The Dal Santo deliberate was worse than Montagna's
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
The Dal Santo deliberate was worse than Montagna's
In the last quarter Dal hemmed in on the boundary and the only kick he can get is low along the boundary as an opponent is coming in to smother.
He did pretty well to get it close to Ryan Gamble but not good enough for the umpire.
Dwayne Russell who spent the first 10 minutes of the last quarter imploring the umpires to give any sort of half free kick to North said nothing about the worst decision of the game.
Montagna against Brisbane had options and I had no problem with that free, Dal didn't.
He did pretty well to get it close to Ryan Gamble but not good enough for the umpire.
Dwayne Russell who spent the first 10 minutes of the last quarter imploring the umpires to give any sort of half free kick to North said nothing about the worst decision of the game.
Montagna against Brisbane had options and I had no problem with that free, Dal didn't.
Furtius Quo Rdelious
- Devilhead
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8389
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar 2004 11:56pm
- Has thanked: 138 times
- Been thanked: 1172 times
IMO Monty's deliberate decision was worse given he actually kicked the ball to space and unfortunately physics took over - there was no intent
That said the deliberate decisions that were made against Dal and Dawson (by the same umpire) were diablolical given their particular no choice tight situations
In Dal and Dawson's case rather than using common sense the umpire in question decided not to use common sense considering there are hundreds of similar pressure situations/plays during the season that are let go that end in a boundary throw in
I have no doubt the umpire in Dal/Dawson situation wasn't biased however unfortunately he just let emotion get the better of him
Delberate out of bounds should only be awarded against a player who is under no pressure at all - Dal and Dawson were under immense pressure and did not have any other alternatives - Monty's kick took some freak bounces which the umpire could not comprehend
Either way we won both matches so who gives a shite but in a close final ..............
Gieschen and his cohorts need to sort it out
That said the deliberate decisions that were made against Dal and Dawson (by the same umpire) were diablolical given their particular no choice tight situations
In Dal and Dawson's case rather than using common sense the umpire in question decided not to use common sense considering there are hundreds of similar pressure situations/plays during the season that are let go that end in a boundary throw in
I have no doubt the umpire in Dal/Dawson situation wasn't biased however unfortunately he just let emotion get the better of him
Delberate out of bounds should only be awarded against a player who is under no pressure at all - Dal and Dawson were under immense pressure and did not have any other alternatives - Monty's kick took some freak bounces which the umpire could not comprehend
Either way we won both matches so who gives a shite but in a close final ..............
Gieschen and his cohorts need to sort it out
The Devil makes work for idle hands!!!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10218
- Joined: Fri 16 Feb 2007 3:24pm
- Location: WARBURTON
- Has thanked: 145 times
- Been thanked: 1311 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
It was a really badly umpired game and you can't help but wonder if there is money on games influencing the decisions when they are so one sided. It seemed to be an inordinate number of frees in their forward line.
Either way the umpiring is corrupt, they are either swept up in wanting an underdog to win and not calling on merit or they are taking kick backs to have margins and lines held. The AFL is talking about it this year as I believe there is concern that it may be happening.[/quote]
Either way the umpiring is corrupt, they are either swept up in wanting an underdog to win and not calling on merit or they are taking kick backs to have margins and lines held. The AFL is talking about it this year as I believe there is concern that it may be happening.[/quote]
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
It was a really badly umpired game and you can't help but wonder if there is money on games influencing the decisions when they are so one sided. It seemed to be an inordinate number of frees in their forward line.
Either way the umpiring is corrupt, they are either swept up in wanting an underdog to win and not calling on merit or they are taking kick backs to have margins and lines held. The AFL is talking about it this year as I believe there is concern that it may be happening.
Either way the umpiring is corrupt, they are either swept up in wanting an underdog to win and not calling on merit or they are taking kick backs to have margins and lines held. The AFL is talking about it this year as I believe there is concern that it may be happening.
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
But I'm sure I heard Dwayne Russell all game, and particular in the last quarter, lamenting that North couldn't buy a free kickgringo wrote:It was a really badly umpired game and you can't help but wonder if there is money on games influencing the decisions when they are so one sided. It seemed to be an inordinate number of frees in their forward line.
Either way the umpiring is corrupt, they are either swept up in wanting an underdog to win and not calling on merit or they are taking kick backs to have margins and lines held. The AFL is talking about it this year as I believe there is concern that it may be happening.
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
OK, I’ll admit I haven’t really looked at this rule and I never look at the Rule Book. So you can take that from me as an invitation to poor scorn on my comment.
However surely the deliberate rule comes into play when that is the player’s only intention.
If you look at the Monty one he may very well have seen a completely open forward line and thought I’ll bang it forward in the hope that someone can run onto it, but if not, it may eventually roll over the line.
With NDS it may be I’ll try to get this to Gamble, but if he can’t get it then it will probably go out and there’ll be a throw in.
That’s a lot different to a player having one aim, and one aim only, of putting the ball out.
And if you say that doesn’t matter, that it only needs to be one of the aims, then I reckon the Bulldogs are in a bit of trouble.
From today’s Age:
“Eade now has his men, like a lot of other teams who employ the forward press, kicking the ball from outside 50 into the forward pocket, rather than centring it. This increases the likelihood of a boundary throw-in, if a mark doesn't result, and the stoppage then allows the Bulldogs time to set up their press.â€
However surely the deliberate rule comes into play when that is the player’s only intention.
If you look at the Monty one he may very well have seen a completely open forward line and thought I’ll bang it forward in the hope that someone can run onto it, but if not, it may eventually roll over the line.
With NDS it may be I’ll try to get this to Gamble, but if he can’t get it then it will probably go out and there’ll be a throw in.
That’s a lot different to a player having one aim, and one aim only, of putting the ball out.
And if you say that doesn’t matter, that it only needs to be one of the aims, then I reckon the Bulldogs are in a bit of trouble.
From today’s Age:
“Eade now has his men, like a lot of other teams who employ the forward press, kicking the ball from outside 50 into the forward pocket, rather than centring it. This increases the likelihood of a boundary throw-in, if a mark doesn't result, and the stoppage then allows the Bulldogs time to set up their press.â€
- Junction Oval
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2867
- Joined: Tue 30 Nov 2010 11:16am
- Been thanked: 19 times
It's all about "intent," and the umpires are the decision makers. The trouble is that that they get caught up in "arbitrating" on every move that happens, instead of letting the game flow.
If it is a clear error, pay the free kick. If in doubt, let the game go on.
I was in the front row on Sunday. The Dal free was right in front of me (I must have been sitting next to Punter!). Dal was under a lot of pressure, and I could see where he was looking. The ball fell short of Gamble and did a right hand turn out of bounds. "Whistle head" decided it was intentional
With the Dawson free, he "carried it" over the line, as it was going out anyway. As others have said, he should have "fumbled" it over - what stupid umpiring, it was going out anyway.
If it is a clear error, pay the free kick. If in doubt, let the game go on.
I was in the front row on Sunday. The Dal free was right in front of me (I must have been sitting next to Punter!). Dal was under a lot of pressure, and I could see where he was looking. The ball fell short of Gamble and did a right hand turn out of bounds. "Whistle head" decided it was intentional
With the Dawson free, he "carried it" over the line, as it was going out anyway. As others have said, he should have "fumbled" it over - what stupid umpiring, it was going out anyway.
Yep thats makes sense. Not.gringo wrote:It was a really badly umpired game and you can't help but wonder if there is money on games influencing the decisions when they are so one sided. It seemed to be an inordinate number of frees in their forward line.
Either way the umpiring is corrupt, they are either swept up in wanting an underdog to win and not calling on merit or they are taking kick backs to have margins and lines held. The AFL is talking about it this year as I believe there is concern that it may be happening.
- kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
- ThePunter
- Club Player
- Posts: 742
- Joined: Mon 16 Jun 2008 12:43pm
- Location: Level 2 Half Forward Flank Lockett End
- Contact:
Eade's strategy relies on the defence playing it safe and conventionally by punching the ball over the boundary. It's completely impossible to then penalise the kicker in that situation.
Having said that, umpiring would be better if officials didn't have to make decisions based on what a player is thinking.
Here's what I said about umpiring on my Big Footy blog in April: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/blog.php?b=1423
Having said that, umpiring would be better if officials didn't have to make decisions based on what a player is thinking.
Here's what I said about umpiring on my Big Footy blog in April: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/blog.php?b=1423
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11340
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 12:57am
- Location: South of Heaven
- Has thanked: 1332 times
- Been thanked: 456 times
Re: The Dal Santo deliberate was worse than Montagna's
Gee, I'd have to take another look at the free against Joey @ Brisbane.kosifantutti23 wrote:Montagna against Brisbane had options and I had no problem with that free, Dal didn't.
After seeing it live, I was infuriated to the point of starting a thread about it. From memory, the ball went about 80 metres and I don't recall him really having an option but to kick the ball backwards if was trying to kick to a colleague.
I just think the rules committee are getting too pedantic on this rule and rules in general. I reckon there was a bit of an art of "kicking the ball to touch" if it went a certain distance. Just too many wishy-washy rule changes have made the rules look even more vague.
Curb your enthusiasm - you’re a St.Kilda supporter!!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4557
- Joined: Thu 20 May 2010 11:49pm
- Has thanked: 120 times
- Been thanked: 313 times
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11340
- Joined: Thu 11 Mar 2004 12:57am
- Location: South of Heaven
- Has thanked: 1332 times
- Been thanked: 456 times
I think it may be more than that Mart.BigMart wrote:Because the umps have played so much, they are so good at reading 'intent' in the heat of battle......
They try and influence games, rather than adjudicate.....ego driven control freak morons...... Mostly, i guess some are ok.....and just have inferiority complexes
Games like against Nort v Saints on a Sunday afternoon mean we get the 22,23, and 24 best umpire of the round as our game would have been the least attractive (perhaps Bris v Port).
This means we get the poorer decision makers and therefore poorer decisions.
Also the culture of the umpires trumpeted by Geischen is that they are part of the "entertainment". This was proven to GT when Geischen told him the crowd "loves" the umpire theatrics when signalling holding the ball.
Geischen seems to think that the umpires are also part of the action not there to adjudicate. Because they are so protected from critisism and have been encouraged to be part of the action, they love the theatrics of a holding the ball or the thrill of running along singnalling deliberate out of bounds with a huge swoooooosh of the arm to show how in touch with the game they are.
Really it is a problem created by the culture pushed by Geischen when the umpires are the stars at the expense of the players.
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>)
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>)
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9042
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 351 times
- Dr Spaceman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14102
- Joined: Thu 24 Sep 2009 11:07pm
- Location: Newtown Institute of Saintology
- Has thanked: 104 times
- Been thanked: 62 times
That's a ridiculous post perfectionist!perfectionist wrote:The decision against George Rickards in the first quarter of Round 1 against Geelong in 1903 was a disgrace. It not only turned the game, but ended George's career, after just one game.
Everyone knew, except Rickards it seems, that you can't perform a Place Kick off an opponent's head. He copped his right whack.
Take off your rose coloured glasses and stop bashing the umps