grimlock
Hall of Famer
You obviously don't get it NMW, Barry deliberately ran into Stenglein, and even if Stenglein did deviate off the mark, its Barry's fault because he had the temerity to be running near Stenglein.NMWBloods said:
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Robbed.
- Thread starter Dry Rot
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
What exactly is the point of continuing to post if you are just going to make stuff up? What you have said here is fantasy - it never happened. What did happen has been explained over and over - is it your comprehension skills that are lacking or are you just an insecure Wiggles fan who feels the need to constantly justify everything about his club?section8 said:
Now, seriously, you've had a crack at coming up with a rule that was broken and good on you for trying. But, you were wrong - that's been proven. Do you have another rule to provide as evidence or are you going to just keep trying to change what happened so it fits your opinion? If it's the latter, it's probably not worth your time because you will still be wrong.
Oh of course - silly me! That protected area is pretty mobile isn't it!grimlock said:You obviously don't get it NMW, Barry deliberately ran into Stenglein, and even if Stenglein did deviate off the mark, its Barry's fault because he had the temerity to be running near Stenglein.
- Banned
- #129
So Stengelin was asked to get back on his mark before the contact was made? Ahhh that's right, he wasn't because based on precedent he was still considered as being on it or "close enough to it" (remember that thing called "precedent" that you continue to ignore that comes into play when interpreting rules?)
The 5 m no go zone around the man standing on the mark serves the same purpose as the zone afforded to the player taking the free. It is to prevent the player with the ball from playing on whilst simultaneously having a fellow player running through the player standing the mark's no go zone and effecting an illegal obstruction. It is the same reason why a player having a shot from the pocket that is entitled to play on to improve his angle is afforded a 5 metre gap between himself and the opposition to prevent unfair obstruction. Otherwise, taking the Barry example to the extreme, you could have a stream of opposition players run parallel and within 1m of the player having a shot and if he decided to improve his angle whilst these players were running past and collided with one of them it would be considered play on and not an infringement resulting in 50 metres? Because that is view whom everyone that believes the Stenglein free was not there subscribes to. So far your only attempt to discount my argument is by saying "gieschen/umpire/stenglein" etc said it was the wrong decision which in no way validates your argument.
The 5 m no go zone around the man standing on the mark serves the same purpose as the zone afforded to the player taking the free. It is to prevent the player with the ball from playing on whilst simultaneously having a fellow player running through the player standing the mark's no go zone and effecting an illegal obstruction. It is the same reason why a player having a shot from the pocket that is entitled to play on to improve his angle is afforded a 5 metre gap between himself and the opposition to prevent unfair obstruction. Otherwise, taking the Barry example to the extreme, you could have a stream of opposition players run parallel and within 1m of the player having a shot and if he decided to improve his angle whilst these players were running past and collided with one of them it would be considered play on and not an infringement resulting in 50 metres? Because that is view whom everyone that believes the Stenglein free was not there subscribes to. So far your only attempt to discount my argument is by saying "gieschen/umpire/stenglein" etc said it was the wrong decision which in no way validates your argument.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Banned
- #130
what a load of crap we only remember the swans ones because there wasnt any others to remember.and ,I really hope wc makes grand final 30 seconds to go judd gets head ripped off 10 metres out from goals its play on it was a accident he didnt mean it wc lose by point..wc supporters very happy with result it was a accident yeh rightBarcaRulz said:
- Banned
- #131
You guys need to be a bit more philisophical here. There are always going to be random elements outside the control of either team. One is the human error factor in the umpires, another is the unpredictable bounce of the ball. From what I saw, Sydney was advantaged just as much as disadvantaged by these. You weren't robbed, you lost because your team failed to take advantage of your oppurtunities to win.
section8 said:
That's too funny. You seem to have missed the bit where we actually pointed out to you the part of the rule (which you posted) that you didn't understand.Now you are just changing your story. You original posted the rule to show that the decision was correct when you clearly didn't comprehend it. When that was pointed out you started going on about "too close" and within "1m" - things that aren't mentioned in the rule!
Then you make a post that completely ignores half of this discussion. Really, you need to get over it and move in. It was the wrong decision and you benefited from it - congratulations.
We are all perfectly philisophical - this discussion is still going on because one of your fellow supporters is making stuff up to try to justify an umpiring decision. Perhaps you could explain it to him in a way that he would understand.MSR273 said:
Our point has always been a matter of fairness. Your opportunities to win came in part from dodgy decisions in the last quarter - you took those opportunities and your side deserves credit. I personally have nothing againt the Eagles - if we had received those decisions my response to Eagles supporters would be IDGAF.
The problem is that we weren't given the same opportunities as you - thanks to the umpires. We created chances to win the game but you were able to stop them illegally and the umpires ignored it. Good luck to you but don't talk to us about opportunities when you were clearly given them when the game was on the line and we weren't.
- Banned
- #136
You're struggling with the integration of the concepts of interpretation and precedent regarding the rule into your argument. I suggest that you research the principles of common law and statutory law which are used in tandem in most western legal systems to get a better appreciation of what you need to do to rebut properly.
