The lies of the media.

[joffaboy]

I really cant believe that the media can just make up complete fabrications and report them as fact - especially when this is actual footage of the incident.

I am talking about the so called "error" of allowing Geelong to have the advantage in the final 2 minutes of the game.

It has been reported everywhere that they received the free kick 40 metres out. This is a blatant mistruth. Raph Clarke is penalised for an in the back just inside the 50 metre mark about 7-8 metres inside the boundary.

This means that the Geelong player would have been kicking on an angle from well outside 50 - nothing at all certain about the shot.

The second lie was that the ball didn't go to a Geelong player. On the s.hite Ch7 coverage it wasn't shown but from the down the field camera it clearly shows a Cat player picking up the ball taking a couple of steps and then turning the ball over.

The third lie is that Chamberlain made a mistake. Well the Cats took the advantage and blew it.

The umpires were totally consistant with advantage all day. Twice St.Kida had advantage and turned it over and it wasn't recalled - once was inside the forward 50.

The deliberate lying by the media is unprofessional. There are three blatant mistruths to the so called controversy all spun by media outlets.

I think it is appalling that NOT ONE media outfit has seen fit to even superficially look into the advantage rule and how it was policed on the day. Not one has questioned this BS about it being 40 metres. Not one has mentioned that the Cats turned it over so the advantage was complete.

It is blatant and willful desception cravenly done for profit.

Media (of all types) you are a twat.

[Grimfang]

I love the crap about Gardi's first goal having come off the goalpost. They showed a top-down view of it tonight on the One HD show. Goes nowhere near the goal post. The ball came down and took an odd break (who'd have thunk that could happen with an OVAL-SHAPED ball ) straight to MG. Remember, not one Cats player remonstrated that it had hit the post (though about 4 of them tried half-heatedly to claim they had touched it, LOL).

[bigred]

Agreed.

But move on.

We keep winning. And you most definitely cannot say that we have had fourteen weeks of favourable umpiring.

[jonesy]

They're F-Wits.

The fact that the little sook S.O Tablett laughable 50 meter penalty hasn't been poured over the hot coals can only suggest that the media have been muted by the AFL trying to cover up the corruption.

That and the fact that when Geelong won the 07 flag,they also won a secret door prize by the AFL and it's 'beaten up at school' umpiring fraternity,that they are allowed to be tackled for 5 seconds longer than any other side and not be penalised.

How long can these 'provincial city syndrome' muppets get a free ride for?

It must be pointed out before the finals before it costs us

[saint75]

We won the 4 points regardless of what the umpires and Geelong threw at us. Nearly every time the umpires gave them a free, we got the ball back and kicked a goal. Our team met every challenge put before them like I have not seen from a St Kilda team before. This is the most 'pleasing' thing about our performance. We won by a lot more than 6 points, make no mistake about it.

[HarveysDeciple]

Game was umpired poorly...both sides copped some rough calls, but Geelong had a far better run then St.Kilda, I would argue that all day.

They were lucky to lose by a kick, without a few soft free kicks/fifties they would have lost by a more appropriate 20-25 points.

[Moods]

I thought at the point that Chapman wabbled through that flukey/lucky goal from o/s 50 in the last 1/4 that the cats appeared to be really struggling. First up the 50 wasn't there. Schneider turned his back into Bartel to make minimal impact with him. Bartel wasn't impeded and had already given the handpass away. The commentators were trying to say that this may have stopped the cats run, rather than comment on what was, at best, a dubious 50m penalty. They appeared at that stage to have trouble penetrating our 50m arc with any sort of fluency. That arsey Chapman goal breathed new life into them.

I agree with the OP re the reporting of the advantage free paid after this. there was no way that the cats player was going to score a goal from the resulting free kick. I was screaming out all day, 'Where's the advantage?' Umpires were at least consistent with this interpretation all day.

The amount of whining by Geelong fans after the games, sugests they are having difficulty coming to grips with the loss.

