Dougal Howard's point.

[CURLY]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Wrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.

Didn’t change direction was tackled no free.

[Joffa Burns]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Wrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.

Didn’t change direction was tackled no free.

You need to learn the basics of the game Curly, you clearly do not understand the rules or the game at all.

Your interpretation of the rules are like an immigrant who has never played or watched a match.

[CURLY]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Wrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.

Didn’t change direction was tackled no free.

You need to learn the basics of the game Curly, you clearly do not understand the rules or the game at all.

Your interpretation of the rules are like an immigrant who has never played or watched a match.

It’s the rule.

[Joffa Burns]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Wrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.

Didn’t change direction was tackled no free.

You need to learn the basics of the game Curly, you clearly do not understand the rules or the game at all.

Your interpretation of the rules are like an immigrant who has never played or watched a match.

It’s the rule.

Curly knows football

[CURLY]

Go ask a umpire what the actual rule is.

[Joffa Burns]

Go ask aN umpire what the actual rule is.

An AFL umpire adjudicated the decision and correctly paid a free kick.
Wrong AGAIN Curly!

But Curly knows Football

Perhaps it was an AFL conspiracy against the Saints?
Or was it the umpires cheating again?

[CURLY]

Go ask aN umpire what the actual rule is.

An AFL umpire adjudicated the decision and correctly paid a free kick.
Wrong AGAIN Curly!

But Curly knows Football

Perhaps it was an AFL conspiracy against the Saints?
Or was it the umpires cheating again?

An AFL umpire also awarded Hawkins a goal in the 2009 GF. Therefore if the ball hits the post it’s a goal.

Cheers Oracle

[Joffa Burns]

Go ask aN umpire what the actual rule is.

An AFL umpire adjudicated the decision and correctly paid a free kick.
Wrong AGAIN Curly!

But Curly knows Football

Perhaps it was an AFL conspiracy against the Saints?
Or was it the umpires cheating again?

An AFL umpire also awarded Hawkins a goal in the 2009 GF. Therefore if the ball hits the post it’s a goal.

Cheers Oracle

Again your lack of understanding of football and insistence to quote this ridiculous scenario only perpetuates your stupidity.

The Hawkins goal was clearly a mistake, widely acknowledged and one of the catalysts for the introduction of camera technology and validation replays after goals.

Your total lack of comprehension for football and the rules of the game makes you resort to ludicrous comparisons to attempt to validate your position, regardless of how foolish and inaccurate your belief is.

But keep up the good work, I am getting great entertainment from you.

[CURLY]

No you said a AFL umpire made the decision so it has to be correct. Umpires clearly make mistakes.

[Ghost Like]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Wrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.

Didn’t change direction was tackled no free.

You need to learn the basics of the game Curly, you clearly do not understand the rules or the game at all.

Your interpretation of the rules are like an immigrant who has never played or watched a match.

It’s the rule.

It's the rule, it's the vibe...it's still not written anywhere.

[Joffa Burns]

No you said a AFL umpire made the decision so it has to be correct. Umpires clearly make mistakes.

No I did not, again that is you imbecilic view which is your perception of reality.

Do not forget I am the ‘soul’ voice of this forum!

[Joffa Burns]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Wrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.

Didn’t change direction was tackled no free.

You need to learn the basics of the game Curly, you clearly do not understand the rules or the game at all.

Your interpretation of the rules are like an immigrant who has never played or watched a match.

It’s the rule.

It's the rule, it's the vibe...it's still not written anywhere.

As George Costanza said, “it is not a lie if you truly believe”. I’m afraid Curly is so challenged he actually believes his own bulls***.

[avid]

Sitting right on front of it, I thought he handballed it so it would just hang and drop down, but it kept going to the boundary due to the momentum of the push from behind by the tackler.
Hoping it might go over the line is not the same as deliberately making it go over.
From my angle it looked like he deliberately tapped it so it wouldn't necessarily go over the line -- so it might stay in.

So no free kick.
And if the umpire wasn't in a position to see any of this, then benefit of the doubt and double no free kick.

[MickThomas]

Sitting right on front of it, I thought he handballed it so it would just hang and drop down, but it kept going to the boundary due to the momentum of the push from behind by the tackler.
Hoping it might go over the line is not the same as deliberately making it go over.
From my angle it looked like he deliberately tapped it so it wouldn't necessarily go over the line -- so it might stay in.

So no free kick.
And if the umpire wasn't in a position to see any of this, then benefit of the doubt and double no free kick.

Wow, you actually got inside Dougal's head to analyse his thought processes that occurred in a fraction of a second.

[realdeal]

If an opposition player did the same thing against us id expect us to get the free kick.
The fact is that Howard gave the umpire the opportunity to pay deliberate. Do the same thing over the goal line or just fumble it over the boundary line and there'd be no problem.

But yeah, umpiring was atrocious and Ratts was correct in saying what he said, we kick straight and they're probably a non issue.

[Sainter_Dad]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Bemarrassing = Bemusing and Embarrassing.

[CURLY]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Bemarrassing = Bemusing and Embarrassing.

At a umpiring seminar we attended deliberate was a topic. One of the examples shown was similar to Howard’s. Most people automatically said deliberate. The guy then informed us that it was actually not. Reason given he didn’t change his line to get the ball out. He has to dispose of the ball once tackled.

[Ghost Like]

Sitting right on front of it, I thought he handballed it so it would just hang and drop down, but it kept going to the boundary due to the momentum of the push from behind by the tackler.
Hoping it might go over the line is not the same as deliberately making it go over.
From my angle it looked like he deliberately tapped it so it wouldn't necessarily go over the line -- so it might stay in.

So no free kick.
And if the umpire wasn't in a position to see any of this, then benefit of the doubt and double no free kick.

Sounds like insufficient attempt to keep the ball in play = Free kick
Could / should have added 50 for stupidity.

[Joffa Burns]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Bemarrassing = Bemusing and Embarrassing.

At a umpiring seminar we attended deliberate was a topic. One of the examples shown was similar to Howard’s. Most people automatically said deliberate. The guy then informed us that it was actually not. Reason given he didn’t change his line to get the ball out. He has to dispose of the ball once tackled.

At some point in time you may realize that your reference is your interpretation and your reality, but given your lack of footy knowledge and game awareness that your reality is not factual or accurate.

This belief is most likely the reason you write such emotive ridiculous comments through the match day threads about umpires cheating, the AFL conspiracy against the Saints and how straight forward frees against the Saints are all incorrect due to some bizarre rule logic that only you comprehend.

Keep up the good work, reading your posts is extremely entertaining

[CURLY]

Oracle do you think your offending me with your childish repetitive comments about my football knowledge.
Actually behaving like a child.

[Joffa Burns]

Oracle do you think your offending me with your childish repetitive comments about my football knowledge.
Actually behaving like a child.

Offend?

I'm not attempting to offend you Curly, I am sincerely sorry of that is what you think.

I am merely trying to assist you in opening your eyes to the fact that your interpretation to rules and the game is wildly inaccurate and this is probably the main reason you write such bizarre emotive posts during the match game thread like that umpires are cheats and the AFL is conspiring against St Kilda and you make up statements about what others have written.

I want to help you understand these ramblings are not of a sane mind and help you see the light

[Ghost Like]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Bemarrassing = Bemusing and Embarrassing.

At a umpiring seminar we attended deliberate was a topic. One of the examples shown was similar to Howard’s. Most people automatically said deliberate. The guy then informed us that it was actually not. Reason given he didn’t change his line to get the ball out. He has to dispose of the ball once tackled.

At this seminar did "the guy" actually give you a reference point to the rules before the kool aid was served?

[Joffa Burns]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Bemarrassing = Bemusing and Embarrassing.

At a umpiring seminar we attended deliberate was a topic. One of the examples shown was similar to Howard’s. Most people automatically said deliberate. The guy then informed us that it was actually not. Reason given he didn’t change his line to get the ball out. He has to dispose of the ball once tackled.

At this seminar did "the guy" actually give you a reference point to the rules before the kool aid was served?

Curly at an umpires seminar

Did he stand up and yell cheats?
This is a conspiracy?

Hope the umps checked their cars for explosive devices on their exit.

[CURLY]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Bemarrassing = Bemusing and Embarrassing.

At a umpiring seminar we attended deliberate was a topic. One of the examples shown was similar to Howard’s. Most people automatically said deliberate. The guy then informed us that it was actually not. Reason given he didn’t change his line to get the ball out. He has to dispose of the ball once tackled.

At this seminar did "the guy" actually give you a reference point to the rules before the kool aid was served?

Actually we got a tray of club sandwiches.

[Ghost Like]

Incorrect call. A player getting tackled has to dispose of the ball and he did. Didn’t change direction.

Bemarrassing = Bemusing and Embarrassing.

At a umpiring seminar we attended deliberate was a topic. One of the examples shown was similar to Howard’s. Most people automatically said deliberate. The guy then informed us that it was actually not. Reason given he didn’t change his line to get the ball out. He has to dispose of the ball once tackled.

At this seminar did "the guy" actually give you a reference point to the rules before the kool aid was served?

Actually we got a tray of club sandwiches.

Yet no reference to the actual "straight line" rule you promote. No doubt cucumber was involved with those sandwiches.