Centrals vs Sturt Qualifying Review

[MST]

Happy with the response as to why he "rushed it" then?

As far as balling/bouncing - I don't think the umpire has to justify that does he? I'd be interested to hear from any umpires or people who know the rules on here about how they decide to bounce or throw...

I take your point dw, but no I am not satisfied with the response. Tony Dey wouldn't have been aware who was around the stoppage as he was in such a hurry to throw the ball up. He didn't look in my opinion. I question your assertion that there was another Sturt player ready to contest the stoppage too, I don't believe there was otherwise why did Kurtze have to make a somewhat desperate attempt to get to the contest?

[Apachebulldog]

That first goal from a dubious decision was absolute rubbish two players wrestling and one gets a free ????? should of both been warned and then play on.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CedeNullis]

Straight off the bat, let me say congratulations to CDFC for winning yesterday's game. They are a remarkable club and the success they have enjoyed during the dominant period has been richly deserved. Their belief and never say die approach is what forced them over the line yesterday.

With that out the way, I absolutely must take issue with the highlighted statement above. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as in all my time reading this forum I cannot recall one occasion where grahaml has put his hand up and said 'gee boys, I reckon we pinched that one'. The reality is, Sturt, for 85 out of the 105 minutes of football played, were the better side without question. Central were on top for 20 of the 105 minutes played which included 15 minutes of the third quarter, where they appeared to be gaining some ascendancy and added two unanswered goals whilst keeping Sturt scoreless, and 5 minutes in time on of the last...no need to describe that period.

Sturt contrived to lose a game that was in their keeping and they have nobody to blame, umpires included, but themselves. Our football club needs to develop a more ruthless streak, much the same as Central have. When I suggest this, I don't mean the kind of ruthlessness that leads to kicking nine goals to zip in the last quarter against West Adelaide at home, I mean the kind of ruthlessness that leads to finishing the reigning premiers off when they are 13 points up heading into time on of the last quarter of a Qualifying Final. If Sturt can discover this ruthless streak THEN they will arrive as a genuine Premiership threat.

I don't believe all is lost. Sturt are a superior side to WWT and if they can win on Sunday they will, in my opinion, get another crack at Central in the Preliminary Final as I believe Glenelg will earn the direct passage through to the decider. They will then have a golden opportunity to put into practice what they hopefully learnt from yesterdays heartbreaker.

A final point on one particular umpiring decision. I said earlier that the umpires cannot be blamed for Sturts' demise yesterday and I maintain that, but I do have a query on the decision that lead to Giles kicking the winning goal. For 104 of the 105 minutes of football played yesterday, the umpires chose a) to bounce the ball at all stoppages and b) to wait until both ruckman were in a position to contest that bounce. My question to this forum is, why did Tony Dey choose to throw the ball up on the members wing at the 28 minute mark of the last quarter and more importantly why did he chose to hurriedly do so, before either ruckman had arrived in the area, forcing Angus Kurtze to have to try and make it to the ruck contest, where upon an infringement was then paid against him????

I will be interested in peoples thoughts.

Thought it was very good post, considering Sturt was on the end of a heartbreaking loss.
The last paragraph about centre bounces was grasping at straws.
You summed up the difference in the two teams: "Their belief and never say die approach is what forced them over the line yesterday". True, but we like to keep that sort of thing, err, "in house".

[MST]

That first goal from a dubious decision was absolute rubbish two players wrestling and one gets a free ????? should of both been warned and then play on.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree Apache. It's a little bit like the decision in last years corresponding game. Simon Feast takes a mark in front of goal and is lining up for a likely conversion (don't even think about it Bays fans ), a Central and Sturt player engage in some push and shove in the centre square at which time the umpire in the middle of the ground alerts the situation to the umpire in Sturt's forward 50, they take the footy off an innocent S.Feast and award a free and 25m penalty from the centre square, Central go down the other end and kick a goal to turn a likely five goal buffer into a three goal one.

Yes, players should be warned first.

[Dogwatcher]

Happy with the response as to why he "rushed it" then?

As far as balling/bouncing - I don't think the umpire has to justify that does he? I'd be interested to hear from any umpires or people who know the rules on here about how they decide to bounce or throw...

