Remove this Banner Ad

yellow maggots

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

BLue_Bloys said:
But really, it doesn't do jack shit. The umpires get assessed after each week, just like players do. They will probably drop some of those umpires or whatever they do in situations when they perform badly.
Click to expand...
I gave up believing that years ago. It's Jeff Gieschen's job to whitewash their blunders and stupidity so that the morons are protected from any consequences. Occasionally they get called on it, like Brady Rawlings did this week but no-one of any authority in the game will ever criticise these ____wits publicly or privately.
 
mxett said:
Funny thing was that Michael Voss on ch10 agreed with the decision. Betts took his eyes off the ball and looked at Fletcher. His intention was therefore to obstruct or interfere with Fletchers jump, which he successfully did.

You may well say "what is Betts supposed to do to contest"? Well that is why you dont kick to a contest between two me who are a foot different in height.
Click to expand...

The other commentators also said it was ridiculous - with which Voss went on to agree with ....what a ridiculous post.

Seriously that is obscene.

The umpiring against us on saturday night is almost unanimously - across the entire AFL - regarded as pathetic - arguing it is below a bushies snot at Derby Day in the bird cage.....

As a blues supporter we lost because we gave up - not the umpiring - but to argue that the umpiring wasn't complete crap is pure unadulterated drivel of the highest and most utterly ignorant order - tool of a post, by a tool of a supporter by the biggest tool club going around with the biggest tool of a captain.
 
audas said:
The other commentators also said it was ridiculous - with which Voss went on to agree with ....what a ridiculous post.

Seriously that is obscene.

The umpiring against us on saturday night is almost unanimously - across the entire AFL - regarded as pathetic - arguing it is below a bushies snot at Derby Day in the bird cage.....

As a blues supporter we lost because we gave up - not the umpiring - but to argue that the umpiring wasn't complete crap is pure unadulterated drivel of the highest and most utterly ignorant order - tool of a post, by a tool of a supporter by the biggest tool club going around with the biggest tool of a captain.
Click to expand...

No no but this tool tried to tell us that EVERY non carlton support thought what she thought... EVERY... like I stated above three doesn't constitute EVERY...

tool of a post... hmm well it is full of so many mis truths and a swiss chess/main street pot hole defence! your right the post and poster smacks of being a massive tool!
 
chelsworthgale said:
No no but this tool tried to tell us that EVERY non carlton support thought what she thought... EVERY... like I stated above three doesn't constitute EVERY...

tool of a post... hmm well it is full of so many mis truths and a swiss chess/main street pot hole defence! your right the post and poster smacks of being a massive tool!
Click to expand...

LOL touchy touchy. Settle down before you have a TIA or something!

Your english skills, or maybe your ability to concentrate and focus, are worse than my so called poor maths skills (which given my physics degree aren't too shabby)!

Notice that I said "every non Essendon person I have spoken to"? Did you see the word I???

That doesn't mean every supporter in Melbourne, just all the ones I discussed the game with! I am not generalising. I never said that means everyone, just the one's I have come in contact with.

Please if you're trying to discredit other peoples arguments, calling them fools and clowns (when that was never directed at you), try not to make such blundering errors! It only makes you look all the bigger fool, and just an angry and frustrated little blues supporter.

Next you try to discredit David Shwartz because he has a gambling problem and the station he works for broadcast untruths. Hold the papers! A media organisation is telling lies, wow now there's a revelation! Just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't mean he isn't telling the truth, addiction or no addiction.

Bring on someone who can look at things more logically and with a bit less blind emotion. It just smacks of pathetic desperation. Your team are losing, try to take it with a bit of dignity.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

mxett said:
Bring on someone who can look at things more logically and with a bit less blind emotion. It just smacks of pathetic desperation. Your team are losing, try to take it with a bit of dignity.
Click to expand...
When you stop contributing constructively and just remain on a team board in order to try and score points in a personal argument, you also run the risk of copping a whack on that board.

If you want to discuss free kicks logically, then perhaps you too should cite specific examples or address examples already given rather than sweep them aside with a generalisation.

An attempt to keep a discussion on topic is at least a prerequisite for posting here.
 
The Old Dark Navy's said:
When you stop contributing constructively and just remain on a team board in order to try and score points in a personal argument, you also run the risk of copping a whack on that board.

