The lies of the media.

[kosifantutti23]

Part of the myth about this advantage call is that the Saints took the ball up the other end and scored the winning goal.

NOT TRUE

We turned it over on the wing and the Cats brought it back to half forward again. Fisher took the mark and then started the attack that led to the winning goal.

I caught the end of Derek Humphrey Smith on SEN tonight congratulating the brave umpire who gave that decision against Milney in the last minute. Not a hint of sarcasm in his voice.

[aussierules0k]

[maverick]

[quote="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.[/quote

Inside 50 advantage calls are not called back, very similar circumstance with CJ earlier in the season, the decision is consistent to what has been paid all year.

[bozza1980]

I caught the end of Derek Humphrey Smith on SEN tonight congratulating the brave umpire who gave that decision against Milney in the last minute. Not a hint of sarcasm in his voice.

If it is a sign of them being prepared to pay it, then it is a good thing.

However the fact that the cats are the masters of this hold and earnt free kicks in the match by doing the same thing.

If you are going to pay it you've got to be alert to it for the whole 4 quarters not just when a different call could result in the winning goal.

[bozza1980]

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.[/quote

Inside 50 advantage calls are not called back, very similar circumstance with CJ earlier in the season, the decision is consistent to what has been paid all year.

I agree, the cats stuffed up the advantage end of story.

Skill errors don't get called back as was the case with a number of ours earlier in the match.

[Young Georgie]

Part of the myth about this advantage call is that the Saints took the ball up the other end and scored the winning goal.

NOT TRUE

We turned it over on the wing and the Cats brought it back to half forward again. Fisher took the mark and then started the attack that led to the winning goal.

I caught the end of Derek Humphrey Smith on SEN tonight congratulating the brave umpire who gave that decision against Milney in the last minute. Not a hint of sarcasm in his voice.

I missed that bit but what you didn't catch was the start of Derek Humphrey Smith on SEN and for what it's worth, a Carlton supporter rang in about that advantage decision saying like most the ump got it wrong but DHS was clear in his defence of the decision in that he believed the Cats had the choice of taking the advantage or not after the whistle had blown to pay the free and by running onto the ball had elected to take the advantage regardless of whether they had taken clear possession - it was a skill error that created the fumble.
DHS then followed up with the Gablett 50m penalty and said IHO it was not warranted as there was no clear touching, blocking or impediment from CJ - the ump according to DHS got this wrong.

[SydneySainter]

I'm sure this has already been highlighted, but just one more time. I checked out the replay yesterday and there was a tackle Dal Santo laid on a Cat, which spilled out of his hands, swooped up by Lenny Hayes and the umpire calls advantage. Lenny then goes on to shank the kick and the pill end ups back in the Cats possession, yet the advantage wasn't relayed. However, because this happened in the first quarter, the media has no interest in highlighting what can be deemed as the first of a few controversial advantage calls on the night, or what turned out to be the first of some questionable but consistent umpiring for the night.

My thoughts, on both occasions you would expect the advantage call to be withdrawn, but what would have, could have or should have been is complete speculation and therefore an argument that no body will win. Had Geelong had the advantage call withdrawn, Corey could have either kicked the goal to give the Cats the lead, or sent the ball into the goal square to set up straight shot for another forward, or one of our defenders could have taken a beauty of a contested mark in the goal square, or Corey could have shanked the kick completely. Just like had Dal had the advantage call withdrawn, he could have played on, set one of our forwards up for a set shot or even kicked the goal himself!

But, as I say, you can't blame the media for focussing solely on that one advantage call in the dying minutes, it's what they're paid for and personally, I like a bit of last minute controversy in an epic, makes me hang for the rematch all the more so.

[degruch]

But, as I say, you can't blame the media for focussing solely on that one advantage call in the dying minutes, it's what they're paid for and personally, I like a bit of last minute controversy in an epic, makes me hang for the rematch all the more so.

There were two advantages to us, one after the advantage you mentioned above. We had the run during both, as you pointed out, NDS's could have easily been a goal, the other less likely even though the Cats were a rabble at the time.

As noted, it suits the media to focus on the final call against the Cats, as it makes it seem like the 'good guys' were robbed of a certain victory. The reality is, it didn't guarantee anything, as much as the many poor calls against us didn't guarantee anything. However, given the way we were playing, we were robbed of a 6 goal victory and the resulting percentage.

[kosifantutti23]

I missed that bit but what you didn't catch was the start of Derek Humphrey Smith on SEN and for what it's worth, a Carlton supporter rang in about that advantage decision saying like most the ump got it wrong but DHS was clear in his defence of the decision in that he believed the Cats had the choice of taking the advantage or not after the whistle had blown to pay the free and by running onto the ball had elected to take the advantage regardless of whether they had taken clear possession - it was a skill error that created the fumble.
DHS then followed up with the Gablett 50m penalty and said IHO it was not warranted as there was no clear touching, blocking or impediment from CJ - the ump according to DHS got this wrong.

