Can someone point out the incorrect decisions??

[Corpuscles]

I do not care about the free's count

I was just happy that Swans played a solid competitve game, which is a nice change!

Well done we-girls bragging rights secured until finals ( if we make it?)

 

[Arcadion]

I never realised how blind and arrogant West Coast supporters are before now.

Wow, truly a sub species of supporters.

You can't actualy come out and phew, we had a bit of luck, and got away with a win.No, not for you guys.

the hatred is strong with campbell
I love how we're arrogant for coming out and DEFENDING ourselves with threads like these because most people here were trying to discredit our win (yet again), how dare we .

 

[natlovestheswans]

I would tell you every single one of them but there's no way i'll be watching that game again.

Also, it does come down to the free kicks we didn't get that we deserved.

However the one that REALLY comes to mind was in the 3rd quarter where Hansen had Teddy on the ground with his arm around his neck.. then a few minutes later Amon did pretty much same to Embley and of course he got a free kick againest him but Teddy got nothing and i think Eagles kicked a point from it.

Also, the last goal you scored.. Embley was totally holding C. Bolton so he couldn't hit it through for a behind. That was not fair what-so-ever.

When you're at a game you don't really relise whether a free kick is there or not, you get too sweeped away with the emotion and the crowd. If you watch the game on the TV today in a non biased view you would see where all the free kicks are and aren't.

Does it even matter now? No. You won. But you better hope you don't come up againest us in the finals, even Subi and the umps won't be able to save you then.

 

[ben9909]

Misrepresentation. Judd should have been pinged but Sydney ended up with possession, controlled it, then lost it before a goal was scored.

Had no real effect on the match.

What about the Swans first two goals? Both were off the back of incorrect umpiring.

Dude, if you call an errant forearm fend-off incorrect, then I suppose we should legalise it next year.

 

[ben9909]

its got nothing to do with seconds, its steps we all know that.

Poor argument that

Mate he was clearly held with the footy, pinged seven ways from sunday, but the call was play on.

Different rules for champion players

 

[bunsen burner]

However the one that REALLY comes to mind was in the 3rd quarter where Hansen had Teddy on the ground with his arm around his neck.. then a few minutes later Amon did pretty much same to Embley and of course he got a free kick againest him but Teddy got nothing and i think Eagles kicked a point from it.

I'll give you that one. Should have been a free kick. Congratulations, after thousands of posts of bitch whining you guys have come up with one legit example (I'm sure there's more but the umpiring was no way near as bad as you all make out).

Now, care to address the umpiring that gave you your first two goals?

 

[Arcadion]

Err, that was friendly fire

Nothing here is really answering the question yet

basically a heap of folk looking at the free kick count and going, "outrageous!"

Frees were there, tho the game was certainly umpired very strictly....

That about sums it up really. If it were any other team...

 

[RogerRabbit69]

Curiosity got the better of me, there seemed to be alot of talk but no action. Its hard to mount a case with zero evidence. If your gonna argue something atleast have the balls to back it up.

This may come as a surprise to you ... but I don't know many people who sit down with a notebook and write down each time there's an incorrect decision. However, plenty of football watchers can watch a match and get a feel for the flow of the umpiring and whether it's favouring one side or another. I certainly noticed plenty of times during the match where I thought to myself 'Gee, that should have been a free' or 'why did he get a free for that?'. And almost all the time it seemed the Swans were on the wrong end of those dubious decisions.

 

[Embers]

After watching the game again, Poor free kicks were 7 4 our way, 2 of th ers however were 20m out from goal and ended in 2 goals, we got 1 goal 2 from the poor free kicks.

Sydney give away alot of Free kicks, there number 1 for Free kicks against, they were that last year too.

 

[ben9909]

Now, care to address the umpiring that gave you your first two goals?

Dude, it was an errant forearm fend-off. You simply cannot do that, no matter if you are in possession or not. That is why the free-kick was awarded.

 

[bunsen burner]

Dude, if you call an errant forearm fend-off incorrect, then I suppose we should legalise it next year.

What are you on about?

Goal 1: Sydney player incorrect disposes of the ball whilst being tackled, gives it to a swans team mate who kicks a goal.

Goal 2: pack is on the ground in front of goals, Hurn dives on the pack and gets pinged for in the back. Soft. Shouldn't have been a free. When all the players are on the ground you don't pay that sort of thing.

2 goals. Nearly a quarter of the goals you kicked. You'll be hard pushed to build a case that the umpires favoured the Eagles by more than 25% for the rest of the game.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

This may come as a surprise to you ... but I don't know many people who sit down with a notebook and write down each time there's an incorrect decision. However, plenty of football watchers can watch a match and get a feel for the flow of the umpiring and whether it's favouring one side or another. I certainly noticed plenty of times during the match where I thought to myself 'Gee, that should have been a free' or 'why did he get a free for that?'. And almost all the time it seemed the Swans were on the wrong end of those dubious decisions.

Well said. The fact that people can't produce a forensic analysis of the missed free kick at the 25-and-a-half-minute mark of the second quarter doesn't mean anything. The fact that the vast majority of neutral supporters all think the Swans got the wrong end of the umpiring pineapple is fairly persuasive, isn't it?