Since you are unlikely to do that, it is pointless for this discussion to continue.
section8 said:
the head of the umpire Assoc, Stegline and nearly everyone in the football world have publically admitted that both decisions were incorrect...
you do not want to accept this b/c it spoils the sweet victory.
Bad umpiring has a negative impact on both sides; the repercussions of last friday nights game have shown us this.
who knows how the game would have gone had the umpiring been fair? you may have won or lost? but to say that it didn't impact the game is untrue and you will not get that validation here....
More irrelevant rubbish from you. You posted the rule to back your argument - we showed where you were wrong. It is you that is having trouble with the interpretation. It should be noted that you didn't attempt to "interpret" the rule to begin with. You misunderstood it and thought it supported you. As I said before, you are changing your argument - with pretty much every post - but you are no closer to being right.section8 said:
You've been dealt with and proven wrong. So, finally you have got something right - yes, it is pointless for this discussion to continue until you can come up with a rule that Leo broke.Now, repeat after me ... "enter & remain". You can interpret that to mean only enter if you like (using the principles of common law and statutory law of course
) but let's face it, you'll only continue to make yourself look a bit silly.- Banned
- #139
The angle Barry ran at toward Stenglein through the protected area meets both the entered and remained criteria. You are interpreting "remain" too literally, as though Barry needed to be standing still in this area to have been infringing, which is rubbish. Stenglein had no choice but to remain "stationary" (not literally stationary, remember as it has never been interpreted in a literal sense by umpires) as he was standing the mark. Barry on the other hand, was not following an opposition player and had 60m to the left of Stenglein to get around him without running through the 5m boundaries of the arc to the left and right of Stenglein, which are there for his protection as well, not just for that of the player with the ball. Barry chose to run through the arc and collided with Stenglein. Now, you can say Stenglein moved however, not enough for the umpire to say that it was Stenglein's movement which caused the collision but rather, Barry's decision to run through the 5 m boundary to the left of Stenglein. Some umpires would have called it in Barry's favour no doubt at all. But to say that the decision was "wrong", gieschen, ignores the reason for the protected area extending to 5m to the left and right of the player standing the mark, to stop unfair shielding of said player if play on is called. Barry did not need to be stationary to shield off Stenglein. All he needed to be doing was running past him and close enough to him at the right time to effect it. And I won't be drawn in to Stenglein was bracing or Barry was running to position or even trying to shepherd off Stenglein for that matter because no one is a mind reader. In Friday night's instance, mcinerny has seen Barry enter the protected area illegally and running fairly well in line with Stenglein so that when contact was made with Stenglein having not moved far enough off the mark for mcinerny to reset the mark, Barry was deemed at fault. A decision that could have gone the other way no doubt but the way many, including gieschen who was simply disgraceful as he didn't seem to take into account Stenglein's right to be protected whatsoever, have carried on it was as though there was no basis whatsoever for the free kick to be awarded at all which is 100% incorrect and didn't warrant the reaction it caused. Barry was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Why Barry chose to be in this place is something only he knows.
Look, this has been fun but you are really starting to bore me now. You keep just making stuff up to justify your argument and I'm starting to think that you've got some pretty serious issues.
Anyway, to humour you a bit more, I'll go through your post and disprove it all again. After that, perhaps you could come up with something other than your own warped view to justify the decision - I know you tried that originally and you were wrong but you are getting nowhere with your current efforts.
Sorry mate, I can't go on any further. Every sentence so far is either kind of nuts or you have just made stuff up.
Stenglein was stationary - moving fits into your "interpretation" of stationary? Barry was running through an area - which means "remaining" using your interpretation. Answer me one question before we all move on from this craziness. Does what you wrote not sound really stupid to you?
Anyway, to humour you a bit more, I'll go through your post and disprove it all again. After that, perhaps you could come up with something other than your own warped view to justify the decision - I know you tried that originally and you were wrong but you are getting nowhere with your current efforts.
Do you seriously not understand how stupid that sounds? The angle meets the remained criteria? Dude, get a dictionary - interpretation does not allow you to completely change the meaning of words.
Interpreting it literally is quite common in regards to words and will get you closer to the truth than completely changing their meaning. BTW, no-one has said anything about standing still - something else that you made up. The point is that he was running through the area - hadn't even stopped. Until Stenglein blocked him. So, you have interpreted not "remaining" to mean that he is "remaining" - nice work
He had no choice to remain "stationary" in a moving a sense? You are really not the smartest tool in the shed are you?
Doesn't have to be following an opposition player - stop making things up. Does not have to stay out of the 5m arc - stop making stuff up. Whether he had 60m or 1000 is completely irrelevant - where in the law does it say he can only run through if there is no room elsewhere? Stop making stuff up.
Sorry mate, I can't go on any further. Every sentence so far is either kind of nuts or you have just made stuff up.
Stenglein was stationary - moving fits into your "interpretation" of stationary? Barry was running through an area - which means "remaining" using your interpretation. Answer me one question before we all move on from this craziness. Does what you wrote not sound really stupid to you?
Sean
The instant you start abusing your opponent, you know that your arguement is running out of steam. Remain civil.
Section8
Can you please address this "enter and remain" problem?
