One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on April 27, 2013, 12:06:36 AM
-
Dimma livid in his media conference after the game.
Hardwick - "We have a review system don't we?!"
Reporter - "Do you believe the ball went through for a goal?"
Hardwick - "Have you seen the replay? I know it crossed the line and went through for a goal. There's 3 field umpires, a goal umpire and boundary umpires out there plus a guy upstairs. Why wouldn't you call for a review? In a close game why wouldn't you call for a review? What the point of having a review system if you don't use it. It's a joke!
-
Just go all Ricky Stuart and go off Dimma. Stuff the lot of the spineless maggots.
-
The problem is it will seem like sour grapes.
but he's right.
that was truely *stuffed
* the auto prude substitutes the only word to describe this with a kindergarten word
-
Trying to deflect the heat by not stacking the back line after we hit the front
-
Are we talking about the goalkeeper for freo in the lime green?
-
Dimma livid in his media conference after the game.
Hardwick - "We have a review system don't we?!"
Reporter - "Do you believe the ball went through for a goal?"
Hardwick - "Have you seen the replay? I know it crossed the line and went through for a goal. There's 3 field umpires, a goal umpire and boundary umpires out there plus a guy upstairs. Why wouldn't you call for a review? In a close game why wouldn't you call for a review? What the point of having a review system if you don't use it. It's a joke!
He has a point and a clear one. Friday Night Footy too so the whole country saw it.
Nowhere to hide for Giesche and co and how incompetent these malakes are.
Trying to deflect the heat by not stacking the back line after we hit the front
Hardly, universally that decision is one that has cost us 4 points.
As for the not stacking of the backline that can be addressed later in the week.
-
Trying to deflect the heat by not stacking the back line after we hit the front
Exactly.
He should be worrying and frustrated at the most basic junior mistakes he and his team made tonight when fortune has White kick a goal with 2 minutes left on the clock only to still have players up forward. :banghead
Players not goal side at a defensive stoppage. :banghead
Stuff you learn at junior footy FFS!
-
Yes he does have a great point but unless he has some other footage which I doubt, then that footage was inconclusive.
To be honest as a supporter I'd like to hear more about what our players did wrong in the last 90 seconds. What instructions weren't followed. What message is not getting through to these guys.
At the end of the day not good enough but unlike last week most players tried till the end, that can't be disputed. We still lack the poise when the pressure is on.
-
Trying to deflect the heat by not stacking the back line after we hit the front
Exactly.
He should be worrying and frustrated at the most basic junior mistakes he and his team made tonight when fortune has White kick a goal with 2 minutes left on the clock only to still have players up forward. :banghead
Players not goal side at a defensive stoppage. :banghead
Stuff you learn at junior footy FFS!
i agree
-
They should get that tennis poo on the line
Hawk eye lol
-
The relevant rule is Rule 12.1.3:
(a) if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and then passes over the Goal or Behind Line, a Goal or Behind, as the case may be, shall still be recorded;
(b) if the football touches an Umpire or any Official and does not pass over the Goal or Behind Line, the football shall remain in play
-
They should get that tennis poo on the line
Hawk eye lol
Hawk eye may be too biased for AFL. Especially for Hawthorn games.
It will be called Giesche cam. :thumbsup
-
Guys that's not sour grapes he is totally right and what's the point off having there and not using it.That was the ideal case to use it.
-
They should get that tennis poo on the line
Hawk eye lol
Hawk eye may be too biased for AFL. Especially for Hawthorn games.
It will be called Giesche cam. :thumbsup
Absolutely gutted
!!!!!
-
Richo has been onto this since it was introduced.
Absolute disgrace.
Cost us the win tonight.
If Hardwick gets fined for his comments then the AFL is a complete and utter shambles.
YOU stuffed UP AFL.
YOU BLOODY APOLOGISE.
:banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
-
They should get that tennis poo on the line
Hawk eye lol
Hawk eye may be too biased for AFL. Especially for Hawthorn games.
It will be called Giesche cam. :thumbsup
Absolutely gutted
!!!!!
We all feel like poop right now Johnny. You're not alone. :help
-
Richo has been onto this since it was introduced.
Absolute disgrace.
Cost us the win tonight.
If Hardwick gets fined for his comments then the AFL is a complete and utter shambles.
YOU stuffED UP AFL.
YOU BLOODY APOLOGISE.
:banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead :banghead
Will probably go off on Richos rant on the podcast
-
on the evidence before us this evening I would argue Dimma is correct
-
Here's the vision of the incident:
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-04-27/tigers-denied-watch-the-incident
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/other/ballhitsump2.jpg)
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/other/ballhitsump1.jpg)
-
‘Joke': Hardwick fumes
By Sean Cowan and Alex Malcolm
afl.com.au
10:45pm AEST Friday, April 26, 2013
DAMIEN Hardwick has blasted the umpires after claiming Richmond was robbed of an important late goal in its loss to Fremantle on Friday night, with Dockers coach Ross Lyon agreeing that his Tigers’ counterpart had every right to feel aggrieved.
Matt White's 23rd-minute shot on goal in the last term appeared likely to either bounce through or hit the post.
Instead, it crashed into the legs of the goal umpire and back into play. Fremantle's Stephen Hill picked the ball up and walked it through for a rushed behind, reducing the home side's lead to one point.
But Hardwick was adamant the ball had actually crossed the line and should have been a goal.
The AFL's video review system should have been used, he said.
"I know it went through for a goal," he said.
"It crossed the line. Have you see the replay? Maybe we should have called a review, you would have thought. No? Seriously, in a tight game? Joke.
"There is a system in place. Use it, or don't bother."
While White kicked a goal to give his side the lead just three minutes later, Fremantle replied through Hayden Ballantyne and held on to win by a solitary point.
Hardwick wouldn't comment on suggestions that players should have the right to call for a video review.
"At the end of the day there's a field umpire, a goal umpire, and four or five blokes sitting up in a box upstairs," he said.
"Someone make a decision."
Lyon agreed with Hardwick that White’s shot “looked like a goal”.
"I thought there was a review process in place,” he said.
“At the end of the day we’re all humans, we all make mistakes.
"Damien is entitled to voice an opinion, but I’ll leave it to the papers and the AFL to sort it out.
"I've been there. I saw Damien on the way out of the box. I said 'I feel for you because we've been there'. It's a cruel game."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-26/damien-hardwick-post-match-press-conference
-
Shafted four premiership points.
-
Dimma looks filthy bigtime don't blame him tho !!!.What's the bet the afl will cover up the issue like they always do when clubs and coaches bring up topics.
-
on the evidence before us this evening I would argue Dimma is correct
Yep
-
Just look at the cricket umps do they stand behind the stumps when someone is trying to effect a run out? Other than for their safety they have got out of the way to make a call and to let the video umpire make a decision if they can't.
Of course logical and the AFL don't go hand in hand. :help
-
stuffing joke, joke crowd, joke umpiring, our game is becoming a joke..a stuffing joke!
-
What a freaking joke the umpiring was. We played like poo but the umpires and goal umpires cost us the game in the end.
-
I thought the umpiring was inconsistent for both teams. :-\
But the goalkeeper incident was a right royal rogering.
Absolute disgrace >:(
-
i didnt think there too many frees awarded that were not there to either side and it was probably even for those that were.
They didn't miss too many frees for the home side though, and plenty for us.
A number of hands over the shoulder in marking contest stick out and freo seemed quite willing to attack the man in marking contests.
In one Ballantyne simply turned side on and leapt into maric's back at one stage with no intent for the ball. I thought that would be 50?
If it was the other way around maric would be charged with rough conduct.
-
Watch the way Dawson bear hugged TV at every contest, was a free nearly every single time for holding. They got away with that type of stuff all night
-
Trying to deflect the heat by not stacking the back line after we hit the front
exactly the wrong tactic against freo who love congested situations and are experts in set plays from congested situations. we needed to win the clearance from the centre after matty whites goal.
-
Imagine we miss finals on percentage now
-
Here's the vision of the incident:
http://www.afl.com.au/video/2013-04-27/tigers-denied-watch-the-incident
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/other/ballhitsump2.jpg)
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/other/ballhitsump1.jpg)
What an injustice.
