Will someone take action to ensure Chambers receives protect

[Punk Rooster]

I am tired to death of seing the SANFL's best FF totally unfairly played against.

Will this ensure a new interpretation or will the current panel be more assertive?

yet you still manage to post?

[spell_check]

Makes me think of the third quarter in the Central v Glenelg game today. The goal umpire signalled out of bounds only to be overturned by the boundary umpire who told the goal umpire it was a point to Glenelg. Spelly, what is the ruling there? Is it the goal umpire or the boundary umpire who has the say whether the ball is out of bounds or a point?
Cheers

joint discussion from any umpire to get the correct decision, if still unsure then the lowest 'result' comes into play which in this case would have been a throw in

As a general rule though, if it has gone out of bounds it's the boundary umpire who has the final (not sole) decision, and if it's through for the score it's the goal umpire's final (not sole) decision. But as bayman said, if there is any uncertainty, any umpire in the vicinity (field, boundary and goal) will confer.

There was another decision yesterday where the goal umpire assisted that the ball was out on the full to the boundary umpire, but was overruled by the boundary umpire in that it was touched. I know Sturt fans didn't like that one, but all supporters of all clubs must realise that an umpire would be in a better position almost every time than someone behind the fence. Unless of course, if it's a field umpire looking into the sun.

[Pseudo]

You want Chambers to get protection?

Well Pete, hand him a stack of gold coins then usher him into the men's room at Unley...

[Dirko]

You want Chambers to get protection?

Well Pete, hand him a stack of gold coins then usher him into the men's room at Unley...

Just don't drop the soap

[smithy]

At least we have a mens room Pseudo...

[Pseudo]

At least we have a mens room Pseudo...

pay that one!

[therisingblues]

Geez another Sturt sore loser, its only a game FFS!!!

What do you mean ANOTHER one? It's the same one every bloody time!!!

Pete...SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TroyGFC]

Geez another Sturt sore loser, its only a game FFS!!!

What do you mean ANOTHER one? It's the same one every bloody time!!!

Pete...SHUT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah I noticed, sorry to rest of Blue supporters I was stereotyping.

[CENTURION]

I am tired to death of seing the SANFL's best FF totally unfairly played against.

Will this ensure a new interpretation or will the current panel be more assertive?

He wants protection? Go buy him some frangers!

[MightyEagles]

You want Chambers to get protection?

Well Pete, hand him a stack of gold coins then usher him into the men's room at Unley...

Just don't drop the soap

I heard that he did after the game at Thebby on Saturday.

[OCT]

Yeah he does get manhandled at times but not what I saw Saturday , the ball wasn't down there enough !! He does mouth off at times hence the 25m , thats the rule so maybe keep quiet ??

Cant have everything , I remember Chris Threadgold playing at Full Back and he got away with a ridiculous amount of holding and scragging.

[Dogwatcher]

I am tired to death of seing the SANFL's best FF totally unfairly played against.

Will this ensure a new interpretation or will the current panel be more assertive?

I just received this press release from the SANFL:

DUE to complaints made by a high profile Sturt supporter and board member, the SANFL will be taking action on the mistreatment of Blues full forward Brant Chambers.
The league will now have four field umpires for Sturt games, with one stationed next to Chambers at full forward to watch that area.
An alarm will also be programmed to go off whenever Chambers is handled inappropriately by opposition defenders.
If the alarm goes off, Sturt will receive a free kick.
In a further measure to protect Chambers, all opposition defenders will be handed kid gloves to wear.
The SANFL hopes these decisions will prompt a much fairer result for Chambers and the Sturt Football Club.

For more information, contact the SANFL.

[Dirko]

These are the samples to be supplied to the Full Backs of the opposition clubs before the play Sturt

[smithy]

Unless of course it's heritage round and then you wear these.

[leftlegger]

I am tired to death of seing the SANFL's best FF totally unfairly played against.

Will this ensure a new interpretation or will the current panel be more assertive?

BAHAHAHAH!

[Blues08]

Sound to me like alot of other clubs supporters on here like bagging anything sturt do or say. Personal vendeta's aside Chambers does get scragged and held just like the majority of Full forwards. However it is a credit to him that he can kick bags whilst this is happening to him.

As for shell being the best full forward in the comp. that is rediculous. he was spoon fed by a rampant and dominant midfield/team. And as he isnt playing at FF cannot be classified as a full forward

p.s when was the last time Shell kicked 100 goals in a season??? who is on track to kick another 100 this season???

[Dogwatcher]

I don't think anyone's actually bagging Sturt in this thread.
I think most people are just bagging one particular element at Sturt.
Maybe have a re-read and you'll figure it out.

[ferret]

Sounds like sour grapes to me.

[Dogwatcher]

where?

[Dogwatcher]

Makes me think of the third quarter in the Central v Glenelg game today. The goal umpire signalled out of bounds only to be overturned by the boundary umpire who told the goal umpire it was a point to Glenelg. Spelly, what is the ruling there? Is it the goal umpire or the boundary umpire who has the say whether the ball is out of bounds or a point?
Cheers

I'm not sure who made the final decision in that circumstance BDP, or if you've got the umpire who changed the decision correct.

But listening to the radio, the commentators said the ball was called a point as the ball had crossed the line before it hit the post - whether that was aided or unaided, i'm unsure.

Capiche? Me neither....