If you want to discuss free kicks logically, then perhaps you too should cite specific examples or address examples already given rather than sweep them aside with a generalisation.

An attempt to keep a discussion on topic is at least a prerequisite for posting here.
Click to expand...

Point taken. You might want to tell that to chelsworthgate though, because his best form of argument is to name call and insult hurl. My original post had no derogatory remarks, it was just an opinion from a non blues supporter, with some hearsay opinions from some impartial friends and colleagues.

Maybe moderate your own kind aswell. ;)
 
mxett said:
Point taken. You might want to tell that to chelsworthgate though, because his best form of argument is to name call and insult hurl. My original post had no derogatory remarks, it was just an opinion from a non blues supporter, with some hearsay opinions from some impartial friends and colleagues.

Maybe moderate your own kind aswell. ;)
Click to expand...
I will give your suggestion the consideration it deserves. In the meantime, you might want to consider the board you are on, the rights afforded to you on that board and your own choice of wording in responding to anything on that board. There is a rules thread stickied up the top to assist you in this process.

Regards
 
mxett said:
LOL touchy touchy. Settle down before you have a TIA or something!

Your english skills, or maybe your ability to concentrate and focus, are worse than my so called poor maths skills (which given my physics degree aren't too shabby)!

Notice that I said "every non Essendon person I have spoken to"? Did you see the word I???

That doesn't mean every supporter in Melbourne, just all the ones I discussed the game with! I am not generalising. I never said that means everyone, just the one's I have come in contact with.

Please if you're trying to discredit other peoples arguments, calling them fools and clowns (when that was never directed at you), try not to make such blundering errors! It only makes you look all the bigger fool, and just an angry and frustrated little blues supporter.

Next you try to discredit David Shwartz because he has a gambling problem and the station he works for broadcast untruths. Hold the papers! A media organisation is telling lies, wow now there's a revelation! Just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't mean he isn't telling the truth, addiction or no addiction.

Bring on someone who can look at things more logically and with a bit less blind emotion. It just smacks of pathetic desperation. Your team are losing, try to take it with a bit of dignity.
Click to expand...

Yes yes we all have fictitious physics degrees etc... I dont understand how you claim i'm attacking you personally when accurately describing you as a moron and muppet?... Next I am going to call you a hyprocrite because as you can see all your rebuttle is surrounding picking on some quickly typed english and my accurate descriptions of yourself. You provide not a single ounce of evidence to contradict any of the points and videos that I pointed to... You were shot down regarding describing that EVERY person you have come into contact with has described the game as accurate... and you have generalised based upon two things... the people you selectively spoken to and a bloke who cant even bet on the game that he is paid to provide special comments on (irony anyone?)

I did see your little letter "I"... but then I did also see the fact that you mentioned Schwatz who I am sure YOU have not had a chat with, you also select SEN talkers, once again who you have not had contact with. To add to that any moron will know that those calls are screened and you have to put forward your topic and opinion to the producer before being added to the queue, with no guarentee to being given airtime. But we wont let that get in the way of a good yarn hey?!

I would think that putting forward an opinion followed up by clear cut evidence is what logical thinking is all about. I believe that is taught in your prized English 101 class... You my dear simple muppet has simply put forward nothing but a group of accusations and generalisations based purely on a "a single mate" (now it is just a single mate yet in this post... http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10586883&postcount=44... you decribe the plural, which one is it?) and a selected audience on a radio station with the integrity of Henry Kay or a Christopher Skase...

But look try and score points with the Mods as much as you can, I mean all it will do is probably delay an infraction or a card because at the end of the day here on the CARLTON BOARD we are interested in providing opinions based upon facts... you dont like that take it to un educated board run by Muppet Beagle...

Physics you say? What... whats that?... is that a trumpet being blown from a high horse?
 
mxett said:
LOL touchy touchy. Settle down before you have a TIA or something!

Your english skills, or maybe your ability to concentrate and focus, are worse than my so called poor maths skills (which given my physics degree aren't too shabby)!

Notice that I said "every non Essendon person I have spoken to"? Did you see the word I???

That doesn't mean every supporter in Melbourne, just all the ones I discussed the game with! I am not generalising. I never said that means everyone, just the one's I have come in contact with.

