Interesting....

[Footylover1]

To see one St.Kilda supporter on the Saints board compared Adam Goodes being the new Chris Judd by the way he supposedly got looked after last night? What a load of shit! Adam Goodes conceded 2 free kicks against last night but that fact would go past their thick skulls and another fact is Nick Riewoldt getting 4 frees for and 0 against. Now who gets looked after? Riewoldt is the new Lloyd, gets soft free kick after soft free kick and yet they can't see this.

But they can bitch about the free kicks all they want, it only makes the win so much sweeter. :D:thumbsu: Bunch of cry babies if you ask me. :thumbsu:

[natlovestheswans]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8377920#post8377920

Craig Bolton is the biggest dud ever? Is this guy for real?

[Footylover1]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8377920#post8377920

Craig Bolton is the biggest dud ever? Is this guy for real?

The stupidity of this place is overwhelming at times Nat. :o

[Footylover1]

I liked how one Saints supporters tell people that the Swans supporters are the most biased. He should take a step back and look at himself for a change.

[No1SwansFan]

I liked how one Saints supporters tell people that the Swans supporters are the most biased. He should take a step back and look at himself for a change.
2 bays along from us last night was a Saints supporter with a 12 or 13 yo child with him sticking his finger up and swearing as the swans ran on the field last night. This gentleman (using the term loosly) had children surrounding him. Real appropriate behaviour. Guess we just chalk it up to sore losers.

[Footylover1]

2 bays along from us last night was a Saints supporter with a 12 or 13 yo child with him sticking his finger up and swearing as the swans ran on the field last night. This gentleman (using the term loosly) had children surrounding him. Real appropriate behaviour. Guess we just chalk it up to sore losers.

Disgraceful behaviour:thumbsd:

[No1SwansFan]

Disgraceful behaviour:thumbsd:
Thought it was funny that he left after about 3 mins of the 4th quarter though.

[Footylover1]

Thought it was funny that he left after about 3 mins of the 4th quarter though.

He's such a loyal supporter then.:D Maybe he got ejected out of the game for his bad behaviour. :thumbsu:

[.Shotties.]

Honest to god, I don't give a shit what they say about umpiring.

If they can tell me why Nick Reiwolt got a for for chopping every time he was spoilt (an I'll pay that he did get chopped once or twice), why Bevan got a holding the ball decision when he was pushed in the back and gang tackled by 3 Sainters as soon as he picked up the ball out of a pack, why a missed Saints shepherd that hit a Sydney player high wasn't paid, why holding the ball was paid against Hall when he was tackled over the boundary and why Everitt's arm was being pinned at at least 3 ruck contests that I could see with no free I'll start listening to how well we were looked after.

Even then, ****'em. We've copped our fair share of dodgy treatment by the umpires, we'll just call the ledger slightly more even.

[Tuco]

To see one St.Kilda supporter on the Saints board compared Adam Goodes being the new Chris Judd by the way he supposedly got looked after last night? What a load of shit! Adam Goodes conceded 2 free kicks against last night but that fact would go past their thick skulls and another fact is Nick Riewoldt getting 4 frees for and 0 against. Now who gets looked after? Riewoldt is the new Lloyd, gets soft free kick after soft free kick and yet they can't see this.

But they can bitch about the free kicks all they want, it only makes the win so much sweeter. :D:thumbsu: Bunch of cry babies if you ask me. :thumbsu:

When that paper got leaked naming the players the umpies were supposed to be looking after there wasn't a Swan on it. Goodes included. The truth is Adam is simply a dual Brownlow Medallist hitting his straps for "Paul Roos Time", sorry, I mean "the finals". :D

[Jizza9]

Riewoldt is the new Lloyd, gets soft free kick after soft free kick and yet they can't see this.


Spot on, he get so many soft chopping the arms or high contact free because if he goes up and fails to take the mark he throws his head down and drops his arms. Gets looked after no doubt.

Not sure if I've ever seen Barry Hall get a free for getting his arms chopped.

[Saints Premiers 2006]

so do the swans supporters as a whole believe that roo faked all the times his arms were chopped whilst attempting to mark???

what about the umpiring in general???

im interested and not trolling in any form...

for what its worth i thought that the umpiring last night was disgraceful and didnt really help the saints cause either

btw bolton is a star

[Footylover1]

so do the swans supporters as a whole believe that roo faked all the times his arms were chopped whilst attempting to mark???

what about the umpiring in general???

im interested and not trolling in any form...

for what its worth i thought that the umpiring last night was disgraceful and didnt really help the saints cause either

btw bolton is a star

Get bent troll!