I take your point dw, but no I am not satisfied with the response. Tony Dey wouldn't have been aware who was around the stoppage as he was in such a hurry to throw the ball up. He didn't look in my opinion. I question your assertion that there was another Sturt player ready to contest the stoppage too, I don't believe there was otherwise why did Kurtze have to make a somewhat desperate attempt to get to the contest?

I'm sure an umpire, like a footballer has a pretty good awareness of who and what is around him.
A player was standing there in the ruck position - facing off against the Dogs ruckman.
Kurtze was too slow to get to the contest and was clumsy in engaging.

[MST]

Straight off the bat, let me say congratulations to CDFC for winning yesterday's game. They are a remarkable club and the success they have enjoyed during the dominant period has been richly deserved. Their belief and never say die approach is what forced them over the line yesterday.

With that out the way, I absolutely must take issue with the highlighted statement above. I guess I shouldn't be surprised as in all my time reading this forum I cannot recall one occasion where grahaml has put his hand up and said 'gee boys, I reckon we pinched that one'. The reality is, Sturt, for 85 out of the 105 minutes of football played, were the better side without question. Central were on top for 20 of the 105 minutes played which included 15 minutes of the third quarter, where they appeared to be gaining some ascendancy and added two unanswered goals whilst keeping Sturt scoreless, and 5 minutes in time on of the last...no need to describe that period.

Sturt contrived to lose a game that was in their keeping and they have nobody to blame, umpires included, but themselves. Our football club needs to develop a more ruthless streak, much the same as Central have. When I suggest this, I don't mean the kind of ruthlessness that leads to kicking nine goals to zip in the last quarter against West Adelaide at home, I mean the kind of ruthlessness that leads to finishing the reigning premiers off when they are 13 points up heading into time on of the last quarter of a Qualifying Final. If Sturt can discover this ruthless streak THEN they will arrive as a genuine Premiership threat.

I don't believe all is lost. Sturt are a superior side to WWT and if they can win on Sunday they will, in my opinion, get another crack at Central in the Preliminary Final as I believe Glenelg will earn the direct passage through to the decider. They will then have a golden opportunity to put into practice what they hopefully learnt from yesterdays heartbreaker.

A final point on one particular umpiring decision. I said earlier that the umpires cannot be blamed for Sturts' demise yesterday and I maintain that, but I do have a query on the decision that lead to Giles kicking the winning goal. For 104 of the 105 minutes of football played yesterday, the umpires chose a) to bounce the ball at all stoppages and b) to wait until both ruckman were in a position to contest that bounce. My question to this forum is, why did Tony Dey choose to throw the ball up on the members wing at the 28 minute mark of the last quarter and more importantly why did he chose to hurriedly do so, before either ruckman had arrived in the area, forcing Angus Kurtze to have to try and make it to the ruck contest, where upon an infringement was then paid against him????

I will be interested in peoples thoughts.

Thought it was very good post, considering Sturt was on the end of a heartbreaking loss.
The last paragraph about centre bounces was grasping at straws.
You summed up the difference in the two teams: "Their belief and never say die approach is what forced them over the line yesterday". True, but we like to keep that sort of thing, err, "in house".

Appreciate the compliment cede but the point I raise and the incident I refer to concerns ball-ups around the ground, not centre bounces...two very different scenarios.

[MST]

Happy with the response as to why he "rushed it" then?

As far as balling/bouncing - I don't think the umpire has to justify that does he? I'd be interested to hear from any umpires or people who know the rules on here about how they decide to bounce or throw...

I take your point dw, but no I am not satisfied with the response. Tony Dey wouldn't have been aware who was around the stoppage as he was in such a hurry to throw the ball up. He didn't look in my opinion. I question your assertion that there was another Sturt player ready to contest the stoppage too, I don't believe there was otherwise why did Kurtze have to make a somewhat desperate attempt to get to the contest?

I'm sure an umpire, like a footballer has a pretty good awareness of who and what is around him.
A player was standing there in the ruck position - facing off against the Dogs ruckman.
Kurtze was too slow to get to the contest and was clumsy in engaging.

I totally disagree dw but will be happy to agree to do so.