Please if you're trying to discredit other peoples arguments, calling them fools and clowns (when that was never directed at you), try not to make such blundering errors! It only makes you look all the bigger fool, and just an angry and frustrated little blues supporter.

Next you try to discredit David Shwartz because he has a gambling problem and the station he works for broadcast untruths. Hold the papers! A media organisation is telling lies, wow now there's a revelation! Just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't mean he isn't telling the truth, addiction or no addiction.

Bring on someone who can look at things more logically and with a bit less blind emotion. It just smacks of pathetic desperation. Your team are losing, try to take it with a bit of dignity.
Click to expand...


Always amusing watching someone condescending from well above their station
- cerebral skid-marks such as yourself should defer to their intellectual superiors for guidance - (a Kinda Surprise perhaps) - you are discombobulated.
 
The Old Dark Navy's said:
I will give your suggestion the consideration it deserves. In the meantime, you might want to consider the board you are on, the rights afforded to you on that board and your own choice of wording in responding to anything on that board. There is a rules thread stickied up the top to assist you in this process.

Regards
Click to expand...

I think this muppet is taking the piss out of you ODN... it is a major downfall of forums, instant messaging, sms etc you can not convey emotion such as sarcasm...

Tool of the week IMO
 
Facts, ok, here are some.

1. I do have a Physics degree, but I don't expect you to believe my word. It is, however, still factual.

2. I spoke to A NUMBER of non essendon or carlton supporting friends and colleagues about the umpiring in that game. ALL of which said it was an excellent game and that both teams played well. They all stated that while the umpiring was at times inconsistent, it was NOT terrible, and they didn't believe it had any bearing on the result.

3. David Schwartz responded to a question from a Carlton supporter who rang to complain about the umpiring during said game. If it was a screened call I am not sure how that influences Schwartz's opinion that the umpiring during said game was "good" and had no influence on the result. (His words, not mine)

4. You say you don't know how you are attacking me personally. Maybe it is normal for you to call strangers "morons", "clowns", and "muppets". For me, however, these are not the terms I would use to describe someone who has "peacefully" given an opinion, albeit different to your own. I understand the result angered you, but maybe try and be civil. I was not there to gloat, just dispute the belief by some Carlton supporters that the umpiring was the reason you lost.

5. You say "we" are trying to provide opinions "based on facts". I don't see how you can say yours or any other supporters opinion on a great number of free kicks paid is fact. That is one of the problems with umpiring our great game. There are so many grey area's in the interpretation. Man, even the "expert commentator's" with years of playing experience can't agree on single umpiring decisions, let alone the fans. Add to that a fair dose of emotion and bias (from both teams) and you will get a huge number of varied opinions. Sometimes those "grey" decisions go against you, sometimes they don't. Have a look at the Essendon board. Most bomber supporters couldn't believe there was an opinion on this board that the blues were 'ripped off'. Most, however, believed that the umpiring was inconsistent, as you showed.

6. "You provide not a single ounce of evidence to contradict any of the points and videos that I pointed to... You were shot down regarding describing that EVERY person you have come into contact with has described the game as accurate... and you have generalised based upon two things... the people you selectively spoken to and a bloke who cant even bet on the game that he is paid to provide special comments on (irony anyone?)"

What evidence did you show? You showed two bomber opinions that the umpiring was inconsistent, and two that said you were badly done by. Again, I never said I spoke to EVERYONE. I said EVERYONE I spoke to. Of course you will find other opinions!

You showed two decisions on video that should have been paid to Carlton but resulted in a goal. The first I agree with, but is no worse than the decision that should have been paid against Murphy at the 18th minute of Q2 that ends up as a goal to Steven's. The other decision against Monfries I think was correct, given if you watch it again you will see that he pushes Lloyd out of the contest, leaving two Carlton players on their feet.

Now, have a look at:

-the illegal tackle on Laycock in the middle of the ground in the first 30 seconds. Not paid yet called by Anthony Hudson.

-the holding the man on Lovette, first quater 17:34, not paid. Was on our 50mtr line

-The decision on Fevola's mark (5:50 1st Q) was correcty adjudicated by the umpire who could see it clearly. He ran in to view within second so could have been no more than 40 mtrs away. Walls (as clearly biased a commentator as there is) said that the umpire in the Carlton forward line was unsighted so he called play on. All excellent umpiring, and the correct result ensued.