[derby Street]

I love the crap about Gardi's first goal having come off the goalpost. They showed a top-down view of it tonight on the One HD show. Goes nowhere near the goal post. The ball came down and took an odd break (who'd have thunk that could happen with an OVAL-SHAPED ball ) straight to MG. Remember, not one Cats player remonstrated that it had hit the post (though about 4 of them tried half-heatedly to claim they had touched it, LOL).

Excellent point Mr Grim, glad you raised it - not that it matters now. It didn't seem to register to the "experts" that an Aussie Rules football could actually bounce funny - well surprize surprize they do and in every game you see it happen:roll: You are right if it had of hit the post the pussy players would have been squealing.

[stinger]

I really cant believe that the media can just make up complete fabrications and report them as fact - especially when this is actual footage of the incident.

I am talking about the so called "error" of allowing Geelong to have the advantage in the final 2 minutes of the game.

It has been reported everywhere that they received the free kick 40 metres out. This is a blatant mistruth. Raph Clarke is penalised for an in the back just inside the 50 metre mark about 7-8 metres inside the boundary.

This means that the Geelong player would have been kicking on an angle from well outside 50 - nothing at all certain about the shot.

The second lie was that the ball didn't go to a Geelong player. On the s.hite Ch7 coverage it wasn't shown but from the down the field camera it clearly shows a Cat player picking up the ball taking a couple of steps and then turning the ball over.

The third lie is that Chamberlain made a mistake. Well the Cats took the advantage and blew it.

The umpires were totally consistant with advantage all day. Twice St.Kida had advantage and turned it over and it wasn't recalled - once was inside the forward 50.

The deliberate lying by the media is unprofessional. There are three blatant mistruths to the so called controversy all spun by media outlets.

I think it is appalling that NOT ONE media outfit has seen fit to even superficially look into the advantage rule and how it was policed on the day. Not one has questioned this BS about it being 40 metres. Not one has mentioned that the Cats turned it over so the advantage was complete.

It is blatant and willful desception cravenly done for profit.

Media (of all types) you are a twat.

good post jb.....i thought that the chamberlain decision wasn't the mistake it is being made out to be.....

[stinger]

We won the 4 points regardless of what the umpires and Geelong threw at us. Nearly every time the umpires gave them a free, we got the ball back and kicked a goal. Our team met every challenge put before them like I have not seen from a St Kilda team before. This is the most 'pleasing' thing about our performance. We won by a lot more than 6 points, make no mistake about it.

yep.......i walked out of the ground with 35000 other beaming saints supporters.......no-one was saying...geez we were lucky.........

[Joffa 5]

They were lucky to lose by a kick, without a few soft free kicks/fifties they would have lost by a more appropriate 20-25 points.

Geelong definitely had a better run with dodgy decisions but I'm happy about it. We get the 4 points, the belief we can beat them and a narrow margin to ensure no complacency. A 20-25 point win might have taken the pressure off a bit much (Although I do agree we should have won by that margin).

[SainterK]

Sure, it's frustrating...they are also selective in what points they highlight.

Geelong was missing so and so = nothing about our guys that didn't play
Questionable free quick in the last moments = nothing about other shockers
Geelong were unlucky = Geelong didn't turn up in the first quarter

Many other examples

[Duggie]

Unfortunately we are tiny minnows in an ocean of corporate and vested interests.
Take as one example the inane utterances of a couple of commentators, namely Denis ("Was He Taken High ?") Cometti and his little mate Mc Iveney who always lean against us in borderline umpiring decisions.
I know it will never come but I yearn for a kind of ombudsman to whom we can appeal our grievances. And that will never come either.
So I just wrap it all up each week as part of the overall excitement/frustration caused by the infernal media.

[evertonfc]

The decision was a bad one IMO.

However, I can't understand several other free kicks we didn't get, and several they god.

What I can understand is why the play-on call was highlighted. There's every chance Geelong would have won had it been called back. Usually, the ball is called back if the advantage doesn't work out - not always, but mostly.

We see things with rose-coloured glasses on here, so I guess some objectivity isn't always a bad thing.

[samoht]

Congratulations St Kilda .. all credit to you.

the Cats and the media (on behalf of the Cats) apparently have adopted the motto ... "I whinge therefore I am"... or I "sook therefore I am".

