Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
CURLY wrote:Yeah and they never looked after GWS or Sydney thats all a myth......oh
Got any stats to prove that? I agree. A myth. Unless you are talking off the field and that's fact and hasn't been denied. Still no footy talk. And what has that to do with my question anyway. Obviously just to hard to answer.
Yeah trying to force Buddy to a club wouldnt of helped would it.
CURLY wrote:Yeah and they never looked after GWS or Sydney thats all a myth......oh
Got any stats to prove that? I agree. A myth. Unless you are talking off the field and that's fact and hasn't been denied. Still no footy talk. And what has that to do with my question anyway. Obviously just to hard to answer.
Yeah trying to force Buddy to a club wouldnt of helped would it.
Still have heard any reason for them hating is. Logical that is. Still haven't seen anything on actual footy either.
CURLY wrote:Lets all be honest here the umpires pick and choose when they pay free kicks depending on who the player is, the club they play for, position on the ground and time of the game.
Yep. You are one of the very few posters who make sense to me on the issue of umpire cheating. And cheat they do.Of that I'm certain.
CURLY wrote:Lets all be honest here the umpires pick and choose when they pay free kicks depending on who the player is, the club they play for, position on the ground and time of the game.
Yep. You are one of the very few posters who make sense to me on the issue of umpire cheating. And cheat they do.Of that I'm certain.
But in 18 weeks they have cheated against us. Stinger you still don't make sense even with a name change. Just one logical reason they would cheat against us.
CURLY wrote:Lets all be honest here the umpires pick and choose when they pay free kicks depending on who the player is, the club they play for, position on the ground and time of the game.
So obviously you think the AFL want them to umpire that way. Do you know how illogical that is? Anyway Curly do you ever write anything but criticizing something the club have no control in. It would nice to find out if you know anything about footy because clearly you sometimes no little about umpiring. I suppose Warburton got a dud deal as well this week.
Perhaps the AFL do as its clear it flips and flops each week. Amazing that apparently the way the GF is umpired is the right way but its a one off each year.
Yep the best umpires and the best players who probably don't give as many stupid frees away. Our local footy had the best umpires this week and it was one of the best umpired games of the year. When we were bottom last year we got the worst umpires and it was very ordinary umpiring. Same goes for the AFL. As we get up the ladder we will get the better umpires and our players will be more skilled.
bulls*** bulls*** bulls***. The two teams that play in the GF play against each other during the year and the umpires all umpire throughout the year.
That statement you quoted is pure crap. How come Freo , which is on top of the ladder gets the same crap umpires we have to put up with. Just plainly an illogical argument.
Last edited by saynta on Mon 10 Aug 2015 7:20pm, edited 1 time in total.
gringo wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's a tribunal ruling not an umpiring decision. If you hit the head unavoidable or not it should be a free kick.
So gringo you thought Goddard should have got a free as he was elbowed in the head? And what about people who are kicked in the head when they slide in to get the ball. They actually give away a free. There is no rule that says if you are hit in the head it is a free and thank goodness for that. You need to actually see what happened.
There is incidental contact that isn't sufficient force to bother with. I didn't see what happened to Goddard so can't comment. The kick in the head for a sliding in player is a contentious ruling put in place after the slide in that did Gary Rohan's knee and has pretty much run contrary to 100+ years of football rulings. It still isn't properly administered often.
Whether its administrated properly or not it still should be a free to the player who kicks the other in the head if that player slides in to get the ball. Its funny that no one seems to have seen the Goddard incident but all have seen the Sinclair one. You sound like coaches when one of their players are reported. And by the way a trip has been a trip for 100 years. For some reason they just didn't pay it to guys who slid in for the ball. Now they do or should even if they accidently kick a player in the head. By the way Goddard was elbowed in the head.
gringo wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's a tribunal ruling not an umpiring decision. If you hit the head unavoidable or not it should be a free kick.
So gringo you thought Goddard should have got a free as he was elbowed in the head? And what about people who are kicked in the head when they slide in to get the ball. They actually give away a free. There is no rule that says if you are hit in the head it is a free and thank goodness for that. You need to actually see what happened.
There is incidental contact that isn't sufficient force to bother with. I didn't see what happened to Goddard so can't comment. The kick in the head for a sliding in player is a contentious ruling put in place after the slide in that did Gary Rohan's knee and has pretty much run contrary to 100+ years of football rulings. It still isn't properly administered often.
Whether its administrated properly or not it still should be a free to the player who kicks the other in the head if that player slides in to get the ball. Its funny that no one seems to have seen the Goddard incident but all have seen the Sinclair one. You sound like coaches when one of their players are reported. And by the way a trip has been a trip for 100 years. For some reason they just didn't pay it to guys who slid in for the ball. Now they do or should even if they accidently kick a player in the head. By the way Goddard was elbowed in the head.
i know that they just get it wrong. A trip when you have an intent to go for the ball and the head slips into the legs was never a free kick. It was always designed to encourage the player to attack the ball. The guy who stood up and dropped the knees forward rather than personally bend down to pick the ball up was penalised.
i know that they just get it wrong. A trip when you have an intent to go for the ball and the head slips into the legs was never a free kick. It was always designed to encourage the player to attack the ball. The guy who stood up and dropped the knees forward rather than personally bend down to pick the ball up was penalised.
And they still would be but if you slide in and a person kicks you in the head accidently and trips over he gets the free for tripping. This myth that as soon as you get a hit in the head its a free is just that, a myth.
One that perplexed me was when the Freo guy marked and immediately played on so we applied a tackle and the ump called a 50m penalty.
That's what it looked like from my perspective.
Did I miss something or was the 50m for something else?
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!
Look at the AFL website today and the article on the Coaches votes. The photo they use is of Rance playing on Riewoldt and it clearly shows Roo being held.
Enrico_Misso wrote:One that perplexed me was when the Freo guy marked and immediately played on so we applied a tackle and the ump called a 50m penalty.
That's what it looked like from my perspective.
Did I miss something or was the 50m for something else?
We got penalised because the umpires brain worked too slow.
Apparently if the umpire has not signalled play on, the man on the mark just has to stand there and let him run past.
If the umpire doesn't signal play on for two seconds, the player with the ball can just waltz into the fifty without any opposing player allowed to touch him.
We got penalised a goal because of umpire incompetence/cheating take your pick.
But does Sinclair get a free for a blatant knee to the head? lol
Enrico_Misso wrote:One that perplexed me was when the Freo guy marked and immediately played on so we applied a tackle and the ump called a 50m penalty.
That's what it looked like from my perspective.
Did I miss something or was the 50m for something else?
We got penalised because the umpires brain worked too slow.
Apparently if the umpire has not signalled play on, the man on the mark just has to stand there and let him run past.
If the umpire doesn't signal play on for two seconds, the player with the ball can just waltz into the fifty without any opposing player allowed to touch him.
We got penalised a goal because of umpire incompetence/cheating take your pick.
But does Sinclair get a free for a blatant knee to the head? lol
Take a look on AFL.com at the picture of Rance playing on Riewoldt.
Interesting to hear umpire Bannister last night in Hawthorn V Port explaining to Josh Gibson after he gave away a free to Chad Wingard for high contact. Bannister basically told Gibson that he knew contact was accidental but was still high so it was a free. What does that do to those who argued that when Barlow kneed Sinclair in the head against Freo that it was incidental contact and therefore play on. I know umpiring is about interpreation but needs to be consistent.
kosifantutti wrote:I don't think it was for the initial contact. It was the trailing arm which was avoidable unlike the Barlow Sinclair incident.
I beg to differ kosi,
From the vision/audio Bannister seemed t be saying that 'even though it was accidental' (not unavoidable), 'high contact is high contact'.
I reckon a more legitimate comparison was the the second 'hit' on Sinclair later in the game when he was clearly struck in the head in a marking contest.
Gibson was punching the footy in a marking contest and clearly had 'hit' the ball before the Pot Adelaide player even arrived into the contest.
IMHO either Bannister is completely incorrect in his interpretation of that event or the umpire involved in the Sinclair incident was completely incorrect in his interpretation.
kosifantutti wrote:He also used the expression "clothes hanger" which could only refer to the second contact.
But that doesn't reconcile with use of the term 'accidental'.
Gibson was arguing about a player diving into his legs and not getting a free kick for high contact so therefore why should a high contact free kick be paid when the player 'ran into' him in the contest?
kosifantutti wrote:I don't think it was for the initial contact. It was the trailing arm which was avoidable unlike the Barlow Sinclair incident.
I beg to differ kosi,
From the vision/audio Bannister seemed t be saying that 'even though it was accidental' (not unavoidable), 'high contact is high contact'.
I reckon a more legitimate comparison was the the second 'hit' on Sinclair later in the game when he was clearly struck in the head in a marking contest.
Gibson was punching the footy in a marking contest and clearly had 'hit' the ball before the Pot Adelaide player even arrived into the contest.
IMHO either Bannister is completely incorrect in his interpretation of that event or the umpire involved in the Sinclair incident was completely incorrect in his interpretation.
It should have been a free for accidental high contact last night. And it was the secondary contact from the trailing arm. Gibson accidentally hit him high, he wasn't even looking at him but hit him in the head. Just an incorrect decision with Sinclair. For as long as I have watched footy if you make contact with the head of an opponent it is a free (unless you duck into it or these days if you slide into a players lower legs). It was just very obviously not meant with any intent last night.
Bannister also says that "he was going for the ball and you've taken his head off" which again refers to his right arm, not the arm he spoiled with.
If he thought that second contact was accidental, it would still be a free. If you are spoiling with one arm and your other arm makes contact with the head it should be a free.*
* Does not apply to Riewoldt or Bruce
Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2023 "Kosi Lives"
kosifantutti wrote:Bannister also says that "he was going for the ball and you've taken his head off" which again refers to his right arm, not the arm he spoiled with.
If he thought that second contact was accidental, it would still be a free. If you are spoiling with one arm and your other arm makes contact with the head it should be a free.*
* Does not apply to Riewoldt or Bruce
I agree 100%
which makes the non=decision to Sinclair even more puzzling.
It was interesting watching Fox Footy's Close Encounters this morning _Saints vs Geelong 2011 to see the 'old interpretation' of 'ducking the head' being rewarded with a 'too high contact' free kick.
kosifantutti wrote:Bannister also says that "he was going for the ball and you've taken his head off" which again refers to his right arm, not the arm he spoiled with.
If he thought that second contact was accidental, it would still be a free. If you are spoiling with one arm and your other arm makes contact with the head it should be a free.*
* Does not apply to Riewoldt or Bruce
I reckon umpires are hard wired to spot common infringements and will call them quickly as an almost pavlovian response. That's why when a new interpretation comes in it is massively over officiated for a while. Sinclair was an unusual situation and the umpire couldn't assess it quickly enough to make a call. I umpire and the ones you miss are often because you process through similar situations and as soon as there is too long a time gone you just let play go on. Im 100% sure that if they reviewed the game they would have told them to pay a free next time.
Actually thought the umpire were terribly favouring the Hawks last night. It seems some are prejudging the teams worth as deserving of a win and paying the majority of free kicks one way. That or have margins they need to maintain for gambling syndicates.
kosifantutti wrote:Bannister also says that "he was going for the ball and you've taken his head off" which again refers to his right arm, not the arm he spoiled with.
If he thought that second contact was accidental, it would still be a free. If you are spoiling with one arm and your other arm makes contact with the head it should be a free.*
* Does not apply to Riewoldt or Bruce
I agree 100%
which makes the non=decision to Sinclair even more puzzling.
It was interesting watching Fox Footy's Close Encounters this morning _Saints vs Geelong 2011 to see the 'old interpretation' of 'ducking the head' being rewarded with a 'too high contact' free kick.
It has nothing to do with making the Sinclair decision more puzzling. The free against the Hawks player wasn't for the first spoil which was incidental contact to the head when spoiling but for the grab around the neck. Its a free everyday of the week. The Sinclair one was incidental contact like the first part of the spoil. If the player wasn't grabbed around the neck in the second action it would have been incidental contact and play on.
Last nights game against Geelong.....costs us cheap goals to Geelong...........paying frees that they think they see not what really happens...Geary did handball out of a tackle the ump was behind him and paid a throwing the ball...........this is where afl is going wrong.....its not if a shot at goal is just missing whatever post its the s*** frees to a forward who has done his best oscar performance to win a cheap shot
