Was the Tyson Stenglein free kick the worst you have ever seen?

[bunsen burner]

In all your machinations and technical analysis, you have NOT provided one single scrap af evidence as to motive on the part of the player, Leo Barry.

Who cares about the motive. He ran at him. FACT.

Why on earth would Barry "charge" or even "feign charging" a man on the mark in the defensive 50?

You said it yourself............"there was no reasonable reason"

Which is why the free kick was awarded. Running at a player to intimidate is a reason but not a reasonable one in the umpire's eyes.

Your only argument is that Barry had some kind of "brain fade".....

You haven't been reading my posts then. I don't ever recall using the term "brain fade". Care to quote it?





What's more likely?

1)at a crucial point of a close final, Barry tries to run past to receive a pass from a team-mate

Highly unlikely. If this were true he wouldn't have run at him.

2)Barry decides it's time for some macho-macho man stupidity by "charging" the man on the mark.....and even so ...in your words......"if they move sideways, you move with them"???????

Also unikely as he din't actually charge him when he could have.

Yours is a patently ridiculous line of argument,

You don't even understand my argument for a start.

....and no-one is obliged to trawl through them to find another instance of fallacious argument on your part to be able to argue this issue with you.

You either know someone has a reputation for being biased or not. You got the wrong guy.

Just simply please explain why Barry ran DIRECTLY at Stenglein before veering? You need to answer that before we go any further.

 

[Groove]

Easier said than done. He had a guy steaming straight at him full pace. He was already committed to the contact when Barry veered.

? Did you read what i wrote? If stenglein hadnt of moved, there wouldnt have been contact. Barry would have run past him.

 

[bunsen burner]

? Did you read what i wrote? If stenglein hadnt of moved, there wouldnt have been contact. Barry would have run past him.

I know exactly what you wrote. Unfortunately you don't have the ability to see my point. It's not hard. Read it again. I've made it explicitly clear on numerous occasions.

Now do you mind answering this simple question that no one wants to answer:

Why did Barry run straight at him before veering?

 

[back pocket]

I know exactly what you wrote. Unfortunately you don't have the ability to see my point. It's not hard. Read it again. I've made it explicitly clear on numerous occasions.

Now do you mind answering this simple question that no one wants to answer:

Why did Barry run straight at him before veering?

If Barry ran straight at him and then veered, yet they collided, does that not mean that Stenglein also moved, which by your reasoning means that Barry veered to MISS him. In which case, you are actually saying that Stenglein caused the contact, and got himself a free kick out of it.

I can't really see why you keep harping on about Barry "running straight him before veering", Barry can run where he likes as long as he doesn't run into him. And obviously you agree that he veered, so Barry didn't do a whole lot wrong now, did he?

 

[coasting]

If Barry ran straight at him and then veered, yet they collided, does that not mean that Stenglein also moved, which by your reasoning means that Barry veered to MISS him. In which case, you are actually saying that Stenglein caused the contact, and got himself a free kick out of it.

I can't really see why you keep harping on about Barry "running straight him before veering", Barry can run where he likes as long as he doesn't run into him. And obviously you agree that he veered, so Barry didn't do a whole lot wrong now, did he?

He did enough to give away a free kick. You just can't run through a guy on the mark. What he did was completely unnecessary.

 

[back pocket]

He did enough to give away a free kick. You just can't run through a guy on the mark. What he did was completely unnecessary.

Barry didn't run through the guy on the mark, he veered to miss him, remember, your fellow weavil fan "bunsen burner" has told us about 12000 times already.

So which is it, did he run straight through the guy on the mark, or did he veer to miss him, because, mate, if he veered, then there was no free kick in that.

Great game of footy, though, regardless of the result, and the umpiring.

 

[JavaBlue]

Who cares about the motive. He ran at him. FACT.

Just simply please explain why Barry ran DIRECTLY at Stenglein before veering? You need to answer that before we go any further.

