Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,900
    Post Thanks / Like

    Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    Anyone have any thoughts on if our unconventional approach in regard to tall forwards has an effect on the way we are looked at in the football world? Listening to the ABC on Friday, it gets a mention all the time. Very few in the football world think we can go far without a KP inside 50. So much so they hate be to proved wrong. It was a factor but 1 of many that could have changed the game. We were very stiff on Friday and as Eade said poor kicking not a tall forward cost us more.
    Also like it or not there was more romance to the story if the Saints won. They hardly lost this season, have the pin up boy forward and have more down trodden fans then we do.

    Do you think this had something to do with the way the umpires approach the game. Expecting us to fail, we got on the wrong end of some poor decisions?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Essendon
    Posts
    2,310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    Ernie, go and take your medication
    For those who were always the underdogs and wore it as a badge of honour.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    meowville usa
    Posts
    715
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    It flies in the face of all logic, it probably even defies the laws of physics and I cannot bring myself to believe that Umpires at this level allow themselves anything other than the strictest impartiality.

    So I am at a loss to explain how we ended up on the end of so many poor decisions.

    Also, I would appreciate the home address of the next poster who uses the term "rub of the green" so I can go around to their house and punch one of their pets in the face.
    Official Cartoonist for the Western Bulldogs. True!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    992
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    I don't support a conspiracy theory, but i do believe one's expectations effects one's judgement. Eg. Umpires expect Ablett and Judd to break free of tackles so they are slow to bring the whistle to their lips. Similarly, umpires expect defenders to break the rules to curb Riewoldt so they are subconsciously, or consciously, on the lookout and hence likely to over react.

    Perhaps umpires should be locked in sensory deprivation chambers during the week so they don't know any of the players or relative ladder positions (and because they are multi-coloured maggots )

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    8,900
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    Its not a deep down belief of mine, its just one from left field.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Stuck in the middle with you
    Posts
    8,201
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    Not sure of the conspiracy theory. Just think the umpires are incompetent buffoons who deserve all the derision they get.
    [B][COLOR="#0000CD"]Our club was born in blood and boots, not in AFL focus groups.[/COLOR][/B]

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,279
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    Buckley said on gameday on channel seven today that not having a key forward isn't the reason why we lost on Friday night.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,664
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    27,903
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    Quote Originally Posted by firstdogonthemoon View Post

    Also, I would appreciate the home address of the next poster who uses the term "rub of the green" so I can go around to their house and punch one of their pets in the face.


    Rub of the green did you say?


    The chook is waiting...
    They say Burt Lancaster has one, but I don't believe them.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    E.J. Whitten Stand
    Posts
    17,222
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    Quote Originally Posted by The Coon Dog View Post
    Very nice.

    I also heard that Shane McInerney is actually the Loch Ness Monster - unconfirmed, but from a good source.
    Our 1954 premiership players are our heroes, and it has to be said that Charlie was their hero.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Behind the goals, Geelong Rd end
    Posts
    6,465
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    Quote Originally Posted by Twodogs View Post
    Rub of the green did you say?


    The chook is waiting...
    How is Huddo?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    West of somewhere.
    Posts
    6,247
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    Umpires aside, I am becoming more and more (and more and more) tired of the commentators continually talking about the size of our forwards. They dont talk about what they see - they keep going back to the 'storyline' for the game that they discussed at the production planning meeting.

    Yes, Riewoldt kicked the last goal for St Kilda, and I accept he is a tall forward. They should therefore be forced to accept that he soccered the ball out of a pack to win the game - accomplished through force of will rather than size - and a 170cm midget could have executed that perfectly well.

    Collingwood had Cloke and Anthony up forward, Prestigiacomo and Maxwell down back and Geelong smashed them...
    What should I tell her? She's going to ask.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    10,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    Quote Originally Posted by Before I Die View Post
    I don't support a conspiracy theory, but i do believe one's expectations effects one's judgement. Eg. Umpires expect Ablett and Judd to break free of tackles so they are slow to bring the whistle to their lips. Similarly, umpires expect defenders to break the rules to curb Riewoldt so they are subconsciously, or consciously, on the lookout and hence likely to over react.
    In psychology expectancy is a part of our perceptual set which influences our interpretations of things like AFL matches.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    27,903
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    Quote Originally Posted by Sockeye Salmon View Post
    How is Huddo?


    Firstly she is a she thankfully. Secondly she is bloody big and she has fallen in love with the cat and follows her all over the back yard. If the cat wants a bit of peace she has ti hide in the chicken coop.
    They say Burt Lancaster has one, but I don't believe them.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    992
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Ernie's conspiracy of the month

    Quote Originally Posted by mjp View Post
    Umpires aside, I am becoming more and more (and more and more) tired of the commentators continually talking about the size of our forwards. They dont talk about what they see - they keep going back to the 'storyline' for the game that they discussed at the production planning meeting.

    Yes, Riewoldt kicked the last goal for St Kilda, and I accept he is a tall forward. They should therefore be forced to accept that he soccered the ball out of a pack to win the game - accomplished through force of will rather than size - and a 170cm midget could have executed that perfectly well.

    Collingwood had Cloke and Anthony up forward, Prestigiacomo and Maxwell down back and Geelong smashed them...
    At the game I was listening to Triple M (the radio in the phone only picks up FM stations) and I had to turn it off because rather than hear a description of the play, all I heard was how we couldn't win without a tall forward. Taylor, Lyon and Dunstall had far too much invested in this theory to give any objective commentary.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •