Is umpire Umpire Foote a cheat or just blind

[SaintPav]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

I personally find Cameron Ling to be a fairly unbiased and honest commentator.

Ling clearly stated that Kent should have gotten a free kick for the push in the back at the ruck contest and that Butler had staged in falling to the ground when he got the push. 50 for the Butler push was technically there, but would have been as soft as butter and not warranted and it was academic in the end as Butler kicked the goal.

Had Butler pushed a Lion and he went down & then received a 50 in an identical situation, the same SS protagonists would be bemoaning the cheating umps who paid the free when there was nothing in the push.

He would have been labelled stupid and 100% the 50 was there .

Curly, perhaps you can share with me a post of yours from the last 20 years or so where you have agreed with an umpires decision in awarding a free and subsequent 50 against a saints player.

Perhaps you can show me a StKilda player doing what Neale did and not give away a 50.

Then find one where a player takes a mark then a StKilda player dives on his back then swears at the umpire without conceding a 50.

Thank you for conceding you could not back up your statement with an example.

Well, what about you?

I asked you twice to provide evidence of when I wrote something when I clearly didn’t.

So, right back at you.

[saynta]

Looks like Curly, Larry and Moe have banded back together again!

A bit rich in one breath admitting your bias, then in the next saying “but I’m still right and you’re wrong!”

There’s a difference between being frustrated with umpiring mistakes and constantly calling them cheaters, inventing conspiracies and flooding the match day thread and forum with multiple topics about it!

Butler flopped, he tried to draw a 50 and it didn’t work, get over it!

others don't share your view.

[Joffa Burns]

Like my question in the other post about winning the game, where did I write they were cheating?

It’s a cheap shot.

By they, I assume we refer umpires, so could you please refer me to the post where I accused you of stating umpires cheat.

I have used this generically as it is a common phrase on this forum used by some posters, but to the best of my knowledge it has not been direct specifically at you at any point in time, unless you can show me otherwise.

But again Joffa, why do you keep straw manning me?

I am at a loss to understand to what you refer?
Again, meaning plural, what was the first question or what were the previous instances? This was your first quote directed at me, I checked in notifications. And keep straw manning, making the statement this is repetitive behavior.

Straw manning you?
I was not familiar with the term so looked it up and its quite ironic that you have made this accusation when in the first instance you have accused me of a statement I did not write, and have referred to again when there was no previous question. Is straw manning not exaggeration of a point of view to suit ones purpose?

I’m happy to carry on the conversation but you’ll need to bring me up to speed on the content please.

[Joffa Burns]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

I personally find Cameron Ling to be a fairly unbiased and honest commentator.

Ling clearly stated that Kent should have gotten a free kick for the push in the back at the ruck contest and that Butler had staged in falling to the ground when he got the push. 50 for the Butler push was technically there, but would have been as soft as butter and not warranted and it was academic in the end as Butler kicked the goal.

Had Butler pushed a Lion and he went down & then received a 50 in an identical situation, the same SS protagonists would be bemoaning the cheating umps who paid the free when there was nothing in the push.

He would have been labelled stupid and 100% the 50 was there .

Curly, perhaps you can share with me a post of yours from the last 20 years or so where you have agreed with an umpires decision in awarding a free and subsequent 50 against a saints player.

Perhaps you can show me a StKilda player doing what Neale did and not give away a 50.

Then find one where a player takes a mark then a StKilda player dives on his back then swears at the umpire without conceding a 50.

Thank you for conceding you could not back up your statement with an example.

Well, what about you?

I asked you twice to provide evidence of when I wrote something when I clearly didn’t.

So, right back at you.

My apology for the delayed response I was having an evening meal, in future perhaps you could inform me I'm on a strict respond in 47 minutes policy and I'll attempt to comply.

I have now responded.

[BackFromUSA]

The more blatant error was the free-kick that was missed in the third against the Brisbane player directly in front when he got tackled and dropped the ball.

The other bad miss was when Kent was pushed in the back at the throw in.

Kent was blocking and that was either sheparding or in the back, my call is in the back.
Definitely missed one there IMO.
Romas was soft and wasn't that umpire #2?

I really cannot understand the focus on umpiring and the belief we get shafted every week.
It was 11/11 against the Lions and there were soft ones given to both and plenty missed for both.

If some could look objectively there would be perspective.

There is the odd game where we have a howler from the umps like the WC game this year and those where we were the beneficiary of the umpires shocker such as the PA game.

Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away.

Re the soft Roma free kick immediately after half time:

At half time the umpires are coached as well.

Perhaps it was brought to umpire Foote’s attention that he had not yet paid a free kick to St Kilda, that several had been missed and that he overlooked a definite 50 metre penalty.

Perhaps umpire Foote has this in mind when judging that contest where the free could have gone either way or he could have called play on. Instead he was super keen to pay the first free he could to a St Kilda player. It was a token effort to try to prove that he had no bias. To me it just said that the umpiring department have started to question whether he is perhaps biased and now he had to do something obvious to disprove it.

So your case is...

- hypothetically the umpires coach realized Foote is biased against St Kilda and spoke to him at half time
- hypothetically after being exposed, Foote consciously chose to gift St Kilda a free in front of goal to cover his tracks, that'll throw them off the trail thought Foote.

And you summarize that the umpiring department is NOW awake to the fact that umpire Foote hates St Kilda and deliberately cheats against us and the free to Roma was a cover?

