sometimes your posts have to be read umpteen times just to make any sense what so ever
seriously
maybe check it before you post it to see if it actually reads back ok
![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
![Idea :idea:](./images/smilies/icon_idea.gif)
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Ummm. Because he got it wrong. Isn't that what we're discussing?plugger66 wrote:Life Long Saint wrote:The ball separates from the player when it leaves his hands to hit his chest.
Thought that was obvious.
It didnt though. The ball was always touching the body of the player otherwise why wouldnt the review umpire give a point like the goal umpire originally thought it was?
kosifantutti wrote:Ummm. Because he got it wrong. Isn't that what we're discussing?plugger66 wrote:Life Long Saint wrote:The ball separates from the player when it leaves his hands to hit his chest.
Thought that was obvious.
It didnt though. The ball was always touching the body of the player otherwise why wouldnt the review umpire give a point like the goal umpire originally thought it was?
To overrule the decision made on field there has to be conclusive evidence that it was wrong.
kosifantutti wrote:But you can't look at the video and say it definitely did not, which is what is required for an overrule of the on field decision.
it was a f****** goal.....the umpire was unsighted and made a wrong call...the video showed ...well to me it did...that the player was about 2-3 feet over the line ffs....gringo wrote:Two lots of commentators at the ground were going off about how bad a decision it was. Said it was clearly a goal. Obviously they were only at the ground so have no idea like Plugger who has special powers that can tell if an umpire calls it it must be right.
gringo wrote:Two lots of commentators at the ground were going off about how bad a decision it was. Said it was clearly a goal. Obviously they were only at the ground so have no idea like Plugger who has special powers that can tell if an umpire calls it it must be right.
Posted by me at 8:59 PM last night on the "Umpires are Cheats" threadplugger66 wrote:. Firstly SW complained about players blocking off the ball. I did not see one post last night on that and that is due to most of us watching on TV so we cant see the blocks. i did see hundreds of posts complaining about nearly every decision being wrong and the umpires are cheats because the AFl tell them to cheat.
joffaboy wrote:[No that was a fair contest. Riewoldt got blocked all night but not ne free kick. One block at a ball up in front of goal and guess what?![]()
Keep protecting the umpires. Do you get a cut from their winnings?
I dont think they cheat either. The AFL should confirm this by checking the umpires bank accounts for any dodgey deposits. If the AFL directed them to cheat they would have done so for us last night to try and make it a better result for the New Zealand venture.plugger66 wrote:. Sorry but i honestly dont think the umpires cheat and i certainly dont think the AFL tell them to cheat. before last night Sydney were near the bottom of frees so why would it just start against us?
BS -you make snide comments about people being on medication and more snide comments about not growing up with the game (inferring I shouldn't comment because, you know you obviously have a god given right to an opinion because you "grew up with the game"). You blatently call another poster a liar, even though he later stated he watched the game at a pub.plugger66 wrote:. And I didnt do any s*** last night apart disagree with people who IMO got the decisions wrong or called umpires cheats
couldn't care less. You are not an AFL umpire paid up to $100k a year. i would expect you to make errors. I even expect the umpires to make errors. But the cascade of incredibly one sided decisions I have seen this year is beyond the pale for such a professional sport.plugger66 wrote:. i may not be the best umpire in the world, probably far from it, but I have done it for 25 years so have an idea about it.
So you umpire as a professional? Even so if my Accounting work was so inconsistent, and so incompetent that it was influencing outcomes so badly, I would expect to be critisised, and maybe even sanctioned. The client doing so would not have to get a "please explain" letter from me of have to pay a $10k fine for bring the profession into disrepute (even though it was me who had done so)plugger66 wrote:. i dont question you on accounting because I reckon you would have a lot more idea than me on that subject.
I couldn't care less about amateur umpires. They do their best in competitions not tainted like the AFL. Where rules are for some but not others. Where the umpiring is supposed to be at the top level but is so inconsstent and incompetent that it is wrecking games.plugger66 wrote:. Its funny but before Mark Fine started umpiring at Ormond he thought it was an easy job but he realises how difficult it is and not because you make mistakes but when you make a decision 50% of people think you are wrong.
matrix wrote:"can you tell me why you think it was a goal"
pmsl
well theres this big white line see
between the posts
and he was over the line in the air when he marked it
hence
we think
it was a goal
numpty
joffaboy wrote:Posted by me at 8:59 PM last night on the "Umpires are Cheats" threadplugger66 wrote:. Firstly SW complained about players blocking off the ball. I did not see one post last night on that and that is due to most of us watching on TV so we cant see the blocks. i did see hundreds of posts complaining about nearly every decision being wrong and the umpires are cheats because the AFl tell them to cheat.
joffaboy wrote:[No that was a fair contest. Riewoldt got blocked all night but not ne free kick. One block at a ball up in front of goal and guess what?![]()
Keep protecting the umpires. Do you get a cut from their winnings?I dont think they cheat either. The AFL should confirm this by checking the umpires bank accounts for any dodgey deposits. If the AFL directed them to cheat they would have done so for us last night to try and make it a better result for the New Zealand venture.plugger66 wrote:. Sorry but i honestly dont think the umpires cheat and i certainly dont think the AFL tell them to cheat. before last night Sydney were near the bottom of frees so why would it just start against us?
