Freo get the points

[rayven]

Yeh but what happens when the siren goes?

He finds out whats its like to be in a relationship.

 

[-VC-]

It was even a bit more complicated than that, because the umpire in the vicinity of Mattner was prepared to allow the goal (i.e. he "heard" the siren after the kick) whereas anouter umpire came screaming in from 100 metres away to overrule.

The umpire from 100m away was correct on that night. I was at the game and already cursing Mattner before I realised there was a chance they might allow it.

Hardwire the footy to explode at the end of time?

You wouldn't want to have the ball when the siren goes off.

 

[*PAF]

He finds out whats its like to be in a relationship.

Boom boom.

 

[tinman]

Agreed - but from what I can gather - the AFLs point is that the umpires signal to end the game is the final step in the chain in events that commences with the expiration of time - which is the trigger to begin the sequential process to end the game...ie

1 time expires
2 timekeeper blows siren continuously
3 umpire signals a halt to play
4 timekeeper stops blowing siren

the AFL have ruled that in the absense of 2, the umpire did not get a chance to carryout 3 - and so in this case the AFL must revert to 1 as being the end of the game.

Word is that the Saints will not appeal - so that says a fair bit about the correctness of the decision IMO

Precisely!!!!

 

[tinman]

oh FFS. like this happens all the time

Spot on, I can't speak for the next hundred years, but I'll wager they'll be blowing that siren long and hard for a few weeks to come.

 

[jc67]

a player has his foot over the centre square line by 1 cm, the umpire notices and pings him.
After the game the club measures the square and uncovers that it is over sized by 1.5cm.


the pads on the goal post are over sized by 1mm or a bit worn and favours one end?

The drainage isn't as efficient in one specific pocket.

the umpires issued boots bust a seam and he misses a crucial decision.

A boundary umpire misses an oob because he tripped over a TV camera lead.


Name a club that wouldn't try any of these if they had lost a plelim by a point? (plus the million more a lawyer could find)

As it stands any blunder by the AFL could overturn a result.

I wonder if the AFL felt pressured by the impending legal challenge by Freo, and took this path as the safe option.
Temporarially safe i think.

 

[MrAaron]

I suspect not, because calling the wrong score (e.g. calling a goal a point) leads to the subsequent play being different - a restart from the middle vs a kick in.

However, there is a precedent.

remember that telstra dome game it was Saints Vs Lions a couple years back ? remember that point that missed th epoints area by a good 2 feet and was still given a point which lead to a drawn game ?

The Saints are ing cheats and they know it !

 

[jc67]

a player has his foot over the centre square line by 1 cm, the umpire notices and pings him.
After the game the club measures the square and uncovers that it is over sized by 1.5cm.


the pads on the goal post are over sized by 1mm or a bit worn and favours one end?

The drainage isn't as efficient in one specific pocket.

the umpires issued boots bust a seam and he misses a crucial decision.

A boundary umpire misses an oob because he tripped over a TV camera lead.


Name a club that wouldn't try any of these if they had lost a plelim by a point? (plus the million more a lawyer could find)

As it stands any blunder by the AFL could overturn a result.

I wonder if the AFL felt pressured by the impending legal challenge by Freo, and took this path as the safe option.
Temporarily safe i think.

 

[Lach72]

Good to see you people are still talking about us!!

 

[- PC -]

Libbas ''point'' in the 97 Prelim?

Andrew Dunkley getting an injunction in 96

Slowly slowly clubs are pushing the win at all costs

Hey I recognise I am walking alone on this one. But I will say a Final will be challenged in court within 10 years

 

[Ripper]

Hey I recognise I am walking alone on this one. But I will say a Final will be challenged in court within 10 years

And so they should be if they play extra time before extra time.

Can't see it happening myself if the facities are all up to standard.

 

[Crowked]

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,19028469%255E19742,00.html

Saints wanted fight
05 May 2006 Herald Sun
Mark Stevens

ST KILDA chief executive Jim Watts yesterday revealed the club's immediate reaction was to "shove it up" the AFL after the commission overturned the result of Sunday's match against Fremantle.

In a passionate open letter to members and corporate backers, Watts said the club was ready to fight the moment the AFL Commission awarded the Dockers the four points on Wednesday.

"Legal opinion indicated we would win. Take them on, shove it up them, play by the rules and get what is rightfully ours," Watts said.

But the Saints decided to sleep on it.

Cold, harsh reality hit when the board met at 7am yesterday.

The decision was made to forget court action – even if the legal eagles thought the club was "mad" for not pursuing it.

"Legal action means a Supreme Court hearing. It means a massive investment in management time and members' money," Watts said.

"It means distraction and lack of focus in our ongoing 2006 campaign. If we win a protracted legal case, we get the two points, but what do we lose?

"Our decision was to accept the decision of the AFL Commission and move on."

Club president Rod Butterss yesterday faced the media, saying the club had taken the "right and reasonable" action.

"The legal fraternity, I can suggest to you, think we're mad for not pursuing it . . . but that's our conscience and our call," Butterss said.

"Our very strong advice, from a legal perspective, was we had a very, very strong case. However, the board and the executive of the club undertook to choose not to pursue that advice for a bunch of reasons.

"We're in the business of winning football games, not court cases. I don't think it was a tough call."

Butterss said the Saints may have set a trend in keeping battles on the field.

"I hope we've set a standard in this industry. The game has no place in the courts of this land. The game ought to be contested on the field," he said.

"I hope that has a flow-through effect in terms of what is fair for all the participants and stakeholders in the industry."

The president said the club did not need the disruption of a a court battle.

Butterss asked for the input of the football department before making the decision and said it was important for the club to maintain focus.

Asked for his message to angry Saints members wanting to take the dispute to the courts, Butterss replied: "We say trust our judgment.

"We made this decision because we believe the most important event on St Kilda Football Club's calendar is our upcoming assignment this Saturday afternoon at Telstra Dome against the Western Bulldogs."

Butterss said the club was given a "fair hearing" by the AFL Commission, but hinted it was up against it from the start in terms of fair play.

"We batted on a dodgy wicket the best we could and the umpire made the decision," Butterss said.

"We batted from the legal perspective and lost.

"We have no beef with the Fremantle Football Club. In fact, we would have done the same thing.

"We have no beef with the AFL Commission – we understand their role and in many respects we think they made the appropriate call in light of good sportsmanship."



Good on them.

 

[rayven]

Libbas ''point'' in the 97 Prelim?

Well even it that was a goal they thought long before then the match was over, so if it was a goal they would of just lay down that little bit more causing us to win by that little bit more.

 

[NikkiNoo]