Can't say I see a lot of logic in that theory BFUSA as you assume the umpires coach (who may or may not have been at the game, pulled him up at 1/2 time) has never noticed this blatant cheating until Sunday and that Footes performances against St kilda over the past seasons have not been reviewed. Or is it that the whole umpires department is part of the bias?

I'm planning to watch the replay this week, I never bother watching umpire numbers but I'll take notice if you can actually see the umpires awarding and see if Foote actually pays any frees to us.

I remember another poster stating Foote was 11/0 against us in one match as if it was a statistical fact, only for another poster to watch a replay and point out three frees paid to us in a quarter.

For what it is worth I find the persecution complex around umpiring inaccurate and one particular poster to be pulling the chain of all on this forum with their comments, but by blocking that poster on game day I am able to read through & enjoy the match day thread and only come across the ramblings when quoted by another.

joffa

You have taken my points and amplified them to unreasonable levels.

Yes - the umpire coach will have spoken to him and pointed out that he made quite a few umpire errors and 50/50s all in Brisbane's favour and the wording would have been something along the lines of "perhaps these were honest errors"... not accusing him of cheating but putting him on notice that the statistical anomoly had been noted. BANG ... free kick St Kilda 30 seconds after half time.

Unfortunately the coverage does not show which of the 2 other umpires overruled the officiating umpire in the first half to give Brisbane unwarranted free kicks BUT I believe Foote was the central umpire at the time.

And while you are watching - compare the non free kick to patton (the player was later suspended for rough play) to the boundry line free against I believe Steele late in the game for his tackle which was deemed high contact ... replays show it as a fair tackle and it was his shoulder against the players head in the tackle. Both arms were pinning him below his shoulder line from what the TV showed. The otehr St Kilda player alos tackled him fairly. Interesting that this boundry line infringement was not paid by the officiating umpire but either by Foote or the other umpire. I believe that you can hear the over-rule on the TV coverage.

I don't beieve umpires cheat (they just make mistakes) but I believe that Foote does have a conscious or an unconscious bias against St Kilda.

I think that there is a very good reason that Foote is not regarded as a top umpire.

[BackFromUSA]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

I believe it was dumb to push him because it gives the umpire the opportunity to pay a 50.

I don't want to see free kicks/50's paid to players who flop/dive/duck their head.

If it was a legit push and he legit fell over then 50 all day.

Like I said, if every 50 was awarded to the letter of the law then there'd be dozens a game. The umpires are allowed to use their discretion.

Neale shouldn't have touched him but Butler shouldn't have flopped. Pull your heads in boys and get on with the game.

And I believe that the VAST MAJORITY of umpires in the AFL would have paid that a 50 metre penalty and they would have been right.

[SaintPav]

Like my question in the other post about winning the game, where did I write they were cheating?

It’s a cheap shot.

By they, I assume we refer umpires, so could you please refer me to the post where I accused you of stating umpires cheat.

I have used this generically as it is a common phrase on this forum used by some posters, but to the best of my knowledge it has not been direct specifically at you at any point in time, unless you can show me otherwise.

But again Joffa, why do you keep straw manning me?

I am at a loss to understand to what you refer?
Again, meaning plural, what was the first question or what were the previous instances? This was your first quote directed at me, I checked in notifications. And keep straw manning, making the statement this is repetitive behavior.

Straw manning you?
I was not familiar with the term so looked it up and its quite ironic that you have made this accusation when in the first instance you have accused me of a statement I did not write, and have referred to again when there was no previous question. Is straw manning not exaggeration of a point of view to suit ones purpose?

I’m happy to carry on the conversation but you’ll need to bring me up to speed on the content please.

Come off it Joffa. You wrote it.

I’m sure you can read your own posts and the words you used.

[SaintPav]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

I personally find Cameron Ling to be a fairly unbiased and honest commentator.

Ling clearly stated that Kent should have gotten a free kick for the push in the back at the ruck contest and that Butler had staged in falling to the ground when he got the push. 50 for the Butler push was technically there, but would have been as soft as butter and not warranted and it was academic in the end as Butler kicked the goal.

Had Butler pushed a Lion and he went down & then received a 50 in an identical situation, the same SS protagonists would be bemoaning the cheating umps who paid the free when there was nothing in the push.

He would have been labelled stupid and 100% the 50 was there .

Curly, perhaps you can share with me a post of yours from the last 20 years or so where you have agreed with an umpires decision in awarding a free and subsequent 50 against a saints player.

Perhaps you can show me a StKilda player doing what Neale did and not give away a 50.

Then find one where a player takes a mark then a StKilda player dives on his back then swears at the umpire without conceding a 50.

Thank you for conceding you could not back up your statement with an example.

Well, what about you?

I asked you twice to provide evidence of when I wrote something when I clearly didn’t.

So, right back at you.

My apology for the delayed response I was having an evening meal, in future perhaps you could inform me I'm on a strict respond in 47 minutes policy and I'll attempt to comply.

I have now responded.

Lol. Not a problem at all.

Take all the time you want but the first question was much earlier in the day.

No apology required.

I hope you had a lovely dinner.

[Joffa Burns]

The more blatant error was the free-kick that was missed in the third against the Brisbane player directly in front when he got tackled and dropped the ball.

The other bad miss was when Kent was pushed in the back at the throw in.

Kent was blocking and that was either sheparding or in the back, my call is in the back.
Definitely missed one there IMO.
Romas was soft and wasn't that umpire #2?

I really cannot understand the focus on umpiring and the belief we get shafted every week.
It was 11/11 against the Lions and there were soft ones given to both and plenty missed for both.