[SWANNIES RULE]

Aint's fans are just bitter. That administrator who supports them is an absolute space cadet.

[Benevolent Ert]

Get bent troll!

What the?

Please show me where the trolling is in this post:

so do the swans supporters as a whole believe that roo faked all the times his arms were chopped whilst attempting to mark???

His first point is a little snappily made, but a fair enough question. For what it's worth, I haven't seen last nights game, but in response to the question I think the issue is not so much that Riewoldt gets free kicks that aren't there, more so that he gets free kicks that would not be paid if a certain player at the other end of the ground was infringed in the same fashion.

what about the umpiring in general???

Legitimate question - not trolling at all. Again, haven't seen the game so I can't comment

im interested and not trolling in any form...

Poster goes out of his way to explain that he merely wants to discuss opinions on the game and is not trying to stir up trouble

for what its worth i thought that the umpiring last night was disgraceful and didnt really help the saints cause either

Says the umpiring was crap all round - how is this a troll?

btw bolton is a star

Then goes out of his way to give one of our players a wrap

If there is malice intended in this post, then I must be missing something

I get the distinct impression that some posters would prefer it if we blocked all opposition supporters from the board whatsoever and made it a Swans only zone.
I for one welcome the input of opposition supporters and the different points of view they bring PROVIDED they do it respectfully.

What I don't welcome is unprovoked flaming. Even provoked flaming I'm not thrilled with.

If we expect opposition supporters to post respectfully on this board then displaying a little courtesy ourselves wouldn't go astray

[Footylover1]

Maybe the way he thinks Riewoldt's frees were there. Most of them weren't. :thumbsd: I'm sick of Aints supporters bitching about the umpires last night not giving one ounce of credit to us for actually winning a tough good game of Football. That is why I called him a troll!

[CAS79]

What the?

Please show me where the trolling is in this post:



His first point is a little snappily made, but a fair enough question. For what it's worth, I haven't seen last nights game, but in response to the question I think the issue is not so much that Riewoldt gets free kicks that aren't there, more so that he gets free kicks that would not be paid if a certain player at the other end of the ground was infringed in the same fashion.



Legitimate question - not trolling at all. Again, haven't seen the game so I can't comment



Poster goes out of his way to explain that he merely wants to discuss opinions on the game and is not trying to stir up trouble



Says the umpiring was crap all round - how is this a troll?



Then goes out of his way to give one of our players a wrap

If there is malice intended in this post, then I must be missing something

I get the distinct impression that some posters would prefer it if we blocked all opposition supporters from the board whatsoever and made it a Swans only zone.
I for one welcome the input of opposition supporters and the different points of view they bring PROVIDED they do it respectfully.

What I don't welcome is unprovoked flaming. Even provoked flaming I'm not thrilled with.

If we expect opposition supporters to post respectfully on this board then displaying a little courtesy ourselves wouldn't go astray


Agreed

I love a good debate about the swans on this board with anyone as long as the real anti swans trolls stay off this board. This guy saw his teams finals chances take a hit by losing and he is a little emotional so lets give him some lee way... a particular one of ours was on the saints board overstepping a line last night worse than this.

[Saints Premiers 2006]

see i wasnt trolling at all..i appreciate the support from your mod

i never blame umpired for a poor result as usually poorer decisions have a way of evening out - as cliche as it

i just fail to see that the saints were given a fair go in comparison to the sans last night

the holding the ball on dalsanto after hall tried to k.o him...

two holding the balls on clinton jones when he barely had a second to get rid of it between the two...

one holding the ball on sam gilbert when a swans player dragged it in clear as day...

i do believe roo was harshly done by and i can admit he dives at times to stage it...

but then again...doesnt schnieder???

[Footylover1]

see i wasnt trolling at all..i appreciate the support from your mod

i never blame umpired for a poor result as usually poorer decisions have a way of evening out - as cliche as it

i just fail to see that the saints were given a fair go in comparison to the sans last night

the holding the ball on dalsanto after hall tried to k.o him...

two holding the balls on clinton jones when he barely had a second to get rid of it between the two...

one holding the ball on sam gilbert when a swans player dragged it in clear as day...

i do believe roo was harshly done by and i can admit he dives at times to stage it...

but then again...doesnt schnieder???

what about the many soft frees the Saints got? That fact goes past a lot of Aints supporters. A lot of your comrades blamed the umpires which is a blight on our win as far as I'm concerned.

