The Difference
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8395
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 140 times
- Been thanked: 1174 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10517
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1345 times
Re: The Difference
Yep and if it happened against us The Dud would post it was stupid by our player.D.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:17pm50 every day of the week, obviously wrong.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 5:50pm I personally agree with Curly on the Marshall 50m. He took the mark, stopped and then was cannoned into the back late and put to ground.
That’s 50m every day of the week in every interpretation.
That would have been a goal from the square and possibly the difference
Webster kicking the ball out of bounds, also a blatant free kick not paid.
What about the soft free to Marshall for the goal, that gets ignored 99 times out of 100.
Imagine the crack pots Curly and Saynta bleating about the Marshall free if it went the other way?
At least it’s actually a rule.
The Port player that rushed the behind was as much a free as Websters
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- D.B.Cooper
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Sun 24 Oct 2021 5:50pm
- Has thanked: 793 times
- Been thanked: 757 times
Re: The Difference
And there you have it Curly, at least you have finally admitted the umpires get them wrong both ways.CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:27pmYep and if it happened against us The Dud would post it was stupid by our player.D.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:17pm50 every day of the week, obviously wrong.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 5:50pm I personally agree with Curly on the Marshall 50m. He took the mark, stopped and then was cannoned into the back late and put to ground.
That’s 50m every day of the week in every interpretation.
That would have been a goal from the square and possibly the difference
Webster kicking the ball out of bounds, also a blatant free kick not paid.
What about the soft free to Marshall for the goal, that gets ignored 99 times out of 100.
Imagine the crack pots Curly and Saynta bleating about the Marshall free if it went the other way?
At least it’s actually a rule.
The Port player that rushed the behind was as much a free as Websters
Now tell me, we had a 30/16 count against Collingwood this year and the sealer was kicked by Higgins while he was out of bounds in front of 3 umpires.
Why did the umpires BLATANTLY CHEAT for us that game?
Were they instructed by the AFL or did they take it upon themselves to blatantly cheat for us?
There's only one rule in the jungle! When the LYON's hungry, he eats!
- The Fireman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13330
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
- Has thanked: 680 times
- Been thanked: 1966 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10517
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1345 times
Re: The Difference
D.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:31pmAnd there you have it Curly, at least you have finally admitted the umpires get them wrong both ways.CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:27pmYep and if it happened against us The Dud would post it was stupid by our player.D.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:17pm50 every day of the week, obviously wrong.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 5:50pm I personally agree with Curly on the Marshall 50m. He took the mark, stopped and then was cannoned into the back late and put to ground.
That’s 50m every day of the week in every interpretation.
That would have been a goal from the square and possibly the difference
Webster kicking the ball out of bounds, also a blatant free kick not paid.
What about the soft free to Marshall for the goal, that gets ignored 99 times out of 100.
Imagine the crack pots Curly and Saynta bleating about the Marshall free if it went the other way?
At least it’s actually a rule.
The Port player that rushed the behind was as much a free as Websters
Now tell me, we had a 30/16 count against Collingwood this year and the sealer was kicked by Higgins while he was out of bounds in front of 3 umpires.
Why did the umpires BLATANTLY CHEAT for us that game?
Were they instructed by the AFL or did they take it upon themselves to blatantly cheat for us?
So how do they miss the two most blatant calls for the game?
Mindset that’s how.
What was the comment about Collingwood by Buckley. Collingwood players know they can push the boundaries that’s why they win close games.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
Re: The Difference
For the effort put in in the face of The Wharfies clearance and feed and run advantage the result was directly impacted by the decisions highlighted at the open to this thread - all of which were most obviously the fact.
The response of those present at the ground was testament - even acknowledging the sparse attendance.
Simply, St Kilda did not get the rub of the green and not by any length.
When the margin is what it was these decisions or non decisions are critical.
In regard the 5 metre kick, Hill immediately remonstrated either by pointing out the distance of the scrambled kick or that Hill had touched it off the boot, the gesticulation to the Umpire what it was and could have referred to either.
If you are watching on TV you do not see these things.
One statement I will put is that the constant opinion that Marshall can not play forward by a certain "character" on this forum, refuted by me has its answer today.
The difficulty of taking contested marks in the F50 was laid bare by King, noting King is going to ground in the contest just too easily and otherwise seems to lack confidence (so knee or shoulder?)
The positive today was the defensive structure with Wanganeen-Milera (but he needs goal kicking to add a dimension, aka Gram), Shoenmaker and Caminiti, so kids.
Add Howard and we will see because he will add experience and voice.
The other interesting observation is Ross, noting the stats of Phillipou today so pressing.
Thru these later rounds, the season can catch up with some of the kids who need another pre-season.
And, of course, Crouch is still missing.
Sinclair (hmmm!!!) started in defence, then interchanging with Clark
The response of those present at the ground was testament - even acknowledging the sparse attendance.
Simply, St Kilda did not get the rub of the green and not by any length.
When the margin is what it was these decisions or non decisions are critical.
In regard the 5 metre kick, Hill immediately remonstrated either by pointing out the distance of the scrambled kick or that Hill had touched it off the boot, the gesticulation to the Umpire what it was and could have referred to either.
If you are watching on TV you do not see these things.
One statement I will put is that the constant opinion that Marshall can not play forward by a certain "character" on this forum, refuted by me has its answer today.
The difficulty of taking contested marks in the F50 was laid bare by King, noting King is going to ground in the contest just too easily and otherwise seems to lack confidence (so knee or shoulder?)
The positive today was the defensive structure with Wanganeen-Milera (but he needs goal kicking to add a dimension, aka Gram), Shoenmaker and Caminiti, so kids.
Add Howard and we will see because he will add experience and voice.
The other interesting observation is Ross, noting the stats of Phillipou today so pressing.
Thru these later rounds, the season can catch up with some of the kids who need another pre-season.
And, of course, Crouch is still missing.
Sinclair (hmmm!!!) started in defence, then interchanging with Clark
- D.B.Cooper
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Sun 24 Oct 2021 5:50pm
- Has thanked: 793 times
- Been thanked: 757 times
Re: The Difference
Again you ignore the question Curly....CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:39pmD.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:31pmAnd there you have it Curly, at least you have finally admitted the umpires get them wrong both ways.CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:27pmYep and if it happened against us The Dud would post it was stupid by our player.D.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:17pm50 every day of the week, obviously wrong.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 5:50pm I personally agree with Curly on the Marshall 50m. He took the mark, stopped and then was cannoned into the back late and put to ground.
That’s 50m every day of the week in every interpretation.
That would have been a goal from the square and possibly the difference
Webster kicking the ball out of bounds, also a blatant free kick not paid.
What about the soft free to Marshall for the goal, that gets ignored 99 times out of 100.
Imagine the crack pots Curly and Saynta bleating about the Marshall free if it went the other way?
At least it’s actually a rule.
The Port player that rushed the behind was as much a free as Websters
Now tell me, we had a 30/16 count against Collingwood this year and the sealer was kicked by Higgins while he was out of bounds in front of 3 umpires.
Why did the umpires BLATANTLY CHEAT for us that game?
Were they instructed by the AFL or did they take it upon themselves to blatantly cheat for us?
So how do they miss the two most blatant calls for the game?
Mindset that’s how.
What was the comment about Collingwood by Buckley. Collingwood players know they can push the boundaries that’s why they win close games.
Why did the umpires BLATANTLY CHEAT for us that game?
There's only one rule in the jungle! When the LYON's hungry, he eats!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10517
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1345 times
Re: The Difference
Why are suggesting they cheated?D.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:52pmAgain you ignore the question Curly....CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:39pmD.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:31pmAnd there you have it Curly, at least you have finally admitted the umpires get them wrong both ways.CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:27pmYep and if it happened against us The Dud would post it was stupid by our player.D.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:17pm50 every day of the week, obviously wrong.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 5:50pm I personally agree with Curly on the Marshall 50m. He took the mark, stopped and then was cannoned into the back late and put to ground.
That’s 50m every day of the week in every interpretation.
That would have been a goal from the square and possibly the difference
Webster kicking the ball out of bounds, also a blatant free kick not paid.
What about the soft free to Marshall for the goal, that gets ignored 99 times out of 100.
Imagine the crack pots Curly and Saynta bleating about the Marshall free if it went the other way?
At least it’s actually a rule.
The Port player that rushed the behind was as much a free as Websters
Now tell me, we had a 30/16 count against Collingwood this year and the sealer was kicked by Higgins while he was out of bounds in front of 3 umpires.
Why did the umpires BLATANTLY CHEAT for us that game?
Were they instructed by the AFL or did they take it upon themselves to blatantly cheat for us?
So how do they miss the two most blatant calls for the game?
Mindset that’s how.
What was the comment about Collingwood by Buckley. Collingwood players know they can push the boundaries that’s why they win close games.
Why did the umpires BLATANTLY CHEAT for us that game?
Can’t remember Collingwood supporters stating that other than a missed out of bounds on an almost impossible angle. Hardly an umpire gifting us a goal
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6348
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 263 times
- Been thanked: 1129 times
Re: The Difference
They are extrapolating your opinion that the Umpires cheat every time the count goes against us and by using a flawed assumption state that if the free kick count goes in our favour that the Umpires must be cheating for us.
They are not considering your individual accusations of blatant errors - you call it cheating - I call it incompetence - but Potato / Tomato
As Collingwood lost the count - it must have been that the Umpires cheated FOR us - as we won.
“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
- The Fireman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13330
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:54pm
- Has thanked: 680 times
- Been thanked: 1966 times
Re: The Difference
LOL at Saint dad for trying to reason with curlySainter_Dad wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 7:09pmThey are extrapolating your opinion that the Umpires cheat every time the count goes against us and by using a flawed assumption state that if the free kick count goes in our favour that the Umpires must be cheating for us.
They are not considering your individual accusations of blatant errors - you call it cheating - I call it incompetence - but Potato / Tomato
As Collingwood lost the count - it must have been that the Umpires cheated FOR us - as we won.
- Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6348
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 263 times
- Been thanked: 1129 times
Re: The Difference
Just trying to make sense of this crazy mixed up world.The Fireman wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 7:17pmLOL at Saint dad for trying to reason with curlySainter_Dad wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 7:09pmThey are extrapolating your opinion that the Umpires cheat every time the count goes against us and by using a flawed assumption state that if the free kick count goes in our favour that the Umpires must be cheating for us.
They are not considering your individual accusations of blatant errors - you call it cheating - I call it incompetence - but Potato / Tomato
As Collingwood lost the count - it must have been that the Umpires cheated FOR us - as we won.
“Youth ages, immaturity is outgrown, ignorance can be educated, and drunkenness sobered, but stupid lasts forever.”
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
― Aristophanes
If you have a Bee in your Bonnet - I can assist you with that - but it WILL involve some smacking upside the head!
