Talk:AFL siren controversy, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	AFL siren controversy, 2006 is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject AFL.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Title 2 Title again 3 Relevant rules 4 Nice work 5 Public Reaction 6 Sirengate Hotel 7 Number of players on the field 8 Saints Captain 9 Similar incidents

[edit] Title

Perhaps the word "Sirengate" does not really inform the reader what the situation is and is not in any way an "official" title. Perhaps renaming it to York Park siren controversy 2006? Or even AFL siren controversy 2006? All suggestions welcome. Rogerthat ^Talk 03:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Both are better than "sirengate", which I chose because I couldn't think of a better title. I can confirm that the WA newspapers have indeed dubbed it "sirengate", so the reference to it should stand. But the title should change. I like York Park siren controversy of 2006 or AFL siren controversy of 2006. Snottygobble 03:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Either of Rogerthat's suggested titles are fine - let's choose one and make the others redirects. Sirengate indeed! :-)

On a related note - did play really continue for nearly one minute? I'm getting the impression that there was a ball up, a scramble and then a rushed shot at goal that scored a point, representing approx. 6 seconds of actual play, and then a free kick was awarded for a late tackle, resulting in another shot at goal, it was at this point that the timekeeper blew again and the umpie signalled the end of the game. I guess, there was a lot of gesticulating from the Freo players before that final ball up, so one minute of time may have elapsed between the two sirens - but it might be misleading to say there was a minute of play - probably very difficult to be precise without going into a whole lot of detail. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

From memory (of the subsequent coverage not the game), Baker's first shot at goal was about twenty seconds after the first siren, and the sounding of the second siren was about one minute after the first siren. You're right, this needs rephrasing. Snottygobble 03:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can time it from this video (not sure if we are allowed to post copyrighted links, if so I will promptly remove it): [mms://wmt.streaming.telstra.com/wh_afl0/afl/premiership/2006/05/8-560.wmv here]. From what I remember it was around 25 seconds or so, with the whole cancellation of the behind and Baker's free kick (not actual play) pushing the time to one minute or so after the siren. Rogerthat ^Talk 03:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Time clock runs out at 2:05:20.
• Point scored at 2:05:40.
• Goal umpire given all clear at 2:06:10.
• Connolly on the field from about 2:06:25 until 2:08:00.
• Second shot at goal at 2:08:15.

Uncertain: when second shot at goal was offered to Baker; and when siren rings for the second time. Snottygobble 03:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The second shot at goal was nearly 3 minutes after the first siren, bloody hell, I didn't know that! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 04:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, very surprising. I watched the game as it unfolded and it was utter confusion as to what was going on. You can't tell at what point in time the first behind is cancelled either. Rogerthat ^Talk 04:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The second shot is acknowledged as a free kick shot after the siren, so this does not imply that play went on for three minutes. Play went on for twenty seconds until Baker's first shot. Thereafter it was time off while the umpires dealt with various issues like whether the siren had been heard, sending Connolly off the ground, and offering Baker another kick. The second siren then went, there having only been twenty seconds of extra play. Baken then took his free kick after the (second) siren.(forgot to sign before) Snottygobble 05:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title again

Let's not dilly-dally on the title. We've got three footy fans here - let's make a decision.

AFL siren controversy 2006

• support (second preference). Snottygobble 04:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• support first pref The-Pope 04:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Xtra 04:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Rogerthat ^Talk 09:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sirengate

• oppose. Snottygobble 04:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep, but redirect to other The-Pope 04:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

York Park siren controversy 2006

• support (first preference). Snottygobble 04:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• don't think it needs to be this precise... surely we won't have another AFL siren controversy this year! The-Pope 04:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

---

pippu and roger have stated their support for AFL siren controversy 2006 above, so that gives this option sufficient support. I'm going to make the move. It can always be moved again if lots of people come out of the woodwork for vote for some other title. Snottygobble 05:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant rules

Seems a little long-winded, should we move the rules to a new article and then simply link to the relevant clauses? Rogerthat ^Talk 09:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Nothing worse than having to flip between two or more articles when you're trying to get info on something. Keep it all together. Reyk _YO! 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work

