given the amount of threads on here every week sooking about umpire decisions that were perceived as going against us, i'd say that generally the reaction would be pretty bad.Eastern wrote:How would we react if the roles were reversed? !!
Joey's winning point questioned on F.C.
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
AlpineStars
- Club Player
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006 7:44pm
- Location: Aspendale
- Contact:
-
AlpineStars
- Club Player
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Wed 05 Apr 2006 7:44pm
- Location: Aspendale
- Contact:
And the resident self appointed moralist has spoken.......plugger66 wrote:You know the rules as a mod on SS. If a non Saints person even jokingly has a crack at the saints they are losers. Please get on board. And if you dont whinge about it you the a whinger.evertonfc wrote:Absolute 100% non-event.
This forum just proves NO ONE knows anything about football......
-
kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
-
CeilidhSaint
- Club Player
- Posts: 562
- Joined: Mon 18 Sep 2006 11:00pm
- Location: The Ironically Named Victory Room
Roos it so much like Sheedy - all smoke and mirrors.
Go for the ball Jack and stop Monty's run by getting it yourself you turkey not by holding on.
It was pathetic that they even showed it and I lost respect for the show.
See ya Swans, you will be even worse next year...and showing a still of Barry's mark shows how Gardi's was far better - I think it was even uncontested in the end by the looks!!!!!!!
PS Barry Hall you are a psychopathic thug.
Go for the ball Jack and stop Monty's run by getting it yourself you turkey not by holding on.
It was pathetic that they even showed it and I lost respect for the show.
See ya Swans, you will be even worse next year...and showing a still of Barry's mark shows how Gardi's was far better - I think it was even uncontested in the end by the looks!!!!!!!
PS Barry Hall you are a psychopathic thug.
TB 1 - The Brightest Light on the Darkest Night - we miss you.
Think Globally, Act Sainterly
I have Phil Narkle's helmet
Think Globally, Act Sainterly
I have Phil Narkle's helmet
-
mad saint guy
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7088
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005 9:44pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 367 times
Who cares? Roos wasn't begging for a reversed result, just pointing out that Montagna dragged a Sydney player to the ground. If the umpire had seen it, it would have been a free kick.
If Goodes pushes one of our players over before kicking the winning point then this forum would be going crazy over their 'cheating', the AFL's corruption, conspiracy theories and how the world despises St Kilda.
I hate to run the risk of sounding like plugger, but get over it and grow up. Montagna infringed, umpire missed it and we won. No need to start attacking Paul Roos.
If Goodes pushes one of our players over before kicking the winning point then this forum would be going crazy over their 'cheating', the AFL's corruption, conspiracy theories and how the world despises St Kilda.
I hate to run the risk of sounding like plugger, but get over it and grow up. Montagna infringed, umpire missed it and we won. No need to start attacking Paul Roos.
-
Moods
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4951
- Joined: Fri 05 Jun 2009 3:05pm
- Has thanked: 343 times
- Been thanked: 497 times
Except that's not what happened at all. I could almost see Roos' point if that's what did happen. Jack illegally tried to block Joey's run at the ball, had no eyes for the ball and then grappled with Joey as he tried to make his way past to get to the ball.mad saint guy wrote:Who cares? Roos wasn't begging for a reversed result, just pointing out that Montagna dragged a Sydney player to the ground. If the umpire had seen it, it would have been a free kick.
If it had happened close to a stoppage, then Joey would have been awarded a free kick. You simply are not allowed to do that, which is what they have been cracking down on this year.
Can't you see the irony in all this. Their coach complains about an infringement that poss cost them at least a draw, when in actual fact the thing he's complaining about is actually a free kick against his own player!!
-
Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
Any respect I had for Roos has evaporated.
At best he is a sore loser.
But more likely he is a complete TOSSER.
Another Parasite from Sydney, the b@stard love-child of the afl.
At best he is a sore loser.
But more likely he is a complete TOSSER.
Another Parasite from Sydney, the b@stard love-child of the afl.
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!
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
Precisely. All this from a coach that caused another change to the rule book with the interchange nonsense and the questionable actions behind goals. Still silence from the AFL. And what about the ridiculous size of the ground? The 50 metre arc and the centre squre nearly intersect!Spinner wrote:Is this from the same team and coach that won/drew with 19 players?
I'm livin' in a madhouse
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12799
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 812 times
- Been thanked: 434 times
I thought that the SCG was only 145 metres long?westy wrote:Precisely. All this from a coach that caused another change to the rule book with the interchange nonsense and the questionable actions behind goals. Still silence from the AFL. And what about the ridiculous size of the ground? The 50 metre arc and the centre squre nearly intersect!Spinner wrote:Is this from the same team and coach that won/drew with 19 players?
If that's correct, then how do the 50m arcs not intersect the 50m square?
the ground's now a tad longer with the new stand......Mr Magic wrote:I thought that the SCG was only 145 metres long?westy wrote:Precisely. All this from a coach that caused another change to the rule book with the interchange nonsense and the questionable actions behind goals. Still silence from the AFL. And what about the ridiculous size of the ground? The 50 metre arc and the centre squre nearly intersect!Spinner wrote:Is this from the same team and coach that won/drew with 19 players?