-
what an arse clown
-
did vickery confuse the goal umpire with his gumby effort on goal?
-
He really should have marked it , fair dinkum what a croc , i said it before TV cant do a thing right without following it up with a klutz of an effort. He did have a good game last night though. 2000% better than jacks game
-
We wuz robbed >:(
-
Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane twitter:
"Mark Evans will ask AFL umpiring dept to review line positioning of goal umpires. AFL view is a review should have been called last night."
-
the whole system is flawed, just do away with it.
-
Patrick Keane @AFL_PKeane twitter:
"Mark Evans will ask AFL umpiring dept to review line positioning of goal umpires. AFL view is a review should have been called last night."
If Common sense had prevailed Vlad, Geisch and co.......
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A BLOODY GOAL REVIEW!!!
-
This thread is a joke.
Deflecting your teams inability to follow basic principles of defending is all that's happening here.
If the incident was allowed to be a goal we would've had 5 minutes to defend our lead instead of 2 minutes as was the case with the Whites beauty on the boundary.
The footy gods were smiling at us for once but once again we squandered an opportunity to win the game with 2 minutes left on the clock or 1min 40 by the time the ball was thrown back in.
Knowing our history if the goal was allowed with 5 minutes remaining we probably would've lost by 3 goals.
The disgrace is this:
1) 6 forwards when we set up for the bounce after the Whites goal. :banghead
2) no player goal side at the boundary throw in. :banghead
3) Ballantyne (their best goal sneak) allowed to run into an empty goal square. :banghead
4) we have been training for this scenario all preseason. :banghead
Back to school boys to learn basic footy fundamentals.
-
This thread is a joke.
Deflecting your teams inability to follow basic principles of defending is all that's happening here.
If the incident was allowed to be a goal we would've had 5 minutes to defend our lead instead of 2 minutes as was the case with the Whites beauty on the boundary.
The footy gods were smiling at us for once but once again we squandered an opportunity to win the game with 2 minutes left on the clock or 1min 40 by the time the ball was thrown back in.
Knowing our history if the goal was allowed with 5 minutes remaining we probably would've lost by 3 goals.
The disgrace is this:
1) 6 forwards when we set up for the bounce after the Whites goal. :banghead
2) no player goal side at the boundary throw in. :banghead
3) Ballantyne (their best goal sneak) allowed to run into an empty goal square. :banghead
4) we have been training for this scenario all preseason. :banghead
Back to school boys to learn basic footy fundamentals.
No
-
This thread is a joke.
Deflecting your teams inability to follow basic principles of defending is all that's happening here.
If the incident was allowed to be a goal we would've had 5 minutes to defend our lead instead of 2 minutes as was the case with the Whites beauty on the boundary.
The footy gods were smiling at us for once but once again we squandered an opportunity to win the game with 2 minutes left on the clock or 1min 40 by the time the ball was thrown back in.
Knowing our history if the goal was allowed with 5 minutes remaining we probably would've lost by 3 goals.
The disgrace is this:
1) 6 forwards when we set up for the bounce after the Whites goal. :banghead
2) no player goal side at the boundary throw in. :banghead
3) Ballantyne (their best goal sneak) allowed to run into an empty goal square. :banghead
4) we have been training for this scenario all preseason. :banghead
Back to school boys to learn basic footy fundamentals.
No
Insightful Dooks, and sorry if I'm alittle slow and I'm no mind reader, but Im not sure how you can disagree with what I've stated here.
Please explain....
-
In mho the umpire overlooked a free kick against the Freo defender for simply moving across the goal line under no pressure. Vickery was on the other side of the post - now that would have caused some discussion.
-
How can there be 5 or more umpires on the case here and not one of the sillys suggested it might be an idea if we review it :banghead
-
If the ball remains in play are they allowed to review it? Technically as the ball hit the goal umpire it's still play on if the field umps believed at the time the ball hadn't crossed the line.
-
in retrospect, white should have kicked it into the umps nuts a lot harder
-
in retrospect, white should have kicked it into the umps nuts a lot harder
Bit hard when the ump was wearing a hat.