Good coverage, nice well-rounded article. :) --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Reyk and Pfctdayelise. There is just one point in the article where maybe the flow is lost a little, that is, just before the sub-heading Final minute controversy. The paragraph before mentions the Sainters getting 7 of the next nine goals to get within a point, and then this fact is mentioned again in the next paragraph. I understand the latter is going into more detail and describing the events in the last minute of play, but it does raise doubts about whether the paragraph before fits in. (small observation only and I didn't want to play around with it) Otherwise, I too think it's pretty good. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Reaction

I'm wondering whether public reaction could/should be added to the article to detail how important the result was to the Fremantle fans in WA. Before the AFL made their decision to overturn the result, some Freo fans had graffiti'd the actual result on Fremantle Oval's scoreboard to say "Fremantle 14.10.94 St. Kilda 13.15.93" in white paint. The club left it up there as the Dockers trained on the ground for the day, and was mentioned in the news. Also, the suspected reaction if the result had've happened at Subiaco instead of Launceston would've been nothing short of a stadium riot. I can type up a proper paragraph for this unless anyone has any objections. Orichalcon 01:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Would have been interesting to see if there was a riot, I seem to remember that game where the black-out occured and it got a little crazy.--Dacium 00:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sirengate Hotel

I have a good idea for a parody of the incident: A hotel near Aurora Stadium called the Sirengate hotel. A list of features: Scott Gall 10:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• An hourly siren not loud enough for everyone to hear (symbolic of the siren that wasn't acted upon.)
• Two wings, one named Fremantle with 94 rooms, and one named St. Kilda with 93 rooms (symbolic of the score.) The St. Kilda wing will have a ghost room (symbolic of the behind they eventually missed out on.)
• Four strobe lights in the hallway (symbolic of the four players that were reported in the first quarter.)
• Three 50-meter high poles behind the main building (symbolic of the point in the third quarter, where Fraser Gehrig conceded three 50-meter penalties.)

[edit] Number of players on the field

Someone keeps adding the rule on exceeding the allowable number of players on the field. This never had anything to do with it. Why is it being added? Hesperian 12:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though it has some vague relevance (i.e. that extra players were on the ground when the game had not been officially finished by umpires), it hardly seems important. After all, players and officials generally wander onto the ground from the bench when there is a kick for goal after the siren, and nobody bothers calling for a line-up because their presence is inconsequential. Now, had Dockers players flooded onto the ground, congregated in the forwardline, then realised that the game was continuing and tried to defend, there would be some merit. However, the captain has to explicitly ask for a line-up in order to get the team's score cancelled - and the commission would not have been able to rule on this because, unlike the timekeeper error, it was not external to the game. Had the game been ruled a draw, then there would have been the potential for the Dockers to be fined (as happened to the Western Bulldogs when they stuffed up an interchange last year) - and media people did comment on this, and this should be mentioned (I will slot in a paragraph). However, the extreme case of score cancellation was never on the agenda, hence stop adding it!Aspirex 05:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saints Captain

The Teams section lists Luke Ball as the St Kilda Captain, while later in the article (where the confrontation between Chris Connolly and Lenny Hayes is mentioned), Hayes is stated to be the captain. Could somebody who knows which is correct make the necessary adjustments. Aspirex 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar incidents

In an edit summary, His Holiness The Pope questions

"Is the Swans 19th man really a similar incident? Nothing to do with "siren controversy", just similar in speculation about reversing a result (which didn't happen)".

Since it is kinda hard to reply with an edit summary of my own, I'll bring this here.

I think that the defining character of this incident is the occurrence of a breach of the rules and/or playing regulations that places the legitimacy of the match result in doubt. As such, I think the 19th man incident is quite similar. In particular, I think it more similar than the NTFL and NRL examples.

But I have no particular attachment to my edit, or indeed the entire Similar incidents section, so by all mean revert away if you think it unsuitable.

Hesperian 13:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about using the edit summary instead of bringing it here in the first place. I do now understand your view, it just took me a while to work out why it was listed as a similar incident. Maybe we need to separate the list into siren incidents and result challenge incidents. Any other result challenges you can think of? The-Pope (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, mate. If "siren incidents" means matches where the result hinges on whether a score was kicked, or a mark taken, before or after the final siren, then those incidents are a dime a dozen, and I think them not particularly interesting or encyclopedic. The rules of the game state that a quarter ends when the umpire hears the siren, not when the siren sounds, not when the umpire calls an end to play. The umpire's decision is always allowed to stand in these situations, and the result is uncontroversial, except to the fans of the losing team, and they soon forget. Hesperian 00:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)