If some could look objectively there would be perspective.

There is the odd game where we have a howler from the umps like the WC game this year and those where we were the beneficiary of the umpires shocker such as the PA game.

Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away.

Re the soft Roma free kick immediately after half time:

At half time the umpires are coached as well.

Perhaps it was brought to umpire Foote’s attention that he had not yet paid a free kick to St Kilda, that several had been missed and that he overlooked a definite 50 metre penalty.

Perhaps umpire Foote has this in mind when judging that contest where the free could have gone either way or he could have called play on. Instead he was super keen to pay the first free he could to a St Kilda player. It was a token effort to try to prove that he had no bias. To me it just said that the umpiring department have started to question whether he is perhaps biased and now he had to do something obvious to disprove it.

So your case is...

- hypothetically the umpires coach realized Foote is biased against St Kilda and spoke to him at half time
- hypothetically after being exposed, Foote consciously chose to gift St Kilda a free in front of goal to cover his tracks, that'll throw them off the trail thought Foote.

And you summarize that the umpiring department is NOW awake to the fact that umpire Foote hates St Kilda and deliberately cheats against us and the free to Roma was a cover?

Can't say I see a lot of logic in that theory BFUSA as you assume the umpires coach (who may or may not have been at the game, pulled him up at 1/2 time) has never noticed this blatant cheating until Sunday and that Footes performances against St kilda over the past seasons have not been reviewed. Or is it that the whole umpires department is part of the bias?

I'm planning to watch the replay this week, I never bother watching umpire numbers but I'll take notice if you can actually see the umpires awarding and see if Foote actually pays any frees to us.

I remember another poster stating Foote was 11/0 against us in one match as if it was a statistical fact, only for another poster to watch a replay and point out three frees paid to us in a quarter.

For what it is worth I find the persecution complex around umpiring inaccurate and one particular poster to be pulling the chain of all on this forum with their comments, but by blocking that poster on game day I am able to read through & enjoy the match day thread and only come across the ramblings when quoted by another.

joffa

You have taken my points and amplified them to unreasonable levels.

Yes - the umpire coach will have spoken to him and pointed out that he made quite a few umpire errors and 50/50s all in Brisbane's favour and the wording would have been something along the lines of "perhaps these were honest errors"... not accusing him of cheating but putting him on notice that the statistical anomoly had been noted. BANG ... free kick St Kilda 30 seconds after half time.

Unfortunately the coverage does not show which of the 2 other umpires overruled the officiating umpire in the first half to give Brisbane unwarranted free kicks BUT I believe Foote was the central umpire at the time.

And while you are watching - compare the non free kick to patton (the player was later suspended for rough play) to the boundry line free against I believe Steele late in the game for his tackle which was deemed high contact ... replays show it as a fair tackle and it was his shoulder against the players head in the tackle. Both arms were pinning him below his shoulder line from what the TV showed. The otehr St Kilda player alos tackled him fairly. Interesting that this boundry line infringement was not paid by the officiating umpire but either by Foote or the other umpire. I believe that you can hear the over-rule on the TV coverage.

I don't beieve umpires cheat (they just make mistakes) but I believe that Foote does have a conscious or an unconscious bias against St Kilda.

I think that there is a very good reason that Foote is not regarded as a top umpire.

Very measured and reasoned response, thank you BFUSA.

I'll look out for those incidents when I watch the replay.

My opinion on umpires:

- extremely difficult game to adjudicate, therefore many errors per match (supporters only focus on the ones that go against their teams)
- sometimes incompetent but don't cheat as a rule
- can get on your back as a club if you criticise them - whispers in the sky exhibit 1
- have favored and less liked players, usually around the amount the back chat or how they play the game
(I knew a guy who was so popular with the umpires the joke was he got votes in a game he missed)
- get caught up in teams momentum and seem to reward those teams
- make some absolute howlers
- get pressured by crowd noise in interstate hostile venues

I do not believe that we get shafted every week, that there is an AFL conspiracy to cheat against us, there is a cheating culture in the group or they have a huge outcome on game results on a regular basis.

You could certainly get a rogue umpire caught in game fixing or gambling who could have influence, but I think he'd be found out pretty quickly.

[Joffa Burns]

Like my question in the other post about winning the game, where did I write they were cheating?

It’s a cheap shot.

By they, I assume we refer umpires, so could you please refer me to the post where I accused you of stating umpires cheat.

I have used this generically as it is a common phrase on this forum used by some posters, but to the best of my knowledge it has not been direct specifically at you at any point in time, unless you can show me otherwise.

But again Joffa, why do you keep straw manning me?

I am at a loss to understand to what you refer?
Again, meaning plural, what was the first question or what were the previous instances? This was your first quote directed at me, I checked in notifications. And keep straw manning, making the statement this is repetitive behavior.

Straw manning you?
I was not familiar with the term so looked it up and its quite ironic that you have made this accusation when in the first instance you have accused me of a statement I did not write, and have referred to again when there was no previous question. Is straw manning not exaggeration of a point of view to suit ones purpose?

I’m happy to carry on the conversation but you’ll need to bring me up to speed on the content please.

Come off it Joffa. You wrote it.

I’m sure you can read your own posts and the words you used.

Seriously st pav, I have looked at my posts from this morning and cannot find it, can you share it with me I am at a loss on this one.

[Joffa Burns]

If you watch that vision and honestly think Butler didn't go down easy, then I worry for you and of your opinion of Butler.

If you want dozens of 50m penalties paid a game and think that would be an improvement, then I worry for you also.

I want less umpire involvement, not more. Discretion should and does come in to it. Each to their own I guess.

Perhaps ask yourself honestly:

If a St Kilda player had pushed a Lion in the same circumstances and a 50 metre penalty was paid - and Curly came on here and said it was an obvious flop by the Lions player and the umpire was conned.

I think that you would be on here saying it was a 50 metre penalty every day of the week and that the St Kilda player was stupid for pushing the Lion in the first place and so the penalty was 100% correct.

Reality is that if you push a player in that circumstance (after the whistle) then it is a 50 metre penalty. Cut and dry.

I personally find Cameron Ling to be a fairly unbiased and honest commentator.

Ling clearly stated that Kent should have gotten a free kick for the push in the back at the ruck contest and that Butler had staged in falling to the ground when he got the push. 50 for the Butler push was technically there, but would have been as soft as butter and not warranted and it was academic in the end as Butler kicked the goal.

Had Butler pushed a Lion and he went down & then received a 50 in an identical situation, the same SS protagonists would be bemoaning the cheating umps who paid the free when there was nothing in the push.

He would have been labelled stupid and 100% the 50 was there .

Curly, perhaps you can share with me a post of yours from the last 20 years or so where you have agreed with an umpires decision in awarding a free and subsequent 50 against a saints player.

Perhaps you can show me a StKilda player doing what Neale did and not give away a 50.

Then find one where a player takes a mark then a StKilda player dives on his back then swears at the umpire without conceding a 50.

Thank you for conceding you could not back up your statement with an example.

Well, what about you?

I asked you twice to provide evidence of when I wrote something when I clearly didn’t.

So, right back at you.

My apology for the delayed response I was having an evening meal, in future perhaps you could inform me I'm on a strict respond in 47 minutes policy and I'll attempt to comply.

I have now responded.

Lol. Not a problem at all.

Take all the time you want but the first question was much earlier in the day.

No apology required.

I hope you had a lovely dinner.

Crumbed flathead tails shallow fried (caught fresh this morning), coleslaw (from a pre-blended packet) greek salad (homemade) and roasted chat potatoes

[SaintPav]

Like my question in the other post about winning the game, where did I write they were cheating?

It’s a cheap shot.

By they, I assume we refer umpires, so could you please refer me to the post where I accused you of stating umpires cheat.

I have used this generically as it is a common phrase on this forum used by some posters, but to the best of my knowledge it has not been direct specifically at you at any point in time, unless you can show me otherwise.

But again Joffa, why do you keep straw manning me?

I am at a loss to understand to what you refer?
Again, meaning plural, what was the first question or what were the previous instances? This was your first quote directed at me, I checked in notifications. And keep straw manning, making the statement this is repetitive behavior.

Straw manning you?
I was not familiar with the term so looked it up and its quite ironic that you have made this accusation when in the first instance you have accused me of a statement I did not write, and have referred to again when there was no previous question. Is straw manning not exaggeration of a point of view to suit ones purpose?

I’m happy to carry on the conversation but you’ll need to bring me up to speed on the content please.

Come off it Joffa. You wrote it.

I’m sure you can read your own posts and the words you used.

Seriously st pav, I have looked at my posts from this morning and cannot find it, can you share it with me I am at a loss on this one.

First post at 11:30am

“Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away”.

Second post at 5:24pm

“Personally I couldn't give a rats ringer about umpires, I barely notice them and can't comprehend the obsession with their cheating, but each to their own”.

[Toy Saint]

I think we have already labelled Foot a cheat, but maybe he is just a tad stupid with a low IQ to go with his obvious bias.

He certainly is a very poor maggot. One of the worst I have seen in over 70 years of watching a ton of footy.

Brilliant post.

I've followed the Saints for 60 years and umpired suburban footy for 40 and consider myself objective, and generally I agree with Curly.

[Joffa Burns]

Like my question in the other post about winning the game, where did I write they were cheating?

It’s a cheap shot.

By they, I assume we refer umpires, so could you please refer me to the post where I accused you of stating umpires cheat.

I have used this generically as it is a common phrase on this forum used by some posters, but to the best of my knowledge it has not been direct specifically at you at any point in time, unless you can show me otherwise.

But again Joffa, why do you keep straw manning me?

I am at a loss to understand to what you refer?
Again, meaning plural, what was the first question or what were the previous instances? This was your first quote directed at me, I checked in notifications. And keep straw manning, making the statement this is repetitive behavior.

Straw manning you?
I was not familiar with the term so looked it up and its quite ironic that you have made this accusation when in the first instance you have accused me of a statement I did not write, and have referred to again when there was no previous question. Is straw manning not exaggeration of a point of view to suit ones purpose?

I’m happy to carry on the conversation but you’ll need to bring me up to speed on the content please.

Come off it Joffa. You wrote it.

I’m sure you can read your own posts and the words you used.

Seriously st pav, I have looked at my posts from this morning and cannot find it, can you share it with me I am at a loss on this one.

First post at 11:30am

“Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away”.

Second post at 5:24pm

“Personally I couldn't give a rats ringer about umpires, I barely notice them and can't comprehend the obsession with their cheating, but each to their own”.

Thanks St Pav, but where do I accuse you of writing or stating umpires are cheats or straw manning you?
I am not winding you up, I am genuinely confused.

[SaintPav]

Like my question in the other post about winning the game, where did I write they were cheating?

It’s a cheap shot.

By they, I assume we refer umpires, so could you please refer me to the post where I accused you of stating umpires cheat.

I have used this generically as it is a common phrase on this forum used by some posters, but to the best of my knowledge it has not been direct specifically at you at any point in time, unless you can show me otherwise.

But again Joffa, why do you keep straw manning me?

I am at a loss to understand to what you refer?
Again, meaning plural, what was the first question or what were the previous instances? This was your first quote directed at me, I checked in notifications. And keep straw manning, making the statement this is repetitive behavior.

Straw manning you?
I was not familiar with the term so looked it up and its quite ironic that you have made this accusation when in the first instance you have accused me of a statement I did not write, and have referred to again when there was no previous question. Is straw manning not exaggeration of a point of view to suit ones purpose?

I’m happy to carry on the conversation but you’ll need to bring me up to speed on the content please.

Come off it Joffa. You wrote it.

I’m sure you can read your own posts and the words you used.

Seriously st pav, I have looked at my posts from this morning and cannot find it, can you share it with me I am at a loss on this one.

First post at 11:30am

“Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away”.

Second post at 5:24pm

“Personally I couldn't give a rats ringer about umpires, I barely notice them and can't comprehend the obsession with their cheating, but each to their own”.

Thanks St Pav, but where do I accuse you of writing or stating umpires are cheats or straw manning you?
I am not winding you up, I am genuinely confused.

Well, that was the strong implication as you were directly responding to my post were you not?

If you sincerely wanted to clarify your post and any misunderstanding, you could have just said “I wasn’t specifically referring to you” which will clear it all up rather than trying to be clever.

[saynta]

The more blatant error was the free-kick that was missed in the third against the Brisbane player directly in front when he got tackled and dropped the ball.

The other bad miss was when Kent was pushed in the back at the throw in.

Kent was blocking and that was either sheparding or in the back, my call is in the back.
Definitely missed one there IMO.
Romas was soft and wasn't that umpire #2?

I really cannot understand the focus on umpiring and the belief we get shafted every week.
It was 11/11 against the Lions and there were soft ones given to both and plenty missed for both.

If some could look objectively there would be perspective.

There is the odd game where we have a howler from the umps like the WC game this year and those where we were the beneficiary of the umpires shocker such as the PA game.

Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away.

Re the soft Roma free kick immediately after half time:

At half time the umpires are coached as well.

Perhaps it was brought to umpire Foote’s attention that he had not yet paid a free kick to St Kilda, that several had been missed and that he overlooked a definite 50 metre penalty.

Perhaps umpire Foote has this in mind when judging that contest where the free could have gone either way or he could have called play on. Instead he was super keen to pay the first free he could to a St Kilda player. It was a token effort to try to prove that he had no bias. To me it just said that the umpiring department have started to question whether he is perhaps biased and now he had to do something obvious to disprove it.

So your case is...

- hypothetically the umpires coach realized Foote is biased against St Kilda and spoke to him at half time
- hypothetically after being exposed, Foote consciously chose to gift St Kilda a free in front of goal to cover his tracks, that'll throw them off the trail thought Foote.

And you summarize that the umpiring department is NOW awake to the fact that umpire Foote hates St Kilda and deliberately cheats against us and the free to Roma was a cover?

Can't say I see a lot of logic in that theory BFUSA as you assume the umpires coach (who may or may not have been at the game, pulled him up at 1/2 time) has never noticed this blatant cheating until Sunday and that Footes performances against St kilda over the past seasons have not been reviewed. Or is it that the whole umpires department is part of the bias?

I'm planning to watch the replay this week, I never bother watching umpire numbers but I'll take notice if you can actually see the umpires awarding and see if Foote actually pays any frees to us.

I remember another poster stating Foote was 11/0 against us in one match as if it was a statistical fact, only for another poster to watch a replay and point out three frees paid to us in a quarter.

For what it is worth I find the persecution complex around umpiring inaccurate and one particular poster to be pulling the chain of all on this forum with their comments, but by blocking that poster on game day I am able to read through & enjoy the match day thread and only come across the ramblings when quoted by another.

joffa

You have taken my points and amplified them to unreasonable levels.

Yes - the umpire coach will have spoken to him and pointed out that he made quite a few umpire errors and 50/50s all in Brisbane's favour and the wording would have been something along the lines of "perhaps these were honest errors"... not accusing him of cheating but putting him on notice that the statistical anomoly had been noted. BANG ... free kick St Kilda 30 seconds after half time.

Unfortunately the coverage does not show which of the 2 other umpires overruled the officiating umpire in the first half to give Brisbane unwarranted free kicks BUT I believe Foote was the central umpire at the time.

And while you are watching - compare the non free kick to patton (the player was later suspended for rough play) to the boundry line free against I believe Steele late in the game for his tackle which was deemed high contact ... replays show it as a fair tackle and it was his shoulder against the players head in the tackle. Both arms were pinning him below his shoulder line from what the TV showed. The otehr St Kilda player alos tackled him fairly. Interesting that this boundry line infringement was not paid by the officiating umpire but either by Foote or the other umpire. I believe that you can hear the over-rule on the TV coverage.

I don't beieve umpires cheat (they just make mistakes) but I believe that Foote does have a conscious or an unconscious bias against St Kilda.

I think that there is a very good reason that Foote is not regarded as a top umpire.

Great response. Makes sense to me but I would not be as kind in my assessment of Foote.