- The decision re Betts and Fletcher, Voss continually says Betts took his eyes off the ball. He never agrees that he was wrong. He maintains Betts should have looked at the ball. To say otherwise is just plain wrong.

- First quater summary. A number of undisciplined acts by Carlton players off the ball, resulting in Essendon shots at goal. A lot of booing by Carlton fans. If you can find any frees that weren't paid to Carlton then you are REALLY trying hard.

- push in the back to ?reimers at 19:50 Q2, not paid.

- Incorrect disposal against Gibbs, 18:48 Q2, not paid. The tackle after that was paid.

- Holding the ball against Murphy, 18:14 Q2, not paid, very lucky, results in Stevens goal.

- Ramanaskus spoil on Betts, paid to Betts, 14:36 Q2. Commentators say was incorrect

- @ 14:09 Q2 "7 tackles to 0" in favor of Essendon. I wonder why Carlton had less frees??

- Betts, incorrect disposal not paid 10:56 Q2. Shocking decision. Hudson says "very lucky to not be paid"

- Incorrect disposal against Reimers 9:18 Q2, should have been Carlton free. No worse than Betts just prior though. Results in McVeigh goal, but a bounce, kick, tap and kick later.

- 8:40 Carlton crowd booing everything even clearly correct decisions (eg Houli's mark)!

Q2 summary. Inconsistent umpiring against both sides. Pretty even against both sides despite Carlton fans booing everything. Just because the free count is in favor of one team doesn't mean they are not correct. Carlton were a bit sloppy tackling.

- Q3 17:15 poor decision. should have bee holding the ball against reimers.

- Q3 9:26 Decision against Fev to Michael. Replay showed bump clearly in Mal's back. No complaints from commentators after repeated replays, just lots of boos from fans.

- Q3 7:38 should have been incorrect disposal against Kruezer. Hudson agrees.

- Q3 3:07 maybe a free to Carlton for OOF against Fletcher. No replays to confirm. However umpire right there so give him the benefit of the doubt. 30 seconds before Lovette looked to kick a goal, umpire said it was touched just. No side-on replays to confirm. Umpire was right there, give him the benefit of the doubt.

- Q3 summary. Great quarter. A few poor decisions against both teams. All in all though not bad at all.

- Q4 50mtrs against Fisher. "Good call" says Voss. Clear on replay.

- Q4 summary. Pretty good umpiring all round. Maybe a 50/50 or two missed, but surely less 50/50's paid the better, as long as they are consistent.

- Game summary. Watching this for the 4th time I really am surprised how few poor decisions went against Carlton (and Essendon), given the reaction on this board and the booing from the crowd.

I started writing this to show what the bombers also missed out on, but in the end it became apparent that not too much was missed both ways really, just a few each quarter or so. This sort of inconsistency is common. I would suggest,and from what I have observed, the difference in free count is more to do with Carlton's lack of tackling, and sloppy tackling when they do lay one. However, it's amazing how, when a crowd sees the difference in free's, they always assume its poor umpiring and boo. They never really take in to account how their team has played.

- Great game, glad I watched it again. :thumbsu: You guys played well. Maybe when Judd and Stevens are a little fitter you may get over the line. Would be great to see it happen against the Pies. ;)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

mxett said:
Now, have a look at:

-the illegal tackle on Laycock in the middle of the ground in the first 30 seconds. Not paid yet called by Anthony Hudson.

rolled into Gibbs legs, but we wont worry about the fact that Laycock jumped on caught Cloke high in the center bounce 15 seconds earlier... after all Monfries got the free kick before the bounce...

-the holding the man on Lovette, first quater 17:34, not paid. Was on our 50mtr line
was there but essentially he had control and didn't dispose of it correctly but your right

- Fev first goal about 17:00, there was no call for play on but Houlihan was riden into the ground by Rama

- 12:20 stanton not paid holding the man, could be argued he was trying to hatch it... play on fair call

- 9:49 Llyod paid free kick for what? Jamison didnt chop arms, there was a soft slap of the shoulder upper arm, didn't push in the back Llyod simply dived forward! Jamison even fell to the right/right over Llyod to ensure he didnt land in his back... Pass to Ryder results in Essendon goal

- 8:33 25m out from Carlton goal... Fev jumps for the ball and Michael holds his arm to the body, play on, would of been a near certain goal for Carlton

-The decision on Fevola's mark (5:50 1st Q) was correcty adjudicated by the umpire who could see it clearly. He ran in to view within second so could have been no more than 40 mtrs away. Walls (as clearly biased a commentator as there is) said that the umpire in the Carlton forward line was unsighted so he called play on. All excellent umpiring, and the correct result ensued.

