suspect you may be beyond the point of serious self-reflection and change as this can be more difficult with age but I nevertheless would encourage you to take a good look at the way you behave on this site.

LOL.

Ok, sorry Your Honour.

Apart from being innumerate, it appears that you have very poor reasoning skills.

I believe the legal term for this is called self-righteous, hypocritical and selective bollocks.

For starters, who came on here last night trolling Curly and others about umpires?

And, who attacked me about the legal PRINCIPLE of ’wilful ignorance’? You couldn't even articulate a proper counter-argument or explain why it was wrong; you just played the condescending ”I'm the legal expert” card ”what would you know”. That is just the height of arrogance.

What you claim to do in real life is irrelevant on here Roly Poly, but with your critical thinking skills on display, no wonder our legal system is so farked.

Like I said, very hypocritical, selective and arrogant so make sure your own behaviour on here is squeaky clean before dishing out advice to others. Thanks.

Another vitriolic post heavily reliant on personal attacks.

Innumerate? - really, I made a light-hearted joke about just passing first-year stats at uni and you have since repeatedly tried, with no basis whatsoever, to generally deride me in this regard.

I'm not exactly sure what the definition of trolling is really but I hope/suspect that making a general observation like the one I made above that sought to highlight what I regarded as multiple demonstrations of the flaws in the umpiring-conspiracy line is not reasonably regarded as such. I am not sure that I can rely on your advice in relation to this.

I'm sorry if it came off as arrogant when I elected not to attempt to explain to you why wilful blindness cannot be equated to intentional conduct at law. Frankly, I thought it might seem more arrogant to set the explanation out and wondered whether the forum was the place to do so. Anyway, I now really doubt that you actually want to know.

Roly Poly - is this anything other that a schoolyard fat joke? Also, I think that my line of work (not claimed - real) and expertise can have some relevance on here when, as sometimes occurs, discussions move into areas in which the law and legal concepts can provide some guidance and rigour.

Finally, just FYI - Saintkid has also, independently, offered you the same advice about not resorting to personal attacks on the Hannebery FB post thread.

[SaintPav]

Priceless

Just like that, the conspiracy lifts...

...until we next fall on the wrong side of the poor decisions.

One decent run in 8 games. Freo game Adelaide game horrendous

Don't worry about him. Suburban solicitor doesn't understand statistical analysis and can't read a graph.

Wrong, so wrong, about the position I hold in the legal community- but no surprises there.

You have already made me regret engaging a bit more on this forum. Having not done so much over the years I am less familiar than many with the “personality” of posters. I have since gone back to have a look at a sample of your posts over recent times on various topics. The approach you have demonstrated above of attacking the person rather than the argument is prevalent.

All I can say is that I hope your SaintPav persona is where you choose to vent your negative traits and that you are capable of being a less objectionable person to those who have contact with you in “real life”. I suspect you may be beyond the point of serious self-reflection and change as this can be more difficult with age but I nevertheless would encourage you to take a good look at the way you behave on this site.

LOL.

Ok, sorry Your Honour.

Apart from being innumerate, it appears that you have very poor reasoning skills.

I believe the legal term for this is called self-righteous, hypocritical and selective bollocks.

For starters, who came on here last night trolling Curly and others about umpires?

And, who attacked me about the legal PRINCIPLE of ’wilful ignorance’? You couldn't even articulate a proper counter-argument or explain why it was wrong; you just played the condescending ”I'm the legal expert” card ”what would you know”. That is just the height of arrogance.

What you claim to do in real life is irrelevant on here Roly Poly, but with your critical thinking skills on display, no wonder our legal system is so farked.

Like I said, very hypocritical, selective and arrogant so make sure your own behaviour on here is squeaky clean before dishing out advice to others. Thanks.

Another vitriolic post heavily reliant on personal attacks.

Innumerate? - really, I made a light-hearted joke about just passing first-year stats at uni and you have since repeatedly tried, with no basis whatsoever, to generally deride me in this regard.

I'm not exactly sure what the definition of trolling is really but I hope/suspect that making a general observation like the one I made above that sought to highlight what I regarded as multiple demonstrations of the flaws in the umpiring-conspiracy line is not reasonably regarded as such. I am not sure that I can rely on your advice in relation to this.

I'm sorry if it came off as arrogant when I elected not to attempt to explain to you why wilful blindness cannot be equated to intentional conduct at law. Frankly, I thought it might seem more arrogant to set the explanation out and wondered whether the forum was the place to do so. Anyway, I now really doubt that you actually want to know.