No I believe that because of lack of scrutiny and their incredibly huge ego's the umpires are just pathetically incompetent
Hopelessly and terminally so. And whose fault is that? Well in my opinion it is the AFL and Geischen for protecting the umpires so much they think they are part of the entertainment.
I pointed out LAST NIGHT Riewoldt was blocked all night, but who gets the blocking free to make sure the game is won by the Swans? Armstrong gets in the back when incorrect disposal of the ball, Steven or Ross (cant remember) gets incorrect disposal of the ball when it was exactly the same as Armstrong.
Swans get a 50 for Geary twitching and not being 5 cm's back, Swans kick the ball away AFTER the free given to Riewoldt - no 50.
The inconsistency and incompetence is laughable.
BS -you make snide comments about people being on medication and more snide comments about not growing up with the game (inferring I shouldn't comment because, you know you obviously have a god given right to an opinion because you "grew up with the game"). You blatently call another poster a liar, even though he later stated he watched the game at a pub.plugger66 wrote:. And I didnt do any s*** last night apart disagree with people who IMO got the decisions wrong or called umpires cheats
You tell people to watch with both eyes open (again inferring just because we support a team, we cant tell when decisions are right or wrong) and basically infer we are whingers.
But then the senior coach complains about the incompetence of the umpires selectively applying the rules and completely contradicts the
couldn't care less. You are not an AFL umpire paid up to $100k a year. i would expect you to make errors. I even expect the umpires to make errors. But the cascade of incredibly one sided decisions I have seen this year is beyond the pale for such a professional sport.plugger66 wrote:. i may not be the best umpire in the world, probably far from it, but I have done it for 25 years so have an idea about it.
So you umpire as a professional? Even so if my Accounting work was so inconsistent, and so incompetent that it was influencing outcomes so badly, I would expect to be critisised, and maybe even sanctioned. The client doing so would not have to get a "please explain" letter from me of have to pay a $10k fine for bring the profession into disrepute (even though it was me who had done so)plugger66 wrote:. i dont question you on accounting because I reckon you would have a lot more idea than me on that subject.
I couldn't care less about amateur umpires. They do their best in competitions not tainted like the AFL. Where rules are for some but not others. Where the umpiring is supposed to be at the top level but is so inconsstent and incompetent that it is wrecking games.plugger66 wrote:. Its funny but before Mark Fine started umpiring at Ormond he thought it was an easy job but he realises how difficult it is and not because you make mistakes but when you make a decision 50% of people think you are wrong.
So bad that the senior coach, who knows the AFL will come down on him like a tonne of bricks for even suggestion their goldne haired boys were not applying the rules, had to say something at the presser.
The umpires last night were disgraceful, and if you dont think they are incompetent, well something else has to explain such a one sided and biased performance.
So i hark back to my original suggestion. The AFL should be able to investigate the umpires bank accounts and make sure they haven't been getting kickbacks from bookies.
So P66 dont piss on my back and tell me its raining, if the umpires are not incompetent, they must be on the take, because their performance last night was a travesty for a so called professional sport.
matrix wrote:Yes
Cheat
No goal line cameras in the first game for points internationally and the review actually needed it for sure.
Why the hell there wasn't the appropriate cameras there I'll have no idea
anyway I'm pretty sure the review cannot completely over rule the goal ump if the goal ump says its a mark I think but want to make sure he didn't juggle it over the line.
So the review ump is looking at two choices
Mark or point.
This is where it is just plain ludicrous as the goal ump was in wrong spot and had a bad view (tho not his fault)
matrix wrote:Big hug and a kiss lads
Then u can share a nice cold jug of cordie.
First time I've seen the incident. If his hands are in bounds, then it's a mark. Doesn't matter that it passed through hands to chest, that irrelevant. This happens across boundary lines a fair bit and is always paid a mark, usually.Trixilver wrote:Watch it here:
if you look at where he lands..and he was going more sideways than backwards at the time.....his first giant running step forward still lands behind the goal line......i originally said 2 -3 feet behind the line....make that over a metre.....Trixilver wrote:Watch it here:
stinger wrote:if you look at where he lands..and he was going more sideways than backwards at the time.....his first giant running step forward still lands behind the goal line......i originally said 2 -3 feet behind the line....make that over a metre.....Trixilver wrote:Watch it here: