Round 20 West v Sturt Review

[mal]

LAST QTR
I have not the energy to itemise the last qtr
WA 2 + ST 4 favourable decisions
MATCH TOTAL
WA 10
ST 23

I will bring up the last dubious free kick in the 3rd qtr
FERGUSON ever so slightly nudged GILES free to GILES[result ST 6th goal of match]
In the first QTR FERGUSON was pushed about 3 times as hard by GILES and no free kick [result ST first goal of match]
Sums up the day for WA

This is what Andy Collins had to say to FERGY in the 3/4 time huddle in reference to the GILES nudge by FERGY
"" HOWZAT FOR A FREE KICK HEY."" and Collins laughed ...

all i will say sturt draw a crowd of frontrunners
westies dont
so who does the leaque want in the finals
its all about money

Mal you've been very detailed in listing the decisions West didn't get and the ones Sturt got what about the decisions Sturt didn't get?

Based on my experience in umpiring footy you are making a decision every 30 secs in close contact games sometimes every 20 secs.

I'd be interested in your interpretation of ALL the decisions the umpires were required to make in the game.

On TV I watch the game at a different angle to the Umps
I dont have to make a split 2nd decision
I had the advantage of being able to see each iffy decison by rewinding my tape
Believe me I was as objective as possible and had no bias in what I saw
If I was umpiring on the turf I would miss decisions and make errors

As for the decisions ST didnt get
Put it this way they virtually had no frees missed during this game
WA had several that could have been paid that were missed

The very modest WA barrackers in this forum are saying the umpiring didnt help , but conceded it was not why they lost the game

Im not so sure
Both sides are good when they lead early in the matches
ST grow in confidence and flow and can murder the opposition teams
WA are good at leading and then defending leads, rather than attacking when down
The decisions were enough to give ST a buffer lead and the win

[am Bays]

I'd be interested in your interpretation of ALL the decisions the umpires were required to make in the game.

I think you may need to re-read all his posts again.

Yes I know he listed some but not all and based on experience I know umpires make more decisions than what was listed.

[CUTTERMAN]

At the end of the minor round we will need some meloncholy person to add all the frees for and against for each club and lets see how each team rates.

I'm pretty sure you'll find some goose in a faded Phil Heinrich duffle coat has already done that this year.

Apparently it showed Norwood had only won games this year because they were being looked after by the umps.

Maybe you were referring to me, but as you don't know me you wouldn't know if I'm a goose or if I have or ever had a Phil Heinrich duffle coat, but I'd go as far as saying that only a goose would make a comment like yours above.
Anyway, that's a strange take on a set of figures. I think what it did show was that there was a massive gap between the team that had the highest positive difference between frees for and frees against as compared to the team that had the highest negative difference between frees for and against. I'll now leave you to your own idiosyncratic prejudices.

[mal]

I'd be interested in your interpretation of ALL the decisions the umpires were required to make in the game.

I think you may need to re-read all his posts again.

Yes I know he listed some but not all and based on experience I know umpires make more decisions than what was listed.

AMBAYS
I only went thru the contentious or 50/50 ish decisions
The other decisions were correct so i didnt comment on almost MOST of them

BUT
There were 2 decisions that ST got in front of goal that I said were warranted
And also the FIELKE mark and goal, that I thought was a non mark as he dropped it

[topsywaldron]

I think what it did show was that there was a massive gap between the team that had the highest positive difference between frees for and frees against as compared to the team that had the highest negative difference between frees for and against.

So a bit like the massive differential between the 'teams that win' and the 'teams that lose' in points kicked or ladder positions or tackles or inside fifties then?

No sh!t Sherlock.

[redandblack]

West didn't take their chances yesterday and Sturt were much cleaner in skills, therefore deserving the win.

On the umpiring, we all think we get a bad run most of the time, but this is now the second time in recent weeks where even the opposition supporters have all agreed that West were killed by the umpires.

What bothers me most about that isn't just the goals that result (yesterday several to Sturt while West didn't get a free inside 50), but the effect it has on momentum and the morale of both sides.

Anyway, I look forward to next week with more optimism than most Westies on here.

R&B you are one of the better more balanced posters on here but seriously mate I hope your not referring to the Glenelg game. As I said in that thread I know we got some beneficial decisions but their were equally just as many beneficial ones West got and ones we didn't get and vice versa.

Thanks, AB, but I certainly wasn't meaning the Glenelg game. Your boys smashed us.

I'll look for the recent game I was referring to ASAP.

[Jimmy]

We all think the umps give our side a rough trot.

The difference in this case is that all observers, no matter which side they support, or as neutrals, were unanimous in their opinion that one side was dudded.I haven't said this cost West the game at all, but it didn't help their chances.

They certainly have other, bigger problems to overcome, but it didn't help not to get a remotely fair go.