[Apachebulldog]

A quite simple solution to the bounce, it is quite obvious our modern day umpies do not know how to bounce the pill is it the surface or is it the football so therefore only bounce the ball after a goal has been scored any other time toss the damn thing up into the sky.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pseudo]

In the context of the game the Sharples free was a bit soft, BUT, ask yourself if it was down ground in running play would it be a FAD? The answer is obviously yes, so then ask yourself what is the umpire left to decide?

Fair point, late hit, obvious FAD. However I think the umpire was wrong to call all clear before paying the free kick. Either pay the free or pay the advantage and let the goal stand. To gift Sturt another goal at a crucial stage of the contest - for a late bump of all things, it ain't like Sharples was taken off concussed - is a blatant case of over-umpiring and draconian interpretation of the rules. Had the dogs gone down by less than a goal then the excrement would have hit the fan.

FWIW I had no real problems with the umpiring, from the POV of the lounge room armchair.

[doggies4eva]

"The reality is, Sturt, for 85 out of the 105 minutes of football played, were the better side without question." Central were on top for 20 of the 105 minutes played "

Oh really? Check out the stats from this game:

CD 175 kicks, 52 marks, 113 handballs, 58 HOs, 44 tackles
St 164 kicks, 66 marks, 142 handballs, 40 HOs, 23 tackles

So the doggies had more kicks, hit outs and tackles and Sturt had more marks and handballs. Pretty much as I would have expected. While Sturt kicked and handballed sideways, backwards more often they ammassed greater stats but these stats where indirect and often ineffective.

The dogs on the other hand dominated the rucks and their tackling was far superior - leading to numerous turn-overs.

In other words the doggies played superior finals footy!

[doggies4eva]

In the context of the game the Sharples free was a bit soft, BUT, ask yourself if it was down ground in running play would it be a FAD? The answer is obviously yes, so then ask yourself what is the umpire left to decide?

Fair point, late hit, obvious FAD. However I think the umpire was wrong to call all clear before paying the free kick. Either pay the free or pay the advantage and let the goal stand. To gift Sturt another goal at a crucial stage of the contest - for a late bump of all things, it ain't like Sharples was taken off concussed - is a blatant case of over-umpiring and draconian interpretation of the rules. Had the dogs gone down by less than a goal then the excrement would have hit the fan.

FWIW I had no real problems with the umpiring, from the POV of the lounge room armchair.

This is a fair point - the umpire had not called all clear - so he had the choice to either call all clear or to award a free. I have always thought that the scenario of a second shot for goal can only happen for a very late charge - ie after the all clear has been given.

[MST]

Does anyone have a stat for the time each side lead the contest for? Again, Sturt would have held sway for 90% of the contest. Hit outs are a moot point too, Buckets was always going to get first touch of the footy. Sturt have lost the hit outs more often than not across 2009.

The Blues still had more of the football did they not? They still held more marks? I will concede the tackle count was much in favour of Central but we all know that can be the most misleading stat in footy.

You can provide me with as much statistical analysis as you like d4e, Sturt were on top for the majority of the game.

[doggies4eva]

Does anyone have a stat for the time each side lead the contest for? Again, Sturt would have held sway for 90% of the contest. Hit outs are a moot point too, Buckets was always going to get first touch of the footy. Sturt have lost the hit outs more often than not across 2009.

The Blues still had more of the football did they not? They still held more marks? I will concede the tackle count was much in favour of Central but we all know that can be the most misleading stat in footy.

You can provide me with as much statistical analysis as you like d4e, Sturt were on top for the majority of the game.

Surt probably led for more of the game - largely because the dogs missed some easy shots in front of goals in the first quarter. There was rarely more than a couple of goals in it and I don't think being 1 or 2 points up shows who is the better team. You must have watched a different game to me MST - I thought it was an arm-wrestle which was won in the dying stages of the game.

[csbowes]

If Sturt didnt choke they certainly did shite their pants. Or to put it another lost control of their CS Bowels.

I think its pretty obvious what the CS stands for.

UUUUU DOOOGSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geez... like I need any more proof you're a total ****.

[csbowes]

10,000 for the day is tad a disappointing I would have thought?

