Didn’t change direction was tackled no free.Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:15pmWrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.
Dougal Howard's point.
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10457
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1329 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
You need to learn the basics of the game Curly, you clearly do not understand the rules or the game at all.CURLY wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:29pmDidn’t change direction was tackled no free.Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:15pmWrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.
Your interpretation of the rules are like an immigrant who has never played or watched a match.
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10457
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1329 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:33pmYou need to learn the basics of the game Curly, you clearly do not understand the rules or the game at all.CURLY wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:29pmDidn’t change direction was tackled no free.Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:15pmWrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.
Your interpretation of the rules are like an immigrant who has never played or watched a match.
It’s the rule.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
CURLY wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:37pmJoffa Burns wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:33pmYou need to learn the basics of the game Curly, you clearly do not understand the rules or the game at all.CURLY wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:29pmDidn’t change direction was tackled no free.Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:15pmWrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.
Your interpretation of the rules are like an immigrant who has never played or watched a match.
It’s the rule.
Curly knows football
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10457
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1329 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Go ask a umpire what the actual rule is.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
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?
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10457
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1329 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
An AFL umpire also awarded Hawkins a goal in the 2009 GF. Therefore if the ball hits the post it’s a goal.Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:47pmAn 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?
Cheers Oracle
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Again your lack of understanding of football and insistence to quote this ridiculous scenario only perpetuates your stupidity.CURLY wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:49pmAn AFL umpire also awarded Hawkins a goal in the 2009 GF. Therefore if the ball hits the post it’s a goal.Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:47pmAn 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?
Cheers Oracle
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.
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10457
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1329 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
No you said a AFL umpire made the decision so it has to be correct. Umpires clearly make mistakes.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
It's the rule, it's the vibe...it's still not written anywhere.CURLY wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:37pmJoffa Burns wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:33pmYou need to learn the basics of the game Curly, you clearly do not understand the rules or the game at all.CURLY wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:29pmDidn’t change direction was tackled no free.Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:15pmWrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.
Your interpretation of the rules are like an immigrant who has never played or watched a match.
It’s the rule.
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
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!
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
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***.Ghost Like wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 10:05pmIt's the rule, it's the vibe...it's still not written anywhere.CURLY wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:37pmJoffa Burns wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:33pmYou need to learn the basics of the game Curly, you clearly do not understand the rules or the game at all.CURLY wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:29pmDidn’t change direction was tackled no free.Joffa Burns wrote: ↑Sat 15 May 2021 9:15pmWrong again Curly, you clearly do not have any understanding of the rules or the game.
Your interpretation of the rules are like an immigrant who has never played or watched a match.
It’s the rule.
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
- avid
- Club Player
- Posts: 1638
- Joined: Tue 11 Mar 2008 1:54am
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 19 times
- Been thanked: 93 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
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.
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.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 632
- Joined: Mon 21 Aug 2017 1:23am
- Location: Doncaster, Victoria
- Has thanked: 77 times
- Been thanked: 33 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Wow, you actually got inside Dougal's head to analyse his thought processes that occurred in a fraction of a second.avid wrote: ↑Sun 16 May 2021 12:09am 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.
2020 was an aberration, when we travelled twice to Adelaide and won both, beat Tigers early, beat our bogey Swans. 2021 we've returned to our old ways. Damn
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 856
- Joined: Tue 30 Mar 2004 5:44pm
- Has thanked: 93 times
- Been thanked: 117 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
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.
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
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6339
- Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008 1:04pm
- Has thanked: 263 times
- Been thanked: 1124 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Bemarrassing = Bemusing and Embarrassing.
“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!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10457
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1329 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
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.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Sounds like insufficient attempt to keep the ball in play = Free kickavid wrote: ↑Sun 16 May 2021 12:09am 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.
Could / should have added 50 for stupidity.
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
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.CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 16 May 2021 11:14amAt 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.
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
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10457
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1329 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Oracle do you think your offending me with your childish repetitive comments about my football knowledge.
Actually behaving like a child.
Actually behaving like a child.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
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
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
At this seminar did "the guy" actually give you a reference point to the rules before the kool aid was served?CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 16 May 2021 11:14amAt 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.
- Joffa Burns
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7081
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 5:48pm
- Has thanked: 1871 times
- Been thanked: 1570 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Curly at an umpires seminarGhost Like wrote: ↑Sun 16 May 2021 5:01pmAt this seminar did "the guy" actually give you a reference point to the rules before the kool aid was served?CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 16 May 2021 11:14amAt 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.
Did he stand up and yell cheats?
This is a conspiracy?
Hope the umps checked their cars for explosive devices on their exit.
Proudly assuming the title of forum Oracle and serving as the inaugural Saintsational ‘weak as piss brigade’ President.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10457
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 148 times
- Been thanked: 1329 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Actually we got a tray of club sandwiches.Ghost Like wrote: ↑Sun 16 May 2021 5:01pmAt this seminar did "the guy" actually give you a reference point to the rules before the kool aid was served?CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 16 May 2021 11:14amAt 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.
NO IFS OR BUTS HARVS IS KING OF THE AFL
- Ghost Like
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6562
- Joined: Wed 19 Sep 2007 10:04pm
- Has thanked: 5788 times
- Been thanked: 1909 times
Re: Dougal Howard's point.
Yet no reference to the actual "straight line" rule you promote. No doubt cucumber was involved with those sandwiches.CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 16 May 2021 5:59pmActually we got a tray of club sandwiches.Ghost Like wrote: ↑Sun 16 May 2021 5:01pmAt this seminar did "the guy" actually give you a reference point to the rules before the kool aid was served?CURLY wrote: ↑Sun 16 May 2021 11:14amAt 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.