Yes RAB we know. But its not the first time and wont be the last. I was sorry for westies fans because of the umps, but now its just getting a little tiresome. Time to move on me thinks.

The underlined part is what you guys should focus on more however as you'll need to improve your play to make the finals, not just have the easier draw. Westies certainly have turned to shit the last few weeks.

[CUTTERMAN]

I think what it did show was that there was a massive gap between the team that had the highest positive difference between frees for and frees against as compared to the team that had the highest negative difference between frees for and against.

So a bit like the massive differential between the 'teams that win' and the 'teams that lose' in points kicked or ladder positions or tackles or inside fifties then?

No sh!t Sherlock.

now you're being moronic, find the post, look at the numbers and you'll see that what you're saying is plain idiotic. I'll leave you to tend your geese

[nickname]

Yes RAB we know. But its not the first time and wont be the last. I was sorry for westies fans because of the umps, but now its just getting a little tiresome. Time to move on me thinks.

On page 3 of this thread you said it was highly doubtful, now you accept that it occurred?
Sorry if it's getting tiresome, perhaps you could read another thread. It was far more tiresome watching a crucial game being distorted by unfathomably poor and wildly inconsistent umpiring, regardless of our own problems.

[topsywaldron]

now you're being moronic

No worries and glad to hear it.

Give me that over ceaseless whining about how hard done by you've been any day.

[Pseudo]

now you're being moronic

No worries and glad to hear it.

Give me that over ceaseless whining about how hard done by you've been any day.

If you keep shoving bait down your goose's throat at this rate then you'll have foie gras in time for breakfast

[therisingblues]

Jimmy wrote:

Yes RAB we know. But its not the first time and wont be the last. I was sorry for westies fans because of the umps, but now its just getting a little tiresome. Time to move on me thinks.


On page 3 of this thread you said it was highly doubtful, now you accept that it occurred?
Sorry if it's getting tiresome, perhaps you could read another thread. It was far more tiresome watching a crucial game being distorted by unfathomably poor and wildly inconsistent umpiring, regardless of our own problems.

Is this the quote you are talking about nickname?

all i will say is that they affected the result

doubtful, and i wasnt even there

your team just played ****

He said that it's doubtful the umps affected the game, yet concedes that they got the rough end of the stick from the umps and even offers condolences for it.
The two ideas do not contradict each other. Just about every poster on this thread has agreed that West got shafted by the umps, but there are very few that claiming it affected the result.

[nickname]

He said that it's doubtful the umps affected the game, yet concedes that they got the rough end of the stick from the umps and even offers condolences for it.
The two ideas do not contradict each other. Just about every poster on this thread has agreed that West got shafted by the umps, but there are very few that claiming it affected the result.

How can umpires "dudding" a team so dramatically not affect the result? It might not determine the result but it surely must have an effect on it, particularly when scores are low and vital goals result from shoddy decisions.

[mal]

PROTEST
2nd v 1st for alledged umpiring interference by the umpires for most of the day ....

Protest dismissed
After a lengthy deliberation
Stewards stated that the winning margin was significant enough for ST to obtain the 2 Premiership points
Had the game been decided by less than 18 points the stewards felt that the protest would be upheld
Stewards concluded that 23 points was a significant enough winning margin in a very low scoring match

[therisingblues]

He said that it's doubtful the umps affected the game, yet concedes that they got the rough end of the stick from the umps and even offers condolences for it.
The two ideas do not contradict each other. Just about every poster on this thread has agreed that West got shafted by the umps, but there are very few that claiming it affected the result.

How can umpires "dudding" a team so dramatically not affect the result? It might not determine the result but it surely must have an effect on it, particularly when scores are low and vital goals result from shoddy decisions.

Because words like "dudding" and "affect" are subjective terms with their meanings mostly fixed in the heads of the people using them. You go back and read over Blacky's posts and you get a pretty fair idea of how he is using the word "affected". Basically, in Blacky's mind, affected entails "determined the result". This was the meaning Jimmy "doubted". Perhaps if you want to say that the umps' decisions affected the scores somehow you'd be correct. But "they affected the result" preceeded by "all I can say is" has that brooding, unhappy feeling of finality that Blacky feels as though his side was robbed and that's all there is to it.
Perhaps if he stuck to his word and that was all he said you could argue the semantics a little more purposefully, but the fact that he goes onto make claims of conspiracies etc. pretty much removes all doubt of what he intended originally. So it remains possible that someone could disagree with Blacky's interpretation of the game, and still offer condolences to Westies for what most have perceived as a raw deal from the umps'.

[Cambridge Clarrie]

zzzzzzzzzzzzz........

[nickname]

Well trb, "all I'll say" is that the best way to affect the result would be to affect the scores.

[therisingblues]

You'll need enough scoring to actually affect the result though.
Result is subjective.

[therisingblues]

zzzzzzzzzzzzz........

Hey! Wake up! Thread in progress.