I think I like St Kilda's better ... "I win therefore I am" (a winner).

[SydneySainter]

Geelong won the free kick count on the day and the Saints still won. Of

course, the advantage call certainly didn't favor Geelong when it was paid

but you rarely get an epic without controversy. The Ablett 50 that was

paid when he clearly played on was also a shocker, same as the free

against Milne in the dying seconds, so overall some pretty questionable

umpire calls all around but as I said, overall they still had eight more free

kicks and we still won. I can't blame the media for focusing on the "what

ifs" and the "who should have really won?" it's their job after all!

[Bernard Shakey]

Sure, it's frustrating...they are also selective in what points they highlight.

Geelong was missing so and so = nothing about our guys that didn't play
Questionable free quick in the last moments = nothing about other shockers
Geelong were unlucky = Geelong didn't turn up in the first quarter

Many other examples

Um, who exactly did we have missing?

[samoht]

Hopefully the Cats and their media fan base have plenty to whinge about in the future.

they wear that mantle well .. it suits them it's Taylor made.

[joffaboy]

Usually, the ball is called back if the advantage doesn't work out - not always, but mostly.

We see things with rose-coloured glasses on here, so I guess some objectivity isn't always a bad thing.

Care to explain this evertonfc?

I stated clearly in the OP that the Saints had advantages twice in the game that was turned over and not called back, with at least one of those being inside the forward fifty.

The umpires were consistant all through the game in not calling back advantage.

So it was, in the context of consistancy in the game, NOT a bad decision.

How in hell you derive rose coloured glasses from that is anyones guess.

I am highlighting the media spin and LYING to make a factuous story.

it is done to insite and not to inform.

I highlighted three untruths in the media conspirarcy whingefest cheersquad.

Care to debunk any of the three mistruths???

[perfectionist]

I agree that it was a WIN-WIN scenario. It was a WIN because we won and it was a WIN because they lost!

[samoht]

It's not our objectivity or rose coloured glasses that is the issue here - the issue is that the media has decided to wear them.

And we have a right to comment on the media's so called "objectivity" - where is it?

[stinger]

Sure, it's frustrating...they are also selective in what points they highlight.

Geelong was missing so and so = nothing about our guys that didn't play
Questionable free quick in the last moments = nothing about other shockers
Geelong were unlucky = Geelong didn't turn up in the first quarter

Many other examples

Um, who exactly did we have missing?

.... ...


ummhhh...let me think......king, dempster, max, x...... ...well...i think that lot have all played more recent games than ottens.....

[degruch]

I love the crap about Gardi's first goal having come off the goalpost. They showed a top-down view of it tonight on the One HD show. Goes nowhere near the goal post. The ball came down and took an odd break (who'd have thunk that could happen with an OVAL-SHAPED ball ) straight to MG. Remember, not one Cats player remonstrated that it had hit the post (though about 4 of them tried half-heatedly to claim they had touched it, LOL).

Excellent point Mr Grim, glad you raised it - not that it matters now. It didn't seem to register to the "experts" that an Aussie Rules football could actually bounce funny - well surprize surprize they do and in every game you see it happen:roll: You are right if it had of hit the post the pussy players would have been squealing.

Looking at the replay, it was through anyway, so who cares what the ball did afterwards.

[SainterK]

Sure, it's frustrating...they are also selective in what points they highlight.

Geelong was missing so and so = nothing about our guys that didn't play
Questionable free quick in the last moments = nothing about other shockers
Geelong were unlucky = Geelong didn't turn up in the first quarter

Many other examples

Um, who exactly did we have missing?

You're kidding aren't you? So Max and King wouldn't have got a game if available?

[saintly]

Sure, it's frustrating...they are also selective in what points they highlight.

Geelong was missing so and so = nothing about our guys that didn't play
Questionable free quick in the last moments = nothing about other shockers
Geelong were unlucky = Geelong didn't turn up in the first quarter

Many other examples

Um, who exactly did we have missing?

hudgeton and King