- I was at the game and and the umpire was more than 40m away... the camera actually pans out Fev is already 5-6m from the mark and the umpire just gets into view about 10m from fev before the camera centers on him meanwhile fev has taken the mark and laid on the groud for all of a second or two. This was exactly the decision that infurates people where by unless the umpire in centre who is not the officiating umpire on this decision but rather a secondary comes into to change the decision the blinded umpire has called play on based on a guess, the reaction of the essendon players, even though he is loudly screaming play on (can be heard on the mics) should of been clear evidence that he was wrong. However this play would of ended in one of two ways, the way it did of everyone playing stacks on the mill and fev doing his block at the umpire.

- The decision re Betts and Fletcher, Voss continually says Betts took his eyes off the ball. He never agrees that he was wrong. He maintains Betts should have looked at the ball. To say otherwise is just plain wrong.

- The slow mo does no justice, re watch the fast one, they both end up moving the same way! he doesnt take his legs out, he move his support out of the way and fletcher over balances. (like taking the rug out from under someone) This is a pure example of the umpire wanting to try and show boat the "rule of the week", just like the hands in the back was in the 2007 NAB cup. Stupid decision which caused a stoppage of play which ultimately. Betts took his eye off the ball to protect himself and he did the right thing he moved away from the player not into him. Stupid decision and the fact that Voss agrees shows how far the Gold coast side will go should he get the gig!
Click to expand...

1. What ever regarding the Physics degree... no one cares.

2. Now it is a number... it has gone from a group of non essendon, to a single and now a number of carlton and essendon... smacks of highly made up bullshit...

3. Once again Schwatz creditibility as a special comments commentator is as good as Christopher Skase... the bloke sent himself broke on the back of not being able to analyse any sport hence why he is not a respected special comments commentator... in other words his opinion is as worthless as yours.

4. I know i am "insulting" you, for good reason. Prior to your blow by blow analysis of your own selected sample of "sensational" umpiring decisions your only rebuttle was attacking me rather than with a swiss cheese defence hence my continual personal attacks along with some evidence to justify how inconsistent the umpiring was.

6. I showed two bomber goals which resulted in Essendon goals which shouldn't have been. Considering the state of the game when those goals were kicked and the close margin at the end, subtracting those two goals along with 2 of the three goals essendon obtained via "free kicks" that is considered the difference.

7. Initially I was pointing out that the huge descrepancies in the umpiring between the first half and the second half was so clearly evident. How can the game be umpired in the two halfs. Why do rules all of a sudden disappear out of the window. The umpiring on the night was not fair pure and simple. There is no way you can have approx 35 free kicks in a half of football and follow that up with approx 10 in the second half... there NO WAY

Refer to bold above... that was just the first quarter however the trend was set... agreed on the undicipline acts however there were some decision that were paid one way but not the other... wasn't hard to find a few free kicks Carltons way, was easier to find ones paid Essendons way that shouldn't have... 13 hours of trying to decifer the architects drawings all day that a are half baked and trying to produce an accurate design has rendered me brain dead... the seeds were sown for shit umpiring in the first and it carried on all night

in summary the umpiring was shocking, there were many decisions that werent paid and too many that were incorrectly paid. Essentially Essendon benefitted majorly from these decisions and while it soley didnt cost carlton the game (which mind you I never once have blamed the umpiring 100% for our loss) it was a major contributor to our loss.
 
Maybe I'm speaking another language. I never said it was a number, then one, then a number. I have always said it was a number of impartial or non carlton/essendon barracking friends and colleagues.

I tried very hard to find poor decisions against Carlton when I reviewed the match again for the 4th time. Yes there were some. There were also some against Essendon. Yes you probably got a few more. Yes a few of them resulted in goals, as did one against Essendon. I agreed with you on one of the goals that we got that we shouldn't. The other I disagree, given Monfries pushed Lloyd out not a blues player. Over all in 2 hours of footy surely poor decisions will not be exactly equal! Again, there were ones both ways. You have just decided to ignore the ones that went on your favor.