Re: The Difference
The free kick count in any game is what it is and irrelevant
Where the AFL has its problem is the inconsistency of umpiring including during a game
And I would put that the inconsistencies exist courtesy of the narrative of the AFL including in regard decisions which would have seen a different result in particular games
That those inconsistencies appear to favour certain higher profile Clubs and certain higher profile players appears to be the fact
Some Clubs and some players are more relevant than others across the competition
And THAT is the competition, unfortunately
No doubt, St Kilda does not have a high profile within the AFL and equally, none of its players have a high profile within the AFL
St Kilda get nothing based on reputation and name
And THAT is the problem St Kilda have
The Club’s President and those he presides over are in the process of correcting this and making St Kilda and its players relevant
Where the AFL has its problem is the inconsistency of umpiring including during a game
And I would put that the inconsistencies exist courtesy of the narrative of the AFL including in regard decisions which would have seen a different result in particular games
That those inconsistencies appear to favour certain higher profile Clubs and certain higher profile players appears to be the fact
Some Clubs and some players are more relevant than others across the competition
And THAT is the competition, unfortunately
No doubt, St Kilda does not have a high profile within the AFL and equally, none of its players have a high profile within the AFL
St Kilda get nothing based on reputation and name
And THAT is the problem St Kilda have
The Club’s President and those he presides over are in the process of correcting this and making St Kilda and its players relevant
- D.B.Cooper
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Sun 24 Oct 2021 5:50pm
- Has thanked: 793 times
- Been thanked: 757 times
Re: The Difference
Sainter Dad being the fun police, by rationalizing the post.Sainter_Dad wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 7:09pmThey are extrapolating your opinion that the Umpires cheat every time the count goes against us and by using a flawed assumption state that if the free kick count goes in our favour that the Umpires must be cheating for us.
They are not considering your individual accusations of blatant errors - you call it cheating - I call it incompetence - but Potato / Tomato
As Collingwood lost the count - it must have been that the Umpires cheated FOR us - as we won.
I did chuckle at Curly’s response that he can’t recall the Collingwood fans stating the umpires cheated as if this is the type of comment rational fans make
News flash Curly, other than you (and maybe saynta) few other Saints fans think the Umpires cheat either.
As aptly detailed by SD, if we had a 30/16 negative count and the sealer kicked from out of bounds it would have been ‘blatant umpire cheating’ sanctioned by the AFL.
When it goes the other way there’s nothing to see here.
Curly
There's only one rule in the jungle! When the LYON's hungry, he eats!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10517
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1345 times
Re: The Difference
D.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 8:12pmSainter Dad being the fun police, by rationalizing the post.Sainter_Dad wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 7:09pmThey are extrapolating your opinion that the Umpires cheat every time the count goes against us and by using a flawed assumption state that if the free kick count goes in our favour that the Umpires must be cheating for us.
They are not considering your individual accusations of blatant errors - you call it cheating - I call it incompetence - but Potato / Tomato
As Collingwood lost the count - it must have been that the Umpires cheated FOR us - as we won.
I did chuckle at Curly’s response that he can’t recall the Collingwood fans stating the umpires cheated as if this is the type of comment rational fans make
News flash Curly, other than you (and maybe saynta) few other Saints fans think the Umpires cheat either.
As aptly detailed by SD, if we had a 30/16 negative count and the sealer kicked from out of bounds it would have been ‘blatant umpire cheating’ sanctioned by the AFL.
When it goes the other way there’s nothing to see here.
Curly
As I am well aware you hatched from an egg more than a couple of weeks ago I know you saw the North v Collingwood game.
A game decided by a horrendous umpiring decision and one that was indefensible. Not one expert or commentator in any form said the umpires were right.
North should have won.
AFL comes out said they were ok with it.
Why and how?
It suited them Collingwood win so nothing to see.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- D.B.Cooper
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Sun 24 Oct 2021 5:50pm
- Has thanked: 793 times
- Been thanked: 757 times
Re: The Difference
Irrelevant comment again Curly.CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 8:23pmD.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 8:12pmSainter Dad being the fun police, by rationalizing the post.Sainter_Dad wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 7:09pmThey are extrapolating your opinion that the Umpires cheat every time the count goes against us and by using a flawed assumption state that if the free kick count goes in our favour that the Umpires must be cheating for us.
They are not considering your individual accusations of blatant errors - you call it cheating - I call it incompetence - but Potato / Tomato
As Collingwood lost the count - it must have been that the Umpires cheated FOR us - as we won.