-
regardless of the situation from
last nights game.
ever since this system was introduced it has been
flawed.
shut it down.
-
This thread is a joke.
Deflecting your teams inability to follow basic principles of defending is all that's happening here.
If the incident was allowed to be a goal we would've had 5 minutes to defend our lead instead of 2 minutes as was the case with the Whites beauty on the boundary.
The footy gods were smiling at us for once but once again we squandered an opportunity to win the game with 2 minutes left on the clock or 1min 40 by the time the ball was thrown back in.
Knowing our history if the goal was allowed with 5 minutes remaining we probably would've lost by 3 goals.
The disgrace is this:
1) 6 forwards when we set up for the bounce after the Whites goal. :banghead
2) no player goal side at the boundary throw in. :banghead
3) Ballantyne (their best goal sneak) allowed to run into an empty goal square. :banghead
4) we have been training for this scenario all preseason. :banghead
Back to school boys to learn basic footy fundamentals.
When the goal was scored there were 14 players behind the ball at that throw in.
What more do you want MT.
Yes we stuffed it but up until last week we seemed to have won all the close ones.
Not making excuses just presenting facts.
I think blokes like Grigg and co who stand around taking up space and not willing to get their bodies flexed or their hands dirty hurt more.
That ball bounces through for a point we don't talk about goal umps and we win another close one.
Fine line between pleasure and pain. Fact. :thumbsup
Along time to defend is two minutes we win the centre clearance with 2 players in the forward line they get the ball back.
We took a chance and we did not win it. They went forward and got the goal after the third stoppage.
What you are saying whilst it has some merit cannot be a sole contributor considering there were three stoppages before the steam rising from the cow dung bobbed up to kick the winning goal and there were 14 playes behind the ball and as for Jako tapping it goal side and not to the boundary line in that sequence. As tragic as Derickx dropping a simple mark under no pressure. It's acts like these that kill you and put unecessary added pressure to an already hot situation. Jackson's act yesterday IMHO is in the Derickx category and put pressure on his teammates that side of the contest and if anything effectively started the chain of events which won the clearance for Freo. :help
-
in retrospect, white should have kicked it into the umps nuts a lot harder
How about kicking the first one like the second.
We'd be 4-1 and celebrating a 4 point win.
How in the world can that goal ump take a step back if the ball is being dribbled towards goal but the moron tries to move his stomach and body back with a kick like that and cornering hiself up against the post giving him nowhere to go. Moron.
-
'Non review' was wrong, says AFL
By Ben Guthrie
2:50pm AEST Saturday, April 27, 2013
THE AFL says the goal review system should have been used to assess Richmond's contentious disallowed goal in the last quarter of the club's one-point loss to Fremantle at Patersons Stadium on Friday night.
The controversial incident drew the ire of Tigers coach Damien Hardwick, who described the non-referral as a "joke".
On Saturday, the AFL admitted the umpires should have called for a review.
Newly appointed AFL head of football operations Mark Evans will also speak to the umpiring department about their positioning on the goal line.
"The question is, should the (goal) umpires continue to stand in that position, because that's where they are currently coached to stand," AFL media manager Patrick Keane told AFL.com.au on Saturday afternoon.
The confusion around Friday night's decision was based on the fact Tiger forward Matt White's attempt at goal - when his side trailed by two points with three minutes remaining in the final quarter - was impeded when it struck the goal umpire.
It appeared as if the ball may have travelled through the goals, but the Sherrin struck the goal umpire in the field of play as he tried to scramble into position
In the AFL's official law book, it states: 'if the football touches an umpire or any official and does not pass over the goal or behind line, the football shall remain in play.'
However, if the ball struck the goal umpire and crossed the goal line, then the result would have been a goal.
Therefore, White's shot - which hit the umpire and rebounded back in to the field of play - was a live ball until Fremantle midfielder Stephen Hill walked the ball over the line for a behind.
"It was [Richmond's] view that the ball was already over the line when it hit the umpire. So that's why our view was that the umpire should have taken the chance to check if that was possible to know (if the ball was over the line)," Keane said.
In this instance, the goal umpire's signal was the correct one, although his positioning was questionable.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-27/non-review-was-wrong-says-afl
-
Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.
