Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
bergholt wrote:I thought his first touch was before the line which would make it a mark, but I was trying to eat a parma at the same time so probably didn't have the best view.
He has to complete the mark inside the field of play. That just didn't happen. It was either a point or a goal.
I thought the goal umpire said it was a point which would make the overruling a bizarre decision.
Im sorry but i think that is wrong. If he marks it in play without a fumble then going over the line is still a mark. It can only be a mark or a goal as there was no fumble.
Verdun66 wrote:The goal ump was obscured by Rooey...and then the review is done by a camera not side on. Which is of course useless. No way the guy could see that on a replay. Sadly another bit of s%&t luck for us. Not sure how the goal umpire could say it was a goal when he clearly had been blocked by Roo.
Does the benefit of the doubt go to the defending team? In Rugby it goes to the attacking team.
I beleive the umpire thought he touched or marked it on the goal line and then fumbled so he thought it was a point. the replay showed no fumble and couldnt be certain it was over the line so the mark stands.
Fair enough. Hard to tell what they were saying....
Maybe fumble is not the right word. I thought it hit his hands and went through to his chest. Which in my view is not a clean mark and the goal umpire should not be overruled.
The whole thing is a farce anyway and should be abolished.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
kosifantutti wrote:Maybe fumble is not the right word. I thought it hit his hands and went through to his chest. Which in my view is not a clean mark and the goal umpire should not be overruled.
The whole thing is a farce anyway and should be abolished.
kosifantutti wrote:Maybe fumble is not the right word. I thought it hit his hands and went through to his chest. Which in my view is not a clean mark and the goal umpire should not be overruled.
The whole thing is a farce anyway and should be abolished.
Has to leave his hands and it clearly didnt.
It bobbled around a bit. The mark was not complete until he held it after it hit his chest. Well over the line in my opinion.
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
kosifantutti wrote:Maybe fumble is not the right word. I thought it hit his hands and went through to his chest. Which in my view is not a clean mark and the goal umpire should not be overruled.
The whole thing is a farce anyway and should be abolished.
Has to leave his hands and it clearly didnt.
It bobbled around a bit. The mark was not complete until he held it after it hit his chest. Well over the line in my opinion.
SainterK wrote:Roo should of made sure if it...just saying.
Don't be embarrassed. It's a fair point, but one that applies to the team in general (with a few notable exceptions like Lenny), and has done for as long as I can remember. The "little" things (1%ers) like shepherding goals or teammates for that matter, never seem to be taught to our players. Look at the way some teams protect the kicker from the man on the mark. As were saw, they can make the difference between a goal and nothing - at both ends of the ground. Ross moved them some way in this respect, but it was still secondary to game plan which he believed would overcome such skills deficiencies. Perhaps it's just that we have had players who don't know how to do it and are unable to be taught - but I doubt it.
BringBackMadDog wrote:If there was any doubt about the score review system not working this was it. I was sittin directly side on to those goals and the mark was taken about a foot over the line. Every person around me including the Kiwis who knew stuff all about the game couldn't believe that it wasn't given a goal. If a decision this clear cant be judged correctly then the system doesn't work
Hey BBMD, how were the Kiwis? Loving the game?? Also do you know about what they thought of the saints
They loved the game, I spent a lot of time during the game explaining rules to them but they were genuinely interested.
Amusingly, they kept shouting out " come on Kilda" thinking they could leave off the St bit!!
matrix wrote:F*** me he is over the friggin line
no way the goal ump couldve seen it tho
we've all said it, one day this will cost someone a very very IMPORTANT game
I wonder how anyone can say for sure he is over the line. He marked it before he landed and was going backwards so when he landed his feet were over the line for sure but did he first touch it on the line or over it. No idea myself. the vision doesnt show he was definitely over the line IMO. SW complained about the umpiring last night so you would suggest if he thought was definitely a goal or interchange infringement wasnt there he wouldnt have mentioned that also.
kosifantutti wrote:My mistake, I must be looking at the wrong incident.
Thanks for the photo kosifantutti, clearly shows the "ball never left his hands at all".
= plugger66
Not really viking. i am still right on this. My phase was wrong though. Never bobbled away from the body and it never did. If you post a clip and see separation of the ball and the body I would be hugely surprised. It had to be a mark or goal as shown by the decision nto not give a point.
kosifantutti wrote:My mistake, I must be looking at the wrong incident.
Thanks for the photo kosifantutti, clearly shows the "ball never left his hands at all".
= plugger66
Not really viking. i am still right on this. My phase was wrong though. Never bobbled away from the body and it never did. If you post a clip and see separation of the ball and the body I would be hugely surprised. It had to be a mark or goal as shown by the decision nto not give a point.
FMD...Do you make this up as you go?
Unless he marks like a praying mantis, the ball must have separated from his hands to get to his chest.
Poor call to award a mark when he never had clean purchase until he was over the line.
Thanks for the photo kosifantutti, clearly shows the "ball never left his hands at all".
= plugger66
Not really viking. i am still right on this. My phase was wrong though. Never bobbled away from the body and it never did. If you post a clip and see separation of the ball and the body I would be hugely surprised. It had to be a mark or goal as shown by the decision nto not give a point.
FMD...Do you make this up as you go?
Unless he marks like a praying mantis, the ball must have separated from his hands to get to his chest.
Poor call to award a mark when he never had clean purchase until he was over the line.
Sorry but i didnt realise a mark had to be in the hands. they usually are obviously but it isnt a rule. get the video and tell me when the ball separates from the player because that is the only way it can be a point.
plugger66 wrote:
SW complained about the umpiring last night so you would suggest if he thought was definitely a goal or interchange infringement wasnt there he wouldnt have mentioned that also.
Wow SW complained about the umpiring.Must have been off his medication or not brought up with the game or only looking at it with one eye hey P66?
You know more about it than SW? Think we are all just whingers and blame everything on the umpires, including SW?
Maybe you should be coach, you seem to believe that everyone, and that includes the STKFC senior coach, knows little about the rules and we are just biased.
Dont ever critisise BM again about knowing more than the coaches when you pull the s.hit you did last night, only to be contradicted by the senior coach.
Lance or James??
There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, "Enough is enough." For me, that time is now. I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in <redacted>. Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a <redacted>investigation followed by <redacted> witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for <redacted>and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense. (Oops just got a spontaneous errection <unredacted>)
plugger66 wrote:
SW complained about the umpiring last night so you would suggest if he thought was definitely a goal or interchange infringement wasnt there he wouldnt have mentioned that also.
Wow SW complained about the umpiring.Must have been off his medication or not brought up with the game or only looking at it with one eye hey P66?
You know more about it than SW? Think we are all just whingers and blame everything on the umpires, including SW?
Maybe you should be coach, you seem to believe that everyone, and that includes the STKFC senior coach, knows little about the rules and we are just biased.
Dont ever critisise BM again about knowing more than the coaches when you pull the s.hit you did last night, only to be contradicted by the senior coach.
JB you love quoted to prove people are wrong but i wont bother. I will tell you as i see it and hope you read it seriously and think that I am 100% telling the truth as far as i can see it and arent trolling. Firstly SW complained about players blocking off the ball. I did not see one post last night on that and that is due to most of us watching on TV so we cant see the blocks. i did see hundreds of posts complaining about nearly every decision being wrong and the umpires are cheats because the AFl tell them to cheat. Sorry but i honestly dont think the umpires cheat and i certainly dont think the AFL tell them to cheat. before last night Sydney were near the bottom of frees so why would it just start against us?
And I didnt do any s*** last night apart disagree with people who IMO got the decisions wrong or called umpires cheats. i may not be the best umpire in the world, probably far from it, but I have done it for 25 years so have an idea about it. i dont question you on accounting because I reckon you would have a lot more idea than me on that subject. Its funny but before Mark Fine started umpiring at Ormond he thought it was an easy job but he realises how difficult it is and not because you make mistakes but when you make a decision 50% of people think you are wrong. Now he basically cuts people off his show when they abuse umpires because he thinks its a subject people know little about and its usually emotion and little logic.
Last edited by plugger66 on Fri 26 Apr 2013 4:03pm, edited 3 times in total.
Life Long Saint wrote:The ball separates from the player when it leaves his hands to hit his chest.
Thought that was obvious.
It didnt though. The ball was always touching the body of the player otherwise why wouldnt the review umpire give a point like the goal umpire originally thought it was?
= plugger66