I did chuckle at Curly’s response that he can’t recall the Collingwood fans stating the umpires cheated as if this is the type of comment rational fans make
News flash Curly, other than you (and maybe saynta) few other Saints fans think the Umpires cheat either.
As aptly detailed by SD, if we had a 30/16 negative count and the sealer kicked from out of bounds it would have been ‘blatant umpire cheating’ sanctioned by the AFL.
When it goes the other way there’s nothing to see here.
Curly
As I am well aware you hatched from an egg more than a couple of weeks ago I know you saw the North v Collingwood game.
A game decided by a horrendous umpiring decision and one that was indefensible. Not one expert or commentator in any form said the umpires were right.
North should have won.
AFL comes out said they were ok with it.
Why and how?
It suited them Collingwood win so nothing to see.
Just admit the facts, if the free kick count was 30/16 against us and the deciding goal was kicked from out of bounds you'd have called it blatant cheating by the umpires, however when it goes our way there's nothing to see here and you babble like an 80YO dementia patient
There's only one rule in the jungle! When the LYON's hungry, he eats!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10517
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1345 times
Re: The Difference
Goals from frees missed 50’s and as I’ve posted when the umpires set the tone for frees are more important. Today I prime example HTB against Battle a minute later Alir caught hands free ball up.D.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 8:39pmIrrelevant comment again Curly.CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 8:23pmD.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 8:12pmSainter Dad being the fun police, by rationalizing the post.Sainter_Dad wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 7:09pmThey are extrapolating your opinion that the Umpires cheat every time the count goes against us and by using a flawed assumption state that if the free kick count goes in our favour that the Umpires must be cheating for us.
They are not considering your individual accusations of blatant errors - you call it cheating - I call it incompetence - but Potato / Tomato
As Collingwood lost the count - it must have been that the Umpires cheated FOR us - as we won.
I did chuckle at Curly’s response that he can’t recall the Collingwood fans stating the umpires cheated as if this is the type of comment rational fans make
News flash Curly, other than you (and maybe saynta) few other Saints fans think the Umpires cheat either.
As aptly detailed by SD, if we had a 30/16 negative count and the sealer kicked from out of bounds it would have been ‘blatant umpire cheating’ sanctioned by the AFL.
When it goes the other way there’s nothing to see here.
Curly
As I am well aware you hatched from an egg more than a couple of weeks ago I know you saw the North v Collingwood game.
A game decided by a horrendous umpiring decision and one that was indefensible. Not one expert or commentator in any form said the umpires were right.
North should have won.
AFL comes out said they were ok with it.
Why and how?
It suited them Collingwood win so nothing to see.
Just admit the facts, if the free kick count was 30/16 against us and the deciding goal was kicked from out of bounds you'd have called it blatant cheating by the umpires, however when it goes our way there's nothing to see here and you babble like an 80YO dementia patient
Collingwood game as I’ve said a missed out of bounds and a freakish snap is hardly biased.
Missing frees like Butlers and Marshall’s non 50 is cheating.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- King Max
- Club Player
- Posts: 697
- Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2018 11:37am
- Has thanked: 123 times
- Been thanked: 258 times
Re: The Difference
The reason that free never gets paid is because almost nobody is stupid enough to do that.D.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:17pm
What about the soft free to Marshall for the goal, that gets ignored 99 times out of 100.
Imagine the crack pots Curly and Saynta bleating about the Marshall free if it went the other way?
People claiming it happens all the time but nobody ever comes up with an example.
- The_Dud
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14061
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007 9:53pm
- Location: Bendigo
- Has thanked: 1315 times
- Been thanked: 2094 times
Re: The Difference
Just imagine, one week complaining that Windy standing 5m over the mark is not a 50 and should be a warning, then the next week saying a player getting up off the ground handing the ball to a teammate is a 100% legit free and goal and nothing to see here
Absolute clown show!
Absolute clown show!
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
- King Max
- Club Player
- Posts: 697
- Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2018 11:37am
- Has thanked: 123 times
- Been thanked: 258 times
Re: The Difference
No doubt you have numerous examples of that free to Marshall not being paid.The_Dud wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 9:11pm Just imagine, one week complaining that Windy standing 5m over the mark is not a 50 and should be a warning, then the next week saying a player getting up off the ground handing the ball to a teammate is a 100% legit free and goal and nothing to see here
Absolute clown show!
- The_Dud
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14061
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007 9:53pm
- Location: Bendigo
- Has thanked: 1315 times
- Been thanked: 2094 times
Re: The Difference
I think you’re missing the point!King Max wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 9:18pmNo doubt you have numerous examples of that free to Marshall not being paid.The_Dud wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 9:11pm Just imagine, one week complaining that Windy standing 5m over the mark is not a 50 and should be a warning, then the next week saying a player getting up off the ground handing the ball to a teammate is a 100% legit free and goal and nothing to see here
Absolute clown show!
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10517
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1345 times
Re: The Difference
His point is this. StKilda player gets no prior gets tackled holding the ball.
The Dud ~ So stupid the players so slow no awareness
Opposition player takes a bounces gets tackled swung 3 times then goes to ground umpire ball up.
The Dud - umpires can’t see everything
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10517
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1345 times
Re: The Difference
Yet today they allowed a bloke to cannon into a blokes back after taking a mark no 50.The_Dud wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 9:11pm Just imagine, one week complaining that Windy standing 5m over the mark is not a 50 and should be a warning, then the next week saying a player getting up off the ground handing the ball to a teammate is a 100% legit free and goal and nothing to see here
Absolute clown show!
Steele taking a mark on the wing the umpire then tells the Port player come back not 1 but 3 meters no 50
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1271
- Joined: Fri 22 Mar 2019 10:46pm
- Has thanked: 576 times
- Been thanked: 403 times
Re: The Difference
Yes, umps cheated...everyone thinks Pues are CüNTsD.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:31pmAnd there you have it Curly, at least you have finally admitted the umpires get them wrong both ways.CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:27pmYep and if it happened against us The Dud would post it was stupid by our player.D.B.Cooper wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 6:17pm50 every day of the week, obviously wrong.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 5:50pm I personally agree with Curly on the Marshall 50m. He took the mark, stopped and then was cannoned into the back late and put to ground.
That’s 50m every day of the week in every interpretation.
That would have been a goal from the square and possibly the difference
Webster kicking the ball out of bounds, also a blatant free kick not paid.
What about the soft free to Marshall for the goal, that gets ignored 99 times out of 100.
Imagine the crack pots Curly and Saynta bleating about the Marshall free if it went the other way?
At least it’s actually a rule.
The Port player that rushed the behind was as much a free as Websters
Now tell me, we had a 30/16 count against Collingwood this year and the sealer was kicked by Higgins while he was out of bounds in front of 3 umpires.
Why did the umpires BLATANTLY CHEAT for us that game?
Were they instructed by the AFL or did they take it upon themselves to blatantly cheat for us?
- D.B.Cooper
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Sun 24 Oct 2021 5:50pm
- Has thanked: 793 times
- Been thanked: 757 times
Re: The Difference
The best part of Curly’s mind boggling stupidity, is when a poor decision happens against us it’s blatant cheating, yet when we are the beneficiary like against Collingwood there’s nothing to see here.CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 10:15pmYet today they allowed a bloke to cannon into a blokes back after taking a mark no 50.The_Dud wrote: ↑Sun 30 Jun 2024 9:11pm Just imagine, one week complaining that Windy standing 5m over the mark is not a 50 and should be a warning, then the next week saying a player getting up off the ground handing the ball to a teammate is a 100% legit free and goal and nothing to see here
Absolute clown show!
Steele taking a mark on the wing the umpire then tells the Port player come back not 1 but 3 meters no 50
There's only one rule in the jungle! When the LYON's hungry, he eats!