Thanks Young Georgie. DHS has just gone up in my opinion. He only got one wrong out of three.

[White Winmar]

91 to 85. Enough said!

[Moods]

I'm sure this has already been highlighted, but just one more time. I checked out the replay yesterday and there was a tackle Dal Santo laid on a Cat, which spilled out of his hands, swooped up by Lenny Hayes and the umpire calls advantage. Lenny then goes on to shank the kick and the pill end ups back in the Cats possession, yet the advantage wasn't relayed. However, because this happened in the first quarter, the media has no interest in highlighting what can be deemed as the first of a few controversial advantage calls on the night, or what turned out to be the first of some questionable but consistent umpiring for the night.

Good post. My thoughts exactly. The umpy's made blues, but they were consistent. Can't ask for much more. I remember that advantage decision against Lenny and couldn't believe it wasn't recalled. THe last 1/4 decision is highlighted only b/c of the state of the game.

[stinger]

I'm sure this has already been highlighted, but just one more time. I checked out the replay yesterday and there was a tackle Dal Santo laid on a Cat, which spilled out of his hands, swooped up by Lenny Hayes and the umpire calls advantage. Lenny then goes on to shank the kick and the pill end ups back in the Cats possession, yet the advantage wasn't relayed. However, because this happened in the first quarter, the media has no interest in highlighting what can be deemed as the first of a few controversial advantage calls on the night, or what turned out to be the first of some questionable but consistent umpiring for the night.

Good post. My thoughts exactly. The umpy's made blues, but they were consistent. Can't ask for much more. I remember that advantage decision against Lenny and couldn't believe it wasn't recalled. THe last 1/4 decision is highlighted only b/c of the state of the game.

no they weren't...gablett was given extra time to dispose of the ball..in the back seemed only to apply when the guy on the bottom didn't have red in his jumper...i could go on...and on.....

[Milton66]

If you take "advantage" then stuff it up... stiff!

The whole "prior opp" was a farce when it came to our guys. As soon as they laid a hand on us, we got pinged. Yet they were given heaps of time to dispose of the pill.

Sadly, the media love stirring the pot, and if they see an angle, they'll go for it. It's their job.

But as everyone else has stated... we won. End of story.

OP is spot on.

[linz]

Bit paranoid that this could be on another thread but what the hell:
Page 79 in the small paper 5 / 6ths of the way down on the RHS. (excuse my typing):

UMPIRE RIGHT:
The afl last night backed ump Ray Chamberlains decision blah blah.

Chamberlain called advantage where none appeared to exist after awarding Corey a free kick 45m from goal with the scores level.

Ump boss Gieschen said behind the goal footage vindicated Chamberlain.

"After the free kick was awarded to Corey, the ball spilled forward towards the Geelong goal" Gieschen said.

"Max Rooke elected to run on to the ball and take possession. Rooke was approx. 10m in the clear with no immediate pressure from opponents.

"Rooke elected then to handball to Varcoe and the ball was turned over to St. Kilda.

"The umpire... is not instructed to recall the ball for a later player skill or concentration error"

[Spinner]

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.

Excellent excellent post. Especially the bolded.

What has annoyed me to no end are the nuff nuff's that have watched one quarter of football for the entire year, mainly because it was on free to air and claim they were robbed.

The media are just to blame.

[*BaLLy iS BeST*]

not to bang on even more about the umpiring...but...there were a couple of other things that confused me at the time and again on replay:

- the holding the ball against lenny (i think in the 3rd) when he stood up and was held with the ball against him but was standing over the boundary line. Was that not out of play?

- when the umpire got in the way and goddard fell over the top of him with the ball. Shouldn't the umpire have stopped play? What if they had got possession from that?


but yes...main thing is....WE WON

[saint66au]

Lets face it, most people on here want whats good for St Kilda and look at umpiring calls that way

If that was us who had lost the ball with the advantage call ..and Mooney had taken a hanger and won the game for em..we'd want Chamberlain boiled in oil and be screaming that the cheating corrupt umps had cost us the game..Cmon..admit it

Its only human nature I guess, but most one-eyed fans will see 50/50 calls in their teams favour as "well thats footy you win some you lose some" but 50/50 calls against your team as incompetant corruption that should have the offending official doing an Under 9's game next week

[casey scorp]

The Ablett 50 that was

paid when he clearly played on was also a shocker

The problem is the speed of the game, and the umpires don't keep up.

Ablett takes mark, and quickly plays on. Jones reacts like lightning to stop him.

The problem is that the umpire has to call play on, and until he does Jones can't tackle Ablett.

It's ridiculous that Ablett & Jones can act and react quickly, but the umpiring can't adjust to the speed.