[Yorkeys]

Need to take Umpire Foote to the Noosa Boathouse. Shout him flathead fillets caught in the morning by a supporter (see thread above) and flown in from Port Phillip Bay. At the end of the Leo Connelly song move into a club rendition of for he's a jolly good fellow. Failing that J. Battle to take him on a personal water craft ride, past the shark nets. All in good fun.

[st.byron]

The more blatant error was the free-kick that was missed in the third against the Brisbane player directly in front when he got tackled and dropped the ball.

The other bad miss was when Kent was pushed in the back at the throw in.

Kent was blocking and that was either sheparding or in the back, my call is in the back.
Definitely missed one there IMO.
Romas was soft and wasn't that umpire #2?

I really cannot understand the focus on umpiring and the belief we get shafted every week.
It was 11/11 against the Lions and there were soft ones given to both and plenty missed for both.

If some could look objectively there would be perspective.

There is the odd game where we have a howler from the umps like the WC game this year and those where we were the beneficiary of the umpires shocker such as the PA game.

Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away.

Re the soft Roma free kick immediately after half time:

At half time the umpires are coached as well.

Perhaps it was brought to umpire Foote’s attention that he had not yet paid a free kick to St Kilda, that several had been missed and that he overlooked a definite 50 metre penalty.

Perhaps umpire Foote has this in mind when judging that contest where the free could have gone either way or he could have called play on. Instead he was super keen to pay the first free he could to a St Kilda player. It was a token effort to try to prove that he had no bias. To me it just said that the umpiring department have started to question whether he is perhaps biased and now he had to do something obvious to disprove it.

So your case is...

- hypothetically the umpires coach realized Foote is biased against St Kilda and spoke to him at half time
- hypothetically after being exposed, Foote consciously chose to gift St Kilda a free in front of goal to cover his tracks, that'll throw them off the trail thought Foote.

And you summarize that the umpiring department is NOW awake to the fact that umpire Foote hates St Kilda and deliberately cheats against us and the free to Roma was a cover?

Can't say I see a lot of logic in that theory BFUSA as you assume the umpires coach (who may or may not have been at the game, pulled him up at 1/2 time) has never noticed this blatant cheating until Sunday and that Footes performances against St kilda over the past seasons have not been reviewed. Or is it that the whole umpires department is part of the bias?

I'm planning to watch the replay this week, I never bother watching umpire numbers but I'll take notice if you can actually see the umpires awarding and see if Foote actually pays any frees to us.

I remember another poster stating Foote was 11/0 against us in one match as if it was a statistical fact, only for another poster to watch a replay and point out three frees paid to us in a quarter.

For what it is worth I find the persecution complex around umpiring inaccurate and one particular poster to be pulling the chain of all on this forum with their comments, but by blocking that poster on game day I am able to read through & enjoy the match day thread and only come across the ramblings when quoted by another.

Re the persecution complex regarding umpiring - I completely agree. If you go to the Druggies or I’m betting any other club’s forum, you’ll find exactly the same content with Essendon et al substituted for St. Kilda. Every team has supporters that constantly repeat the same “they’re out to get us....we’re being shafted.....the umpires are cheats” refrains. And no amount of arguing or pleas for a broader perspective or common sense will convince them otherwise. In fact calling out the one eyed rinse and repeat only makes it stronger.

[kosifantutti]

Just looking at the title, why is he “umpire Umpire Foote”?

Is this a case of nominative determinism?

[Mr Magic]

The more blatant error was the free-kick that was missed in the third against the Brisbane player directly in front when he got tackled and dropped the ball.

The other bad miss was when Kent was pushed in the back at the throw in.

Kent was blocking and that was either sheparding or in the back, my call is in the back.
Definitely missed one there IMO.
Romas was soft and wasn't that umpire #2?

I really cannot understand the focus on umpiring and the belief we get shafted every week.
It was 11/11 against the Lions and there were soft ones given to both and plenty missed for both.

If some could look objectively there would be perspective.

There is the odd game where we have a howler from the umps like the WC game this year and those where we were the beneficiary of the umpires shocker such as the PA game.

Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away.

Re the soft Roma free kick immediately after half time:

At half time the umpires are coached as well.

Perhaps it was brought to umpire Foote’s attention that he had not yet paid a free kick to St Kilda, that several had been missed and that he overlooked a definite 50 metre penalty.

Perhaps umpire Foote has this in mind when judging that contest where the free could have gone either way or he could have called play on. Instead he was super keen to pay the first free he could to a St Kilda player. It was a token effort to try to prove that he had no bias. To me it just said that the umpiring department have started to question whether he is perhaps biased and now he had to do something obvious to disprove it.

So your case is...

- hypothetically the umpires coach realized Foote is biased against St Kilda and spoke to him at half time
- hypothetically after being exposed, Foote consciously chose to gift St Kilda a free in front of goal to cover his tracks, that'll throw them off the trail thought Foote.

And you summarize that the umpiring department is NOW awake to the fact that umpire Foote hates St Kilda and deliberately cheats against us and the free to Roma was a cover?

Can't say I see a lot of logic in that theory BFUSA as you assume the umpires coach (who may or may not have been at the game, pulled him up at 1/2 time) has never noticed this blatant cheating until Sunday and that Footes performances against St kilda over the past seasons have not been reviewed. Or is it that the whole umpires department is part of the bias?

I'm planning to watch the replay this week, I never bother watching umpire numbers but I'll take notice if you can actually see the umpires awarding and see if Foote actually pays any frees to us.

I remember another poster stating Foote was 11/0 against us in one match as if it was a statistical fact, only for another poster to watch a replay and point out three frees paid to us in a quarter.

For what it is worth I find the persecution complex around umpiring inaccurate and one particular poster to be pulling the chain of all on this forum with their comments, but by blocking that poster on game day I am able to read through & enjoy the match day thread and only come across the ramblings when quoted by another.

Re the persecution complex regarding umpiring - I completely agree. If you go to the Druggies or I’m betting any other club’s forum, you’ll find exactly the same content with Essendon et al substituted for St. Kilda. Every team has supporters that constantly repeat the same “they’re out to get us....we’re being shafted.....the umpires are cheats” refrains. And no amount of arguing or pleas for a broader perspective or common sense will convince them otherwise. In fact calling out the one eyed rinse and repeat only makes it stronger.

I reckon you’d struggle to find too much moaning after any home game played by WCE in Perth

[The_Dud]

The more blatant error was the free-kick that was missed in the third against the Brisbane player directly in front when he got tackled and dropped the ball.

The other bad miss was when Kent was pushed in the back at the throw in.

Kent was blocking and that was either sheparding or in the back, my call is in the back.
Definitely missed one there IMO.
Romas was soft and wasn't that umpire #2?

I really cannot understand the focus on umpiring and the belief we get shafted every week.
It was 11/11 against the Lions and there were soft ones given to both and plenty missed for both.

If some could look objectively there would be perspective.

There is the odd game where we have a howler from the umps like the WC game this year and those where we were the beneficiary of the umpires shocker such as the PA game.

Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away.

Re the soft Roma free kick immediately after half time:

At half time the umpires are coached as well.

Perhaps it was brought to umpire Foote’s attention that he had not yet paid a free kick to St Kilda, that several had been missed and that he overlooked a definite 50 metre penalty.

Perhaps umpire Foote has this in mind when judging that contest where the free could have gone either way or he could have called play on. Instead he was super keen to pay the first free he could to a St Kilda player. It was a token effort to try to prove that he had no bias. To me it just said that the umpiring department have started to question whether he is perhaps biased and now he had to do something obvious to disprove it.

So your case is...

- hypothetically the umpires coach realized Foote is biased against St Kilda and spoke to him at half time
- hypothetically after being exposed, Foote consciously chose to gift St Kilda a free in front of goal to cover his tracks, that'll throw them off the trail thought Foote.

And you summarize that the umpiring department is NOW awake to the fact that umpire Foote hates St Kilda and deliberately cheats against us and the free to Roma was a cover?

Can't say I see a lot of logic in that theory BFUSA as you assume the umpires coach (who may or may not have been at the game, pulled him up at 1/2 time) has never noticed this blatant cheating until Sunday and that Footes performances against St kilda over the past seasons have not been reviewed. Or is it that the whole umpires department is part of the bias?

I'm planning to watch the replay this week, I never bother watching umpire numbers but I'll take notice if you can actually see the umpires awarding and see if Foote actually pays any frees to us.

I remember another poster stating Foote was 11/0 against us in one match as if it was a statistical fact, only for another poster to watch a replay and point out three frees paid to us in a quarter.

For what it is worth I find the persecution complex around umpiring inaccurate and one particular poster to be pulling the chain of all on this forum with their comments, but by blocking that poster on game day I am able to read through & enjoy the match day thread and only come across the ramblings when quoted by another.

Re the persecution complex regarding umpiring - I completely agree. If you go to the Druggies or I’m betting any other club’s forum, you’ll find exactly the same content with Essendon et al substituted for St. Kilda. Every team has supporters that constantly repeat the same “they’re out to get us....we’re being shafted.....the umpires are cheats” refrains. And no amount of arguing or pleas for a broader perspective or common sense will convince them otherwise. In fact calling out the one eyed rinse and repeat only makes it stronger.

Try every club at every level across the globe!

Every supporter base claims their team cops the rough end of umpires/officials/league bosses. Are they biased? Of course not!

[saynta]

Need to take Umpire Foote to the Noosa Boathouse. Shout him flathead fillets caught in the morning by a supporter (see thread above) and flown in from Port Phillip Bay. At the end of the Leo Connelly song move into a club rendition of for he's a jolly good fellow. Failing that J. Battle to take him on a personal water craft ride, past the shark nets. All in good fun.

Second option has an appeal to me.

[perfectionist]

Fortunately we will be playing WC in Brisbane so the home crowd effect will be non existent.

Umpire Foote made two very bad decisions against us and one for us.

Umpire Stephens made three very bad decisions against us - two were non awarding of a free to us and one free to them.

[saynta]

The more blatant error was the free-kick that was missed in the third against the Brisbane player directly in front when he got tackled and dropped the ball.

The other bad miss was when Kent was pushed in the back at the throw in.

Kent was blocking and that was either sheparding or in the back, my call is in the back.
Definitely missed one there IMO.
Romas was soft and wasn't that umpire #2?

I really cannot understand the focus on umpiring and the belief we get shafted every week.
It was 11/11 against the Lions and there were soft ones given to both and plenty missed for both.

If some could look objectively there would be perspective.

There is the odd game where we have a howler from the umps like the WC game this year and those where we were the beneficiary of the umpires shocker such as the PA game.

Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away.

Re the soft Roma free kick immediately after half time:

At half time the umpires are coached as well.

Perhaps it was brought to umpire Foote’s attention that he had not yet paid a free kick to St Kilda, that several had been missed and that he overlooked a definite 50 metre penalty.