A great example of why we all love Bunny - his consistent logic.

Why on earth would Barry "charge" or even "feign charging" a man on the mark in the defensive 50? Which is why the free kick was awarded. Running at a player to intimidate is a reason but not a reasonable one in the umpire's eyes.

Apparently BF's logical giant wants to clarify the charging rule by introducing 'feigned charging' into the mix! So has everyone got that clear - Barry was penalised for feigned charging. Now if there is anyone who can explain the rest of that paragraph, please let me know. Personally Bunsen, I think you need a bit more gas in your burner.

This is the story Bunny. It doesn't matter if Barry was running DIRECTLY at Stenglein since the day he was born with the intent to murder Stenglein and his family and rape all their bottoms, the FACT is, that if Stenglein hadn't have stepped into Barry's path, then Barry would have went sailing past him. Is that clear?

Bunny - we can put up with this kind of dribble at the SCP forum but please don't do this to THE FOOTY.

Bottomline - a great example of tough finals footy by both sides. Overall an excellent game by the umpies - they did their best to keep a really close-in game flowing. Unfortunately, the Barry/Stenglein decision was a knob-up.

 

[hotpie]

Stenglein took a mere half a step to bump Barry. Barry was simply too close to the man on the mark and interfered with him. Free kick. Unusual, but a free kick all the same. The Swans deserve to lose for Barry's stupidity for that incident and also the Roberts-Thompson turnover.

The Swans got the rough end of the umpiring stick though. Where the Swans were ripped off were the disallowed Davis goal in the first quarter where Hall and Glass were having a legitimate wrestle, and the blatant trip unpaid to Goodes 35 metres out in the last few minutes.

 

[utility]

Leo Barry had a massive brain fade. He is more culpable than any umpire. He should not have been anywhere near Stenglein. When it happened it reminded me Jim Stynes circa '87.

I have seen worse decisions.

 

[Banjo]

Legal Action?

After watching the thrilling game last night against the Eagles, my worst fears about the insipid umpires was confirmed.

The decision awarded to Stenglein was obviously incorrect - no hysteria here as I'm not a Sydney supporter BUT it was blatantly obvious it was a wrong decision.

My point is that the decision cost the Swans the game and therefore the home prelim final and no doubt a significant chance at making the GF - if this was the corporate world and such a significant "illegal" decision had occurred which cost an organisation the type of money and opportunities a Grand Final appearance would have generated - wouldn't they sue?

I would love to see this done in court to take on the boof heads in control of umpires - they ruined last nights game and I'll watch the rest of the finals series hoping they don't stuff it up again!

 

[Banjo]

Just simply please explain why Barry ran DIRECTLY at Stenglein before veering? You need to answer that before we go any further.

Barry's intention was to run past Stenglein and use him as a "shield" to break from his opponent (chasing him). A lot of Sydeny players do it to give them a step or two break they need to get into open space.

I don't believe he was charging at Stenglein at all. Stenglein knew he was going to do this and moved across to slow him down.

I think Robert Walls summed it up by saying it should have been "no decision - quick chat from the ump about getting on with the game" type scenario - common sense in other words.

 

[jake_tha_peg]

whatever you do DON'T CRITICISE THE UMPIRES.

no matter that they have not only influenced last nights final but they have decidedly cost Sydney the game.

lets hear stupid Derek humphrey-smith try and justify this farce.

we are never gonna fix the standard of umpiring until those maggots admit they have a problem (and i should know as I have umpired at senior suburban level & what they umpire at AFL level has no direct correlation to the spirit of the laws of football).

whats it going to take - having a premiership decided by another non-free kick like the stenglein & the missed free kick for tripping that the swans should have got.

 

[Truetiger]

The umpire made the correct call.

Stop looking for urine weak excuses.

Havent you had enough help from the AFL?

Just goes to show you dont understand our game. IT was not the right call.

 

[RoganSaint]

I'm torn with this one...


In normal play speed (i.e. what the umpire saw) watching the TV my initial reaction was that the decision was correct because you can't run at the man on the markand block them when the player is that far back (can't shepherd the person on the mark)

BUT

in slow motion it was pretty obvious to me that Stenglein actually moved towards Barry moving off the line of the mark in the process...so it should't have been a free kick especially as Stenglein collected Barry a bit high too in the end...

So...

At normal speed, I think the umpire may have done right, harsh as it sounds, but the decision overall was wrong

 

[plugger47]

I know exactly what you wrote. Unfortunately you don't have the ability to see my point. It's not hard. Read it again. I've made it explicitly clear on numerous occasions.

Now do you mind answering this simple question that no one wants to answer:

Why did Barry run straight at him before veering?

Perhaps your thinking was veering before it ran straight into stupidity. You just lit up before you posted this nonsense did you bunsen?

 

[plugger47]

Cheers mate. At least it wasn't an isolate shocker. Chin up Swanettes. That was HIGHWAY ROBBERY but it couldn't have happened to a better bunch od AFL sucking dogs

Is that you Jeff, on the uppers today? Hmmm the mayblooms, the family club - will go over well when they move the stylists on to Tassie

 

[bunsen burner]

Barry's intention was to run past Stenglein and use him as a "shield" to break from his opponent (chasing him).

Who was this invisible opponent you talk of?

 

[bunsen burner]

Perhaps your thinking was veering before it ran straight into stupidity. You just lit up before you posted this nonsense did you bunsen?

In other words, like every one else you're not willing to answer the question?

 

[Spiritof82]

Correct decision, maybe the one or two swans supporters that exist should have a look at the number of soft or biased free kicks their team gets, this one free against them doen't even get anywhere near evening up the ledger. Anyway I'm sure they'll get a number of frees next week (with the AFL's assistance) which will ensure they win, can't have the swans losing in Sh## City, will reduce the popularity of the game.

 

[Macca19]

Easier said than done. He had a guy steaming straight at him full pace. He was already committed to the contact when Barry veered.

It looked to me like Barry was originally going to run in front of Stenglien but changed his mind and veered to go behind him about 6-7 metres away from Stenglien. Stenglien went and met him. Had Stenglien not moved, he wouldnt have been hit...and even so, if he HAD been hit like that it would have been Stengliens free anyway. Sure Stenglien probably thought "hes gonna ram into me" and hes well within his right to go and bump him....that doesnt mean he deserves a free kick for it. Its a poor and wrong decision.

 

[- PC -]

In normal play speed (i.e. what the umpire saw) watching the TV my initial reaction was that the decision was correct because you can't run at the man on the markand block them when the player is that far back (can't shepherd the person on the mark)


At normal speed, I think the umpire may have done right, harsh as it sounds, but the decision overall was wrong

And taken in context with Adam Goodes bump 2 minutes early the umpires automatic response is the same ... penalise the player running/bumping into the player on the mark. Whether it happened that way or not ... as you said at normal speed the umpires mind is already tuned into bumps off the mark.

 

[Macca19]

Who was this invisible opponent you talk of?

Hansen was two metres behind Barry.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Leigh Colbert's unpaid mark - 1997 semi final at Football Park.

Tissue. Get over it idiot. Even if the mark had been paid, do you really think that he would/could have kicked a goal from that pocket. Doesnt happen very often. Then if he had have, there was still so much time left in the game anything could have happened.

 

[scottywiper]

Not quite correct.

If a player from the same team taking the free kick blocks the man on the mark, the umpire can either hold up play (which is a soft penalty without paying a free kick) and order the player to move on, or if it's blantant enough, he can award a free kick for blocking.

Bob

The first part of your explanation is how they have been instructed to 'interpret' the rule. Hold up play and clear the area. The free kick went against that edict.

 

[scottywiper]

The other thing that intrigued me last night was the apparent sudden relaxation of the holding the ball rule, on which they had been so hot all season.