Roly Poly - is this anything other that a schoolyard fat joke? Also, I think that my line of work (not claimed - real) and expertise can have some relevance on here when, as sometimes occurs, discussions move into areas in which the law and legal concepts can provide some guidance and rigour.

Finally, just FYI - Saintkid has also, independently, offered you the same advice about not resorting to personal attacks on the Hannebery FB post thread.

You are aware that you are guilty of the same behaviours you are accusing me of?

Can I suggest, that you or anyone else for that matter, go back and read your caustic and personal attack against me via Saynta on umpiring bias and ‘wilful ignorance’ from the other night.

AND yes, you trolled the board last night on the umpiring ‘conspiracy‘ smear.

But of course, it didn’t happen because butter just doesn’t melt in your mouth, does it?

Your one dimensional and simplistic single variate analysis using AFL tables on free kick counts to demonstrate umpiring bias is not an issue suggested statistical analysis isn’t one of your strengths. Sorry this offended you but you can appreciate that this is a point of fact, which you were at least big enough to admit to.

But, I guess it was ok for you to get personal when you attacked and disparaged my knowledge of the law and my work, which by the way, is both substantial and of a technical nature. I still think your interpretation is contestable as we hadn’t defined any parameters and if we were talking about the criminal act or corporate law (Trade Practices Act) etc, but it’s still about liability under the law.

Saintkid probably means well, but unfortunately is misinformed about a particular poster and irrelevant to our dispute here, so sorry, I don’t buy that as a valid argument.

Bygones for the playful word play on your name, and sorry it offended you.

But like I said, I reckon you are being very selective and hypocritical here, so maybe it is you that needs to self reflect.

[saynta]

Probably the best display of umpiring we have had for a very long time and maybe even the rub of the green went our way for a change.

I am sure last week's display, the subsequent publicity and dropping of at least one of the officiating umpires helped us last night.

Obviously, for a change, a very biased home crowd wasn't allowed to influence the decisions.

Kane Cornes on The Sunday Footy Show was complaining about last night's umpires and felt it was an over-correction from last week.

He highlighted several decisions that resulted in Saint's goals.

I watched a relay of the last quarter this morning and we definitely got the best of the decisions in that quarter.

Kane Cornes is an absolute flog. And his brother doing a rain dance and mouthing off to the maggots after a deliberate call when a power player stepped over the line, on purpose, I might add, is a f***wit.

Take no notice. Sour grapes is all.

[Sainter_Dad]

Kane Cornes is an absolute flog. And his brother doing a rain dance and mouthing off to the maggots after a deliberate call when a power player stepped over the line, on purpose, I might add, is a f***wit.

Take no notice. Sour grapes is all.

I wish all the PA supporters who are baying for blood regarding the last quarter umpiring look to Chad mouthing off to the Umpires - if anything is going to have an impact - this is it.

[SaintPav]

Kane Cornes is an absolute flog. And his brother doing a rain dance and mouthing off to the maggots after a deliberate call when a power player stepped over the line, on purpose, I might add, is a f***wit.

Take no notice. Sour grapes is all.

I wish all the PA supporters who are baying for blood regarding the last quarter umpiring look to Chad mouthing off to the Umpires - if anything is going to have an impact - this is it.

Was it Dorkoff who just walked it over the line? That’s deliberate every day of the week.

[saynta]

Kane Cornes is an absolute flog. And his brother doing a rain dance and mouthing off to the maggots after a deliberate call when a power player stepped over the line, on purpose, I might add, is a f***wit.

Take no notice. Sour grapes is all.

I wish all the PA supporters who are baying for blood regarding the last quarter umpiring look to Chad mouthing off to the Umpires - if anything is going to have an impact - this is it.

Was it Dorkoff who just walked it over the line? That’s deliberate every day of the week.

Not according to Kane. Flog that he is.

Anyway, the guy probably can't help it. Who the f*** in their right mind calls a kid Kane or Caine. f****** nuff nuffs.

[SaintPav]

Priceless

Just like that, the conspiracy lifts...

...until we next fall on the wrong side of the poor decisions.

One decent run in 8 games. Freo game Adelaide game horrendous

Don't worry about him. Suburban solicitor doesn't understand statistical analysis and can't read a graph.

Come across dozens of suburban solicitors during my working life. Most of them are as dumb as dog s***. The young ones, particularly the females, are a tad better but only a tad.

Trolls the board, then pleads ignorance.

Begins a dispute and attacks me (you read it) and because he can’t hack it, has a hissy fit and accuses me of behaviours he is guilty of.

Total hypocrisy that must makes you want to throw up.