The second half was very free flowing footy, especially the last quarter. Really, if you can find a poor decision in the last quarter you are trying way too hard, end being too tiggy touchwood, like most fans complain about. There really weren't very many frees to pay hence the discrepancy. Surely the umpires just adjudicate on what they see, not on what is expected as far as the number of frees. Games often change from a slog to free flowing, in two halves. Why can't that result in a different number of frees as well?

The comments about Schwartz are just ridiculous. The guy has many fans as a special comments person, hence the job on a prime time radio sports show, and on Channel 7. Who cares if he went broke gambling, its hardly a profession. It's actually stacked against you so you lose. He just fought an adrenaline addiction so he couldn't stop being stupid. You have to be lucky to win in the long run.
 
mxett said:
I tried very hard to find poor decisions against Carlton when I reviewed the match again for the 4th time. Yes there were some. There were also some against Essendon. Yes you probably got a few more. Yes a few of them resulted in goals, as did one against Essendon. I agreed with you on one of the goals that we got that we shouldn't. The other I disagree, given Monfries pushed Lloyd out not a blues player. Over all in 2 hours of footy surely poor decisions will not be exactly equal! Again, there were ones both ways. You have just decided to ignore the ones that went on your favor.
Click to expand...

Yeah my review was impartial, i picked up on a Stanton free kick and agreed with you on the Lovett free but look ignore facts again... why not? you have done it all the way along...

mxett said:
The second half was very free flowing footy, especially the last quarter. Really, if you can find a poor decision in the last quarter you are trying way too hard, end being too tiggy touchwood, like most fans complain about. There really weren't very many frees to pay hence the discrepancy. Surely the umpires just adjudicate on what they see, not on what is expected as far as the number of frees. Games often change from a slog to free flowing, in two halves. Why can't that result in a different number of frees as well?
Click to expand...

The second half was only free flowing because the umpires put the whistle away and weren't calling a free kick ever 2 minutes on average! The fans loved the second half, it is what the fans want BUT they want it over the course of 4 quarters... I will say it again, I got no problem with the players playing in two halves, that is generally what happens with fatigue etc etc but the umpires shouldn't! By all means the change in style of play would warrant different umpiring however to be so picky to putting the whistle away if completely different. The numbers prove that, you can not, no matter what happens in reagards to the play style (unless they changed from AFL to NBL) change from 35ish free kicks to 10ish in the 2nd half, surely a self proclaimed impartial person with a physics degree such as yourself can see that!

mxett said:
The comments about Schwartz are just ridiculous. The guy has many fans as a special comments person, hence the job on a prime time radio sports show, and on Channel 7. Who cares if he went broke gambling, its hardly a profession. It's actually stacked against you so you lose. He just fought an adrenaline addiction so he couldn't stop being stupid. You have to be lucky to win in the long run.
Click to expand...

Gambling on sports such as football etc is actually rather easy. You just need to be controlled and make calculated decisions... at the end of the day I am up over $1,000 this year on nothing greater than a $100 bet (which was a safe bet of Collingwood win into Geelong/Melbourne total score over 185.5 pioints round 3 paying about $2.10)... oh and that is WITHOUT a physic degree!!! :rolleyes::eek:

Just because Schwartz is on prime time radio doesn't mean he is well liked... he is on a low rating radio station with the likes of Kevin Barlett who constantly comes out with gems like "Richmond are in the box seat for Chris Judd"... and with special guests like Fatprick Smith who couldn't cut it at The Age and had to move to a paper that nobody reads in The Australian so that he could write his propaganda trash and no body would care.
 
mxett said:
Maybe I'm speaking another language. I never said it was a number, then one, then a number. I have always said it was a number of impartial or non carlton/essendon barracking friends and colleagues.

I tried very hard to find poor decisions against Carlton when I reviewed the match again for the 4th time. Yes there were some. There were also some against Essendon. Yes you probably got a few more. Yes a few of them resulted in goals, as did one against Essendon. I agreed with you on one of the goals that we got that we shouldn't. The other I disagree, given Monfries pushed Lloyd out not a blues player. Over all in 2 hours of footy surely poor decisions will not be exactly equal! Again, there were ones both ways. You have just decided to ignore the ones that went on your favor.

The second half was very free flowing footy, especially the last quarter. Really, if you can find a poor decision in the last quarter you are trying way too hard, end being too tiggy touchwood, like most fans complain about. There really weren't very many frees to pay hence the discrepancy. Surely the umpires just adjudicate on what they see, not on what is expected as far as the number of frees. Games often change from a slog to free flowing, in two halves. Why can't that result in a different number of frees as well?

The comments about Schwartz are just ridiculous. The guy has many fans as a special comments person, hence the job on a prime time radio sports show, and on Channel 7. Who cares if he went broke gambling, its hardly a profession. It's actually stacked against you so you lose. He just fought an adrenaline addiction so he couldn't stop being stupid. You have to be lucky to win in the long run.
Click to expand...

Could anyone who is a "fan" of The Ox as a sports commentator of substance please post? A photograph of yourself would be good too.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

chelsworthgale said:
Yeah my review was impartial, i picked up on a Stanton free kick and agreed with you on the Lovett free but look ignore facts again... why not? you have done it all the way along...



The second half was only free flowing because the umpires put the whistle away and weren't calling a free kick ever 2 minutes on average! The fans loved the second half, it is what the fans want BUT they want it over the course of 4 quarters... I will say it again, I got no problem with the players playing in two halves, that is generally what happens with fatigue etc etc but the umpires shouldn't! By all means the change in style of play would warrant different umpiring however to be so picky to putting the whistle away if completely different. The numbers prove that, you can not, no matter what happens in reagards to the play style (unless they changed from AFL to NBL) change from 35ish free kicks to 10ish in the 2nd half, surely a self proclaimed impartial person with a physics degree such as yourself can see that!



Gambling on sports such as football etc is actually rather easy. You just need to be controlled and make calculated decisions... at the end of the day I am up over $1,000 this year on nothing greater than a $100 bet (which was a safe bet of Collingwood win into Geelong/Melbourne total score over 185.5 pioints round 3 paying about $2.10)... oh and that is WITHOUT a physic degree!!! :rolleyes::eek:

Just because Schwartz is on prime time radio doesn't mean he is well liked... he is on a low rating radio station with the likes of Kevin Barlett who constantly comes out with gems like "Richmond are in the box seat for Chris Judd"... and with special guests like Fatprick Smith who couldn't cut it at The Age and had to move to a paper that nobody reads in The Australian so that he could write his propaganda trash and no body would care.
Click to expand...

I do not have a mancrush on Shwartz. I used him as an example of an impartial observer with a better than average knowledge of Football. As to his gambling, who gives a toss. you don't need to be a genius to understand football, which is why most of the posts on these boards make some sense! (including mine)

Look even a clever Collingwood supporter agrees the umpiring was fine! is that an oxymoron?? :D

As to the banter regarding my physics degree, I was only defending being accused of having poor maths skills. I may be average to poor at many things, but maths is one of my strengths so I was happy dispute that one.

As to the inconsistant umpiring for the first and second halves: watching the replay it is obvious that the players are going in hard in the first half, resulting in many tackles and clashes, some legal, some illegal. These result in many frees, either way.

In the second half there was much more running and less clashes and tackles, therefore fewer frees to be paid.

I would suggest you get a copy of the game and watch it again with a bit less emotion. You may find, like i did, that the umpiring was nowhere near as bad as you first thought. As with many games i have attended, if the crowd begin to think their team is getting a rough deal they will boo everything, even clearly correct decisions. This just adds to the perception that you are being ripped off, but is just the emotion talking. This can be clearly seen, especially in the second quater.

Ciao :thumbsu:
 
is nothing happening on the essendon board mxett? u seem to be posting here every day. as for the ox being a well respected sports commentator. this is a guy who had his very own thread mocking his intelligence on this site.
gems like "It's been a great 3 way trade for all teams....Brisbane got Johnstone, Collingwood got Wood and Melbourne got Grimes...though we haven't seen Grimes play yet" or a game last year cant remember who was playing they were down by 10 points late in the last and ox goes "if they kick the next 2 they can still win this". u dont say ox??
 

Remove this Banner Ad

yellow maggots

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top