Don't these words imply, in plain English, that any player is entitled to run through any part of the protected zone so long as they don't stop?
I understand custom and precedent and interpretation but I think I also understand the words "enter and remain". Should this wording be changed to "enter or remain", which would cover players already in the protected area when the whistle is blown?
In other words, does Sean's case and this whole argument, come down to one little word – "and" instead of "or"?
The instant you start abusing your opponent, you know that your arguement is running out of steam. Remain civil.
Section8
Can you please address this "enter and remain" problem?
Don't these words imply, in plain English, that any player is entitled to run through any part of the protected zone so long as they don't stop?
I understand custom and precedent and interpretation but I think I also understand the words "enter and remain". Should this wording be changed to "enter or remain", which would cover players already in the protected area when the whistle is blown?
In other words, does Sean's case and this whole argument, come down to one little word – "and" instead of "or"?
Don't know about my argument but I'm definitely running out of steam. Anyway, not sure what you are reading as abuse but there is definitely some frustration in my post. Noticed that you haven't mentioned the earlier allegations of naivety (along with the customary criticism of Sydney, our game plan and Leo Barry) but, of course, you can decide which abuse bothers you.JohnK said:
- Banned
- #143
From the perspective of McInerny, "remain" was interpreted as the amount of time spent by Barry in the protected zone before infringing. It could be milliseconds as the rule does not dictate a specific length of time. Therefore, implementing a judicious interpretation of the rule, primarily influenced by the reasons the rule exists in the first place, which among other things includes protection of the man standing the mark whom is extremely restricted in his movement, was necessary. Given that Barry ran toward Stenglein on an angle somwhere around the 70 degree mark, he had entered the arc and whilst running through had remained in there "long enough" for the kick to be reversed, especially once contact with Stenglein had been made, which again, is something that the spirit of the rule is there to protect against.
Again, I want to reiterate that it could have been interpreted another way by someone else and we were fortunate to have been awarded the kick. It is primarily Gieschen's position that there was no basis for the free kick that I'm trying to discredit as, due to his position and the fact that similar borderline decisions occur week in week out without a peep from him, it naturally removes much of the gloss from the eagles' win.
BTW, at no point have I made any personal attacks directed at you, Sean. NSW, the rugby watching public there and Leo Barry on the other hand, are fair game.
Again, I want to reiterate that it could have been interpreted another way by someone else and we were fortunate to have been awarded the kick. It is primarily Gieschen's position that there was no basis for the free kick that I'm trying to discredit as, due to his position and the fact that similar borderline decisions occur week in week out without a peep from him, it naturally removes much of the gloss from the eagles' win.
BTW, at no point have I made any personal attacks directed at you, Sean. NSW, the rugby watching public there and Leo Barry on the other hand, are fair game.
"Please, don't let your naivety get in the way of truth." Not personal? Not that I care - I just said that because John's comments weren't really looking at the big picture. Also, comments like this "anyway, with any luck geelong will roll the swans as their brand of football is a blight on the game and we can put one more nail in the "sell afl to rugby-watching meataxes" experiment." will obviously be taken personally.section8 said:
In regards to the rest of your post, you are still trying to make the word remain fit an interpretation that fits you. It can not apply to someone running through an area - it is, as I said, not interpreting a word - it's changing it's meaning.
Anyway, considering that players have gone within 5m of the man on the mark in every quarter of every game, every year for the last 20 years it's safe to say that your interpretation is not correct.
The only reason that this was different was because contact was made - initiated by Stenglein.
Important to note that the umpire has now been dropped.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Section8, could you forget Barry just for moment and answer the other question:
...The "enter and remain" problem... Don't these words imply, in plain English, that any player is entitled to run through any part of the protected zone so long as he doesn't stop?
- Banned
- #146
ok John, let me place the word "remain" into another context....
In basketball for example...the three seconds in the opposition key violation. A player can enter the key and be moving around for 4 seconds without leaving the key and without ever coming to a halt and be adjudged as having "remained" in the key for more than 3 seconds.
Whilst I am in no way saying that there is a three second rule in footy, what it does imply is that the use of the word "remain" is acceptable when one is moving within a designated area. Basically, "remain" means "to continue to be in the same place", in this instance "place" is the whole of the protected area. It does not stipulate a need to be stationary.
In basketball for example...the three seconds in the opposition key violation. A player can enter the key and be moving around for 4 seconds without leaving the key and without ever coming to a halt and be adjudged as having "remained" in the key for more than 3 seconds.
Whilst I am in no way saying that there is a three second rule in footy, what it does imply is that the use of the word "remain" is acceptable when one is moving within a designated area. Basically, "remain" means "to continue to be in the same place", in this instance "place" is the whole of the protected area. It does not stipulate a need to be stationary.
Bleed Red Cheer
Club Legend
- Feb 14, 2005
- 1,035
- 1
- Other Teams
- Swans
section8 said:
And yet it does.
- Banned
- #148
Way to quote out of context. Are you a SMH journo?
Bleed Red Cheer
Club Legend
- Feb 14, 2005
- 1,035
- 1
- Other Teams
- Swans
section8 said:
And yet it does.