Swans very unlucky.

 

[RogerRabbit69]

Goal 1: Sydney player incorrect disposes of the ball whilst being tackled, gives it to a swans team mate who kicks a goal.

Virtually impossible for the umpire to determine if it was incorrect disposal. Looked line-ball to me.

Goal 2: pack is on the ground in front of goals, Hurn dives on the pack and gets pinged for in the back. Soft. Shouldn't have been a free. When all the players are on the ground you don't pay that sort of thing.

Soft? Sure. But still a free. It was indiscriminate. Those frees are paid in every match.

 

[Embers]

Well said. The fact that people can't produce a forensic analysis of the missed free kick at the 25-and-a-half-minute mark of the second quarter doesn't mean anything. The fact that the vast majority of neutral supporters all think the Swans got the wrong end of the umpiring pineapple is fairly persuasive, isn't it?

Swans very unlucky.

I seriously doubt that many people watched the game in all honesty. Most are on the bandwagon following the leader or looking at the free kick count and making assumptions. I havnt really heard this Sydney were robbed on any other site but this one for some reason

 

[ben9909]

What are you on about?

Goal 1: Sydney player incorrect disposes of the ball whilst being tackled, gives it to a swans team mate who kicks a goal.

Goal 2: pack is on the ground in front of goals, Hurn dives on the pack and gets pinged for in the back. Soft. Shouldn't have been a free. When all the players are on the ground you don't pay that sort of thing.

2 goals. Nearly a quarter of the goals you kicked. You'll be hard pushed to build a case that the umpires favoured the Eagles by more than 25% for the rest of the game.

Goal 1: Handball was there, connected with the fist, fare is fare mate. No free kick in that.

Goal 2: It was in the back seven ways from sunday mate, you can't have it both ways. We were being pinged for tackling whilst on the ground. Fare is fare.

 

[RogerRabbit69]

I seriously doubt that many people watched the game in all honesty.

So, is it just a coincidence that this thread started a few minutes after the final siren? I watched every minute of the match ... and I'd think most footy fans would have watched it, too. It was live on FTA TV in the eastern states.

 

[bunsen burner]

Goal 1: Handball was there, connected with the fist, fare is fare mate. No free kick in that.

Then you don't know what a legal handball is. He punched it out of mid air.

Goal 2: It was in the back seven ways from sunday mate, you can't have it both ways. We were being pinged for tackling whilst on the ground. Fare is fare.

This one is debatable. But it was soft. Shouldn't pay stuff like that.

 

[RogerRabbit69]

You're weakening. BTW, it's not illegal to punch the ball out of mid-air.

 

[ben9909]

Then you don't know what a legal handball is. He punched it out of mid air.

This one is debatable. But it was soft. Shouldn't pay stuff like that.

It was a handball in anyones book, except in yours i suppose.

Soft or not, you can't go into the players back, simple as that.

Whats next mate, you won't be allowed to soccer off the ground to get an advantage, oh wait, only when we play in Perth right mate.

 

[bunsen burner]

You're weakening. BTW, it's not illegal to punch the ball out of mid-air.

Yes it is when you've just had possession, being tackled, and have no handpassed it or kicked it. That's a free kick every single time. No ifs or buts.

Not sure how you can seriously defend that incorrect disposal?

 

[Arcadion]

I seriously doubt that many people watched the game in all honesty. Most are on the bandwagon following the leader or looking at the free kick count and making assumptions.

Correct. They also fail to realise that Sydney have given away the most free kicks not only this year but last year too.

II havnt really heard this Sydney were robbed on any other site but this one for some reason

The reason is because WC are the 2nd most hated side on Bigfooty after Collingwood.

 

[bunsen burner]

It was a handball in anyones book, except in yours i suppose.

Commentators picked it up.

Your denial to concede this single obvious decision shows your inabiolity to have an objective view and casts doubt on your whole argument.

 

[swanniez1983]

I was at the game, I thought the umpiring was bad but not THAT bad. I cant feel bothered watching the replay.

If anyone would care to jot them down ill be interested to see what people are disputing

I saw the Selwood one, thats about all I can remember as I had quite a few.

What's the point? Even if you guys got 50 frees against 20 you would never concede that you had assistance. The crowd booing the umpires at the end of the game sums it up and show the lack of brain cells your fans have....and they say swans supporters have no idea about the game

 

[Arcadion]

What's the point? Even if you guys got 50 frees against 20 you would never concede that you had assistance.

And even if we got 25-20 in our favour you lot would still be whinging how you were robbed. Where do you draw the line?

 

[RogerRabbit69]

Correct. They also fail to realise that Sydney have given away the most free kicks not only this year but last year too.

The reason is because WC are the 2nd most hated side on Bigfooty after Collingwood.

Arcadion, that's a perfect 0/2. Why wouldn't footy fans have watched the match?

And to prove you totally incorrect in your second statement, check out this thread:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=249845

The Eagles aren't even close to being the most disliked team on Big Footy. Sorry to disappoint.