[InkerSaint]

Lets face it, most people on here want whats good for St Kilda and look at umpiring calls that way

If that was us who had lost the ball with the advantage call ..and Mooney had taken a hanger and won the game for em..we'd want Chamberlain boiled in oil and be screaming that the cheating corrupt umps had cost us the game..Cmon..admit it

Its only human nature I guess, but most one-eyed fans will see 50/50 calls in their teams favour as "well thats footy you win some you lose some" but 50/50 calls against your team as incompetant corruption that should have the offending official doing an Under 9's game next week

Yes... but if the call was correctly made according to the published rules (as opposed to recent recalled advantage decisions from other games) and the AFL stands by it after a video review, then at least we can rightfully defend it.

Any ammunition is gratefully accepted to shut those trolls up at the pub...

[saint66au]

Lets face it, most people on here want whats good for St Kilda and look at umpiring calls that way

If that was us who had lost the ball with the advantage call ..and Mooney had taken a hanger and won the game for em..we'd want Chamberlain boiled in oil and be screaming that the cheating corrupt umps had cost us the game..Cmon..admit it

Its only human nature I guess, but most one-eyed fans will see 50/50 calls in their teams favour as "well thats footy you win some you lose some" but 50/50 calls against your team as incompetant corruption that should have the offending official doing an Under 9's game next week

Yes... but if the call was correctly made according to the published rules (as opposed to recent recalled advantage decisions from other games) and the AFL stands by it after a video review, then at least we can rightfully defend it.

Any ammunition is gratefully accepted to shut those trolls up at the pub...

Oh absolutely, and in this instance of course we are happy to accept the AFL's call but I still reckon that if the AFL had defended an identical decision that went against us, some on here would greet it with howls of the "obviously corrupt AFL who want their love-child Geelong to finish on top so told the umpires to favour them " lol

[matrix]

the play on rule is one that really shites me....
sometimes there is no advantage (or a very slim one) and its called back.

"no advantage" says the ump.
the ball makes its way back and the backline is now flooded as players have had time to get back due to play stoppage.
correct ump... no advantage, NOW!

IMO.....if the ump blows the whistle and you take three steps u tried to take an advantage.
if it wasnt there, then tough s***.
its too much of a grey area for me.
its a hard rule to police

[bozza1980]

Oh absolutely, and in this instance of course we are happy to accept the AFL's call but I still reckon that if the AFL had defended an identical decision that went against us, some on here would greet it with howls of the "obviously corrupt AFL who want their love-child Geelong to finish on top so told the umpires to favour them " lol

Fair call.

However I think the press in relation to this incident has been a little exaggerated. 45m out from goal??

He was tackled outside 50 against the boundary, far from the certain match lead score that has been inferred.

[joffaboy]

Lets face it, most people on here want whats good for St Kilda and look at umpiring calls that way

If that was us who had lost the ball with the advantage call ..and Mooney had taken a hanger and won the game for em..we'd want Chamberlain boiled in oil and be screaming that the cheating corrupt umps had cost us the game..Cmon..admit it

Its only human nature I guess, but most one-eyed fans will see 50/50 calls in their teams favour as "well thats footy you win some you lose some" but 50/50 calls against your team as incompetant corruption that should have the offending official doing an Under 9's game next week

Yes... but if the call was correctly made according to the published rules (as opposed to recent recalled advantage decisions from other games) and the AFL stands by it after a video review, then at least we can rightfully defend it.

Any ammunition is gratefully accepted to shut those trolls up at the pub...

Oh absolutely, and in this instance of course we are happy to accept the AFL's call but I still reckon that if the AFL had defended an identical decision that went against us, some on here would greet it with howls of the "obviously corrupt AFL who want their love-child Geelong to finish on top so told the umpires to favour them " lol

But thats the issue. We did have two non advantages, one inside 50 in the very same game. Who knows if we could have scored goals from those - exact same issue.

Also the holding the ball against Milne just outside the 50 when a Cats player came from 2 metres behind him. The umpire was telling Goddard to take his player away, but Goddard WAS 5 METRES AWAY.

That decision was patently wrong and should have been a 50 metre penalty with another Saints goal.

You can isolate any number of calls by an umpire and then whinge. But when the media blatantly lie (40 metres out, no advantage, Cats didn't pick up the ball etc etc) it shows the only interest print or electronic media has is to create sensations, not to report the facts.

[joffaboy]

He was tackled outside 50 against the boundary, far from the certain match lead score that has been inferred.

To be completely accurate it was about 49 metres out about 7-8 metres in from the boundary.

Point is that the player would have been kicking from outiside 50 on an acute angle. Nothing guaranteed.

[Life Long Saint]

- when the umpire got in the way and goddard fell over the top of him with the ball. Shouldn't the umpire have stopped play? What if they had got possession from that?

Two questions raced through my mind on Sunday as I watched this unfold.

1. Why was BJ standing behind the umpire?
2. Why did Blake handball it to him there?

We seriosuly can't blame the umpire for that one.