[SWANNIES RULE]

see i wasnt trolling at all..i appreciate the support from your mod

i never blame umpired for a poor result as usually poorer decisions have a way of evening out - as cliche as it

i just fail to see that the saints were given a fair go in comparison to the sans last night

the holding the ball on dalsanto after hall tried to k.o him...

two holding the balls on clinton jones when he barely had a second to get rid of it between the two...

one holding the ball on sam gilbert when a swans player dragged it in clear as day...

i do believe roo was harshly done by and i can admit he dives at times to stage it...

but then again...doesnt schnieder???

Schneider didn't stage that ffs. He was clearly struck in the chin.

And it's stupid to isolate certain incidents because there were controversial decisions against BOTH teams.

Do you think the umpiring cost you the game last night?

[Footylover1]

Schneider didn't stage that ffs. He was clearly struck in the chin.

And it's stupid to isolate certain incidents because there were controversial decisions against BOTH teams.

Do you think the umpiring cost you the game last night?

It's obvious that he does think that.

[Saints Premiers 2006]

Schneider didn't stage that ffs. He was clearly struck in the chin.

And it's stupid to isolate certain incidents because there were controversial decisions against BOTH teams.

Do you think the umpiring cost you the game last night?

yeh he didnt stage it yet he got straight up after he looked at the umpire and ran back to his position...

even the commentators noticed it

i can freely admit you outplayed us in the final term when the game was there to be won and congrats on it

i listed my disgraceful free-kicks against us...and all the response has been is that saints fans always think they get robbed from the ...

list your controversial free-kicks then...

[SWANNIES RULE]

yeh he didnt stage it yet he got straight up after he looked at the umpire and ran back to his position...

even the commentators noticed it

i can freely admit you outplayed us in the final term when the game was there to be won and congrats on it

i listed my disgraceful free-kicks against us...and all the response has been is that saints fans always think they get robbed from the ...

list your controversial free-kicks then...

He was struck high mate, what part of that don't you understand? Whether he acted it or not is irrelevant.

I can't remember a lot of controversial ones for us, but there were plenty, maybe you could ask someone else to name a few. But Schneider not getting a fee kick after being caught high was a joke.

[legend166]

One of the holding the ball calls on Barry was terrible. Same with the one on Bevo.

The standard of umpiring in general was very poor. Bad decisions that went both ways. You know the umpiring sucks when there is a contest, and you look at the umpire instead of the ball to see if a free kick is going to be given. Most of the time it was.

Also, a lot of the time they waited way too long to call for a ball up.

[TheMase]

I am not sure why there is even an arguement here. There are plenty of occations various sides get the better of the umpiring. It is very rare for Sydney to have that honor (In the seasons 2005-Current we have had nearly 100 more free kicks difference paid against us than any other club).

The game was won and lost on the pitch. The umpires did not have major impact. We probably got a SLIGHTLY better run with the umpires (even know you had more frees than us).

At the end of the day what goes around, comes around. I just don't understand why you are on a Swans forum arguing that the umpiring was against you.

We just don't care. We won the game because we played better football for the whole of the match.

Good luck to you for the rest of the season, and hope your side sees the finals in 2007.

[robbieando]

Maybe the way he thinks Riewoldt's frees were there. Most of them weren't. :thumbsd: I'm sick of Aints supporters bitching about the umpires last night not giving one ounce of credit to us for actually winning a tough good game of Football. That is why I called him a troll!

He wasn't trolling - End of story.

On the other hand you were being abusive for NO REASON.

[Footylover1]

He wasn't trolling - End of story.

On the other hand you were being abusive for NO REASON.

Until he gives credit to the Swans for the win, I'll consider him a troll!

[ChikoRoll]

hahaha it's good too see other teams and their fans cop the wrong end of umpiring for a chnage regardless if it was horrid all round. At least now they know how we have felt all year being on the umpires hit list.

[Saints Premiers 2006]

Until he gives credit to the Swans for the win, I'll consider him a troll!

re-read my posts mate

i gave credit...but i guess you cannot read or selectively read things

i have previously said congrats on the win...

its sad that an opposition supporter can come on your forum and ask a few questions and be shot down straight away

god help you guys when you string a few losses together and do not make the finals...

[robbieando]

i just fail to see that the saints were given a fair go in comparison to the sans last night

I see you being ahead in the Free Kick count as the reason why you did get a fair go.

the holding the ball on dalsanto after hall tried to k.o him...

Take Hall out of the contest and Dal Santo was gone anyway because of the tackle ifself, Hall was laying a bump to make sure he didn't brake the tackle. Hence we got a free kick because of good pressure from Hall.

Sure his bump was sloppy and you can say that Dal Santo could have claims for a free kick himself for high contact, So that free kick was certainly there for Sydney and for Saints fans to cry blue murder because of Hall's "high contact" have to remember that the umpire would of had to been 100% certain at the time that there was high contact and the umpire would of taken three things into account, 1) the tackle already being layed 2) the bump Hall put on started low and 3) the "high contact" was quick and not 100% certain LIVE and even in slow-mo replay's.


two holding the balls on clinton jones when he barely had a second to get rid of it between the two...

Fair decisions. He tried to take of the tackler and therefore under the rules had prior opportunity. I know I hate the rule as much as the next person, but if was the correct decision and the Swans got pinged a few times last night for it as well.

one holding the ball on sam gilbert when a swans player dragged it in clear as day...

When you look at the replay Gilbert also had a hand on the ball when it was being dragged back in. Yes, O'Keefe played the major role in the ball getting back in there but Gilbert's hand was visable to the umpire and hence the umpires thinking would of been he had the chance to knock it on, rather than allowing it to come back in. Tough call, should of been a ball up, but the umpire on the spot punished Gilbert for not clearing the ball. That I agree was a tough call, but certainly didn't cost you the match.

i do believe roo was harshly done by and i can admit he dives at times to stage it...

When??? Last night he got 4 free kicks and gave none away including a chopping of the arms when the replay clearly shows that his arms weren't touched.

[/quote]but then again...doesnt schnieder???[/QUOTE]

Mainly when he ducks into tackles trying to get frees for too high. But umpires have worked him out on that front.

[Footylover1]

re-read my posts mate

i gave credit...but i guess you cannot read or selectively read things

i have previously said congrats on the win...

its sad that an opposition supporter can come on your forum and ask a few questions and be shot down straight away

god help you guys when you string a few losses together and do not make the finals...

oh boy! Take a step back and just have a look at what some of your fellow supporters are saying about last nights game before you have a go at me. :thumbsu:

[SWANNIES RULE]

re-read my posts mate

i gave credit...but i guess you cannot read or selectively read things

i have previously said congrats on the win...

its sad that an opposition supporter can come on your forum and ask a few questions and be shot down straight away

god help you guys when you string a few losses together and do not make the finals...

This is insulting, isn't it?

That last line is a touch inflammatory aswell.

[Footylover1]

This is insulting, isn't it?

That last line is a touch inflammatory aswell.

lol Double standards will come into play here. :p

[robbieando]

oh boy! Take a step back and just have a look at what some of your fellow supporters are saying about last nights game before you have a go at me. :thumbsu:

Why don't you take a step back and have a think that he isn't representive of the entire St Kilda supporters collective on Big Footy and that he doesn't a) talk on behalf of them and b) doesn't have to say sorry for them.

Also if you keep this up and attack this poster FOR NO GOOD REASON (other than the fact he is a St Kilda supporter and other St Kilda supporters are talking bad things about our win against them), I'll remove you access to this board and not his.

GET IT!

[Footylover1]

Why don't you take a step back and have a think that he isn't representive of the entire St Kilda supporters collective on Big Footy and that he doesn't a) talk on behalf of them and b) doesn't have to say sorry for them.

Also if you keep this up and attack this poster FOR NO GOOD REASON (other than the fact he is a St Kilda supporter and other St Kilda supporters are talking bad things about our win against them), I'll remove you access to this board and not his.

GET IT!

Right! I'm sorry for defending my club. I apologise:thumbsu:

[robbieando]

This is insulting, isn't it?

Only stating facts, that isn't insulting.

That last line is a touch inflammatory aswell.

I don't believe it is.

[Footylover1]

Only stating facts, that isn't insulting.



I don't believe it is.

He is assuming I can't read, I can read quite well thank you. :thumbsu:

[robbieando]

Right! I'm sorry for defending my club. I apologise:thumbsu:

If you want to defend your club, like you say, then take it up with the people you have an issue with not a person who has come onto our club board to discuss the topic in a different manner to the people you have taken offence to.

[Footylover1]

If you want to defend your club, like you say, then take it up with the people you have an issue with not a person who has come onto our club board to discuss the topic in a different manner to the people you have taken offence to.

I did take offence to him when he started to complain about the umpires on these boards. ;)

[robbieando]

I did take offence to him when he started to complain about the umpires on these boards. ;)

Which is his right, as is your right when you think the umpire go against us. However he didn't troll the board in anyway, but stated his opinion and put it out there for discussion and debate. All he got was personal attack.

I thought some of his "points" regarding free kicks were wrong and debated the points he put across and not the man.

[robbieando]

What was a reasonable thread has been derail for NO GOOD REASON.

Therefore its closed.