The advertising on the seats was interesting. At first I thought it looked dumb but probably not a bad idea in the end.

It was without doubt a crap crowd.

[csbowes]

There was another vulgar Sturt supporter verbally abusing a Central supporter as we were walking down West Lakes Boulevarde after the game. Some of the things coming from his mouth were disgusting. A bit scary. The guy was a walking time bomb.

<yawn>

This happens every week with every team... no point having a straw poll on how many fans from each side abused fans from the other side. Just on the flare, the only thing the flare incident highlighted was the leagues stupidity. Everyone knows a flare will be lit by the Centrals faithful at that end of the ground. Amazes me the whole SANFL public know it, yet the SANFL itself with its security never seem to know anything about it.

[Barto]

If Sturt didnt choke they certainly did shite their pants. Or to put it another lost control of their CS Bowels.

I think its pretty obvious what the CS stands for.

UUUUU DOOOGSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geez... like I need any more proof you're a total ****.

Isn't nice that instead of concentrating on their club they're thinking of you?

[csbowes]

I've read through the posts on here and there's the usual collection of informed and interesting commentary mixed in with the usual shite from knobs and whining about umpiring decisions and that goes for both sets of supporters.

Seriously, boo-hoo Sharples got two goals, were we lucky with that, yes, bad luck, likewise that decision on the half forward flank that also included a 25m penalty, was that lucky for Central, I think so, but guess what, bad luck, neither decision resulted in the game being won or loss. There's plenty of examples of poor decision making, poor skills and generally poor play by both sides in the preceeding 90 minutes that cost goals and leads and so on. There's no point going Crow-fan-like and blaming umpires for this or that.

For me this was a classic battle between two sides who are evenly matched. If there needed to be anymore proof to my previous posts that Central don't scare or intimidate Sturt and that Sturt can match them, then this is it. Centrals won because they were able to apply an extra five minutes of dedicated, high pressure football and Sturt were not able to absorb it. Calls of choking are ridiculous considering Sturt were up until the very end. It was simply a case of mental strength on one side just out lasted the other side.

For Sturt, its a commendable, though crushing defeat...

For Central, a la 2008, I think this could be the win that see's you over the line in the grannie...

A lot will come down to whether Glenelg play like girls like last season or whether they've taken an exta step to match the Dogs in the big games. Glenelg need to take a leaf out of Sturt's book and see that you can out tough and out work the Dogs at times, our skills and discipline are not up to the level of the Tigers, so if they can combine those attributes, they are a fair chance to do the business in the big game next week and thereafter. So with that, congratulations to Central, a class win against a valiant opponent.

The Dogs players were pleased as punch at the end of the game and I think that in itself is an indication to any Dogs fan the respect the team has for Sturt.

Likewise our dejection at the end shows how much this loss hurt the club and in my opinion, will sentence us to finishing 3rd or 4th this season.

[csbowes]

If Sturt didnt choke they certainly did shite their pants. Or to put it another lost control of their CS Bowels.

I think its pretty obvious what the CS stands for.

UUUUU DOOOGSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geez... like I need any more proof you're a total ****.

Isn't nice that instead of concentrating on their club they're thinking of you?

Its good to see I've had a lot more impact on him than he'll ever have on me... as you know Barto, we come across these sad cases from time to time, its a tough job to look past them and not label all Centrals fans the same as this tosser. Fortunately there are a number of good Doggies posters on here who give intelligent comment and amusing banter.

[csbowes]

Just on finals records for Sturt fans...

2000-2009
7 wins 10 defeats

You'd all know that, but more interesting might be our record against teams who finished 1st to 3rd and then 4th to 5th...

When Sturt has finished 4th or 5th... we are 1 win 1 loss against top 3 sides and 1 win 2 losses against 4th or 5th placed sides...

When Sturt has finished 1st to 3rd... we are 3 wins 6 losses agaisnt top 3 sides and 2 wins 1 loss against 4th or 5th placed sides...

That to me indicated that like this year the problem is not beating teams below it, but Sturt struggles against top 3 finishing sides. A 3-6 win-loss record shows it in black and white, we've come unstuck against Torrens, Centrals and Glenelg multiple times.

That's where we're dropping the ball...