Perhaps umpire Foote has this in mind when judging that contest where the free could have gone either way or he could have called play on. Instead he was super keen to pay the first free he could to a St Kilda player. It was a token effort to try to prove that he had no bias. To me it just said that the umpiring department have started to question whether he is perhaps biased and now he had to do something obvious to disprove it.

So your case is...

- hypothetically the umpires coach realized Foote is biased against St Kilda and spoke to him at half time
- hypothetically after being exposed, Foote consciously chose to gift St Kilda a free in front of goal to cover his tracks, that'll throw them off the trail thought Foote.

And you summarize that the umpiring department is NOW awake to the fact that umpire Foote hates St Kilda and deliberately cheats against us and the free to Roma was a cover?

Can't say I see a lot of logic in that theory BFUSA as you assume the umpires coach (who may or may not have been at the game, pulled him up at 1/2 time) has never noticed this blatant cheating until Sunday and that Footes performances against St kilda over the past seasons have not been reviewed. Or is it that the whole umpires department is part of the bias?

I'm planning to watch the replay this week, I never bother watching umpire numbers but I'll take notice if you can actually see the umpires awarding and see if Foote actually pays any frees to us.

I remember another poster stating Foote was 11/0 against us in one match as if it was a statistical fact, only for another poster to watch a replay and point out three frees paid to us in a quarter.

For what it is worth I find the persecution complex around umpiring inaccurate and one particular poster to be pulling the chain of all on this forum with their comments, but by blocking that poster on game day I am able to read through & enjoy the match day thread and only come across the ramblings when quoted by another.

Re the persecution complex regarding umpiring - I completely agree. If you go to the Druggies or I’m betting any other club’s forum, you’ll find exactly the same content with Essendon et al substituted for St. Kilda. Every team has supporters that constantly repeat the same “they’re out to get us....we’re being shafted.....the umpires are cheats” refrains. And no amount of arguing or pleas for a broader perspective or common sense will convince them otherwise. In fact calling out the one eyed rinse and repeat only makes it stronger.

Try every club at every level across the globe!

Every supporter base claims their team cops the rough end of umpires/officials/league bosses. Are they biased? Of course not!

Not every team finds itself at the bottom of the frees for and the top of the frees against, year after year.

That is the flaw in your argument

[The_Dud]

The more blatant error was the free-kick that was missed in the third against the Brisbane player directly in front when he got tackled and dropped the ball.

The other bad miss was when Kent was pushed in the back at the throw in.

Kent was blocking and that was either sheparding or in the back, my call is in the back.
Definitely missed one there IMO.
Romas was soft and wasn't that umpire #2?

I really cannot understand the focus on umpiring and the belief we get shafted every week.
It was 11/11 against the Lions and there were soft ones given to both and plenty missed for both.

If some could look objectively there would be perspective.

There is the odd game where we have a howler from the umps like the WC game this year and those where we were the beneficiary of the umpires shocker such as the PA game.

Umpiring didn't cost us the game yesterday, the horrendous set shot kicking by the Lions kept us in the hunt when I thought we'd be blown away.

Re the soft Roma free kick immediately after half time:

At half time the umpires are coached as well.

Perhaps it was brought to umpire Foote’s attention that he had not yet paid a free kick to St Kilda, that several had been missed and that he overlooked a definite 50 metre penalty.

Perhaps umpire Foote has this in mind when judging that contest where the free could have gone either way or he could have called play on. Instead he was super keen to pay the first free he could to a St Kilda player. It was a token effort to try to prove that he had no bias. To me it just said that the umpiring department have started to question whether he is perhaps biased and now he had to do something obvious to disprove it.

So your case is...

- hypothetically the umpires coach realized Foote is biased against St Kilda and spoke to him at half time
- hypothetically after being exposed, Foote consciously chose to gift St Kilda a free in front of goal to cover his tracks, that'll throw them off the trail thought Foote.

And you summarize that the umpiring department is NOW awake to the fact that umpire Foote hates St Kilda and deliberately cheats against us and the free to Roma was a cover?

Can't say I see a lot of logic in that theory BFUSA as you assume the umpires coach (who may or may not have been at the game, pulled him up at 1/2 time) has never noticed this blatant cheating until Sunday and that Footes performances against St kilda over the past seasons have not been reviewed. Or is it that the whole umpires department is part of the bias?

I'm planning to watch the replay this week, I never bother watching umpire numbers but I'll take notice if you can actually see the umpires awarding and see if Foote actually pays any frees to us.

I remember another poster stating Foote was 11/0 against us in one match as if it was a statistical fact, only for another poster to watch a replay and point out three frees paid to us in a quarter.

For what it is worth I find the persecution complex around umpiring inaccurate and one particular poster to be pulling the chain of all on this forum with their comments, but by blocking that poster on game day I am able to read through & enjoy the match day thread and only come across the ramblings when quoted by another.

Re the persecution complex regarding umpiring - I completely agree. If you go to the Druggies or I’m betting any other club’s forum, you’ll find exactly the same content with Essendon et al substituted for St. Kilda. Every team has supporters that constantly repeat the same “they’re out to get us....we’re being shafted.....the umpires are cheats” refrains. And no amount of arguing or pleas for a broader perspective or common sense will convince them otherwise. In fact calling out the one eyed rinse and repeat only makes it stronger.

Try every club at every level across the globe!

Every supporter base claims their team cops the rough end of umpires/officials/league bosses. Are they biased? Of course not!

Not every team finds itself at the bottom of the frees for and the top of the frees against, year after year.

That is the flaw in your argument

That’s just factually wrong.

Try again.