-
In this instance, the goal umpire's signal was the correct one, although his positioning was questionable.
Umm, no it wasn't. The turd had a bird's eye view of where the ball was when it hit him in reference to the goal line. He could have clearly seen that it was over but my guess is that he shat himself because he didn't know if was going to hit the post or not so he made the call that it wasn't over the line just to protect his arse.
-
Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.
yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked
-
Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.
yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked
We dont overlook these things on this time honored and esteemed forum :lol
-
The issue at hand it
1) the goal umpire should have been six foot behind the line. Not interfering with the play.
2) the AFL morons after 150 years of the game working fine introduce cameras and all this crap at great expense and controversy. and dont bloody well implement the using of them in the obvious possible instant in which to use them
3) we have been shafted not for the first time.
-
This thread is a joke.
Deflecting your teams inability to follow basic principles of defending is all that's happening here.
If the incident was allowed to be a goal we would've had 5 minutes to defend our lead instead of 2 minutes as was the case with the Whites beauty on the boundary.
The footy gods were smiling at us for once but once again we squandered an opportunity to win the game with 2 minutes left on the clock or 1min 40 by the time the ball was thrown back in.
Knowing our history if the goal was allowed with 5 minutes remaining we probably would've lost by 3 goals.
The disgrace is this:
1) 6 forwards when we set up for the bounce after the Whites goal. :banghead
2) no player goal side at the boundary throw in. :banghead
3) Ballantyne (their best goal sneak) allowed to run into an empty goal square. :banghead
4) we have been training for this scenario all preseason. :banghead
Back to school boys to learn basic footy fundamentals.
When the goal was scored there were 14 players behind the ball at that throw in.
What more do you want MT.
Yes we stuffed it but up until last week we seemed to have won all the close ones.
Not making excuses just presenting facts.
I think blokes like Grigg and co who stand around taking up space and not willing to get their bodies flexed or their hands dirty hurt more.
That ball bounces through for a point we don't talk about goal umps and we win another close one.
Fine line between pleasure and pain. Fact. :thumbsup
Along time to defend is two minutes we win the centre clearance with 2 players in the forward line they get the ball back.
We took a chance and we did not win it. They went forward and got the goal after the third stoppage.
What you are saying whilst it has some merit cannot be a sole contributor considering there were three stoppages before the steam rising from the cow dung bobbed up to kick the winning goal and there were 14 playes behind the ball and as for Jako tapping it goal side and not to the boundary line in that sequence. As tragic as Derickx dropping a simple mark under no pressure. It's acts like these that kill you and put unecessary added pressure to an already hot situation. Jackson's act yesterday IMHO is in the Derickx category and put pressure on his teammates that side of the contest and if anything effectively started the chain of events which won the clearance for Freo. :help
What more do I want. Um...... To win.
Yes I was spewing in didn't run through for a point at the time too. It may have been a completely different result.
Agreed there were a number of errors.
I personally think we should've stacked the back line and put numbers goal side at the stoppage too.
Jackson did ok on Fyfe when he moved onto him but undone all his good effort with the dumbest decision making and skill errors I've seen in ages.
....I love your description of Ballantyne. Classic. :clapping
-
In b4 we get reamed 30-10 in free kicks next time we play them even at our home ground.
-
Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.
yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked
No it isn't when the player taking it over the line is under pressure. The walking the ball over the line by Hill being called a point is the correct call. If there had been no tiger player within say10 metres then it's a free but having Vickery standing next constitutes pressure and it's a point
-
This thread is a joke.
Deflecting your teams inability to follow basic principles of defending is all that's happening here.
If the incident was allowed to be a goal we would've had 5 minutes to defend our lead instead of 2 minutes as was the case with the Whites beauty on the boundary.
The footy gods were smiling at us for once but once again we squandered an opportunity to win the game with 2 minutes left on the clock or 1min 40 by the time the ball was thrown back in.
Knowing our history if the goal was allowed with 5 minutes remaining we probably would've lost by 3 goals.
The disgrace is this:
1) 6 forwards when we set up for the bounce after the Whites goal. :banghead
2) no player goal side