If that's correct, then how do the 50m arcs not intersect the 50m square?
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
-
Sainter_Dad
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6348
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 263 times
- Been thanked: 1129 times
-
perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9054
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 353 times
According to the SCG site: http://www.scgt.nsw.gov.au/SCG-Field.html , the AFL goal to goal playing surface is 151.6 metres long. On the other hand, the same site says that the radius of the arc is 45m. I think this is incorrect. My observations on Saturday night seemed to confirm this. The arc is 50m and there is a small distance (less than a metre) between arc and square.Mr Magic wrote:...I thought that the SCG was only 145 metres long?
If that's correct, then how do the 50m arcs not intersect the 50m square?
-
Mr Magic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12799
- Joined: Fri 04 May 2007 9:38am
- Has thanked: 812 times
- Been thanked: 434 times
Thanks.perfectionist wrote:According to the SCG site: http://www.scgt.nsw.gov.au/SCG-Field.html , the AFL goal to goal playing surface is 151.6 metres long. On the other hand, the same site says that the radius of the arc is 45m. I think this is incorrect. My observations on Saturday night seemed to confirm this. The arc is 50m and there is a small distance (less than a metre) between arc and square.Mr Magic wrote:...I thought that the SCG was only 145 metres long?
If that's correct, then how do the 50m arcs not intersect the 50m square?
-
SydneySainter
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2428
- Joined: Sat 26 May 2007 6:59pm
- Has thanked: 54 times
- Been thanked: 160 times
Look, after watching the replay, there didn't look to me that there was much in the incident. As far as I can tell, it was a battle of strength that Joey won. In my eyes, Joeys was being blocked and he pushed Jack out of the contest, front on which last time I checked was play on, but after the Darren Glass incident, a don't even know what the rules are. Either way, what Joey did, hardly a new tactic in football!
But if the ball had been off the other foot, I would have swayed with the "we were robbed" party, but that's just the biased supporter in me. The majority of Swan fans will feel they were robbed and majority of us feel that it was fair and play on.
It was a one point victory, every action from every player and every umpire gets put under the microscope and the losing party will always find something that suggests they were robbed, while the winning party always finds something that should have paid been in there favor anyway that makes the loser's argument redundant. Eg, Jesse White's goal that gave them the lead when in fact the ball came off Roo's body when Bolton took his hands out of the contest, not fisted away as originally thought! I even think the BJ free was technical but pretty soft, but so was the Raph tackle that was paid a free against and setup another Swan goal.
Would have, should have, could have. For every argument they have, we have an answer!
But if the ball had been off the other foot, I would have swayed with the "we were robbed" party, but that's just the biased supporter in me. The majority of Swan fans will feel they were robbed and majority of us feel that it was fair and play on.
It was a one point victory, every action from every player and every umpire gets put under the microscope and the losing party will always find something that suggests they were robbed, while the winning party always finds something that should have paid been in there favor anyway that makes the loser's argument redundant. Eg, Jesse White's goal that gave them the lead when in fact the ball came off Roo's body when Bolton took his hands out of the contest, not fisted away as originally thought! I even think the BJ free was technical but pretty soft, but so was the Raph tackle that was paid a free against and setup another Swan goal.
Would have, should have, could have. For every argument they have, we have an answer!
Bad management is bad management
-
Thinline
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
Blaming a fifty/fifty contest 25 seconds from the death of a two hour game is kinda ridiculous...
For mine Roos/Swans fans would be better served venting their spleen at Michael O'Loughlin for choking and missing an absolute dolly ...
Equally, Kosi and Goddard should/could have put the game beyond doubt with their relatively kickable shots going astray.
Que sara sara, Swannies.
It's a long time you'll be gone, too.
Poor you.
For mine Roos/Swans fans would be better served venting their spleen at Michael O'Loughlin for choking and missing an absolute dolly ...
Equally, Kosi and Goddard should/could have put the game beyond doubt with their relatively kickable shots going astray.
Que sara sara, Swannies.
It's a long time you'll be gone, too.
Poor you.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
I have no respect for Paul Roos.
he pushes the limit of the rules.
the 19 man rule was brought in to deal with his deliberate fouling of the rules to switch players on.
the runner rule was brought in because of his use of runners to block up space.
His defence of snipers like Hall is a joke.
Roos use of taggers is legendary, they will do anything inside and outside the rules to retard the opposition.
Yes he is a good coach, yes he is a premiership coach, but anyone who believes he is anything but a bald face liar is naive.
He is charming, he is intelligent but he is NOT trustworthy. he is a dishonest snake.
he pushes the limit of the rules.
the 19 man rule was brought in to deal with his deliberate fouling of the rules to switch players on.
the runner rule was brought in because of his use of runners to block up space.
His defence of snipers like Hall is a joke.
Roos use of taggers is legendary, they will do anything inside and outside the rules to retard the opposition.
Yes he is a good coach, yes he is a premiership coach, but anyone who believes he is anything but a bald face liar is naive.
He is charming, he is intelligent but he is NOT trustworthy. he is a dishonest snake.
Bewaire krime, da krimson bolt is comeing to yure nayborhood to smach krime
SHUT UP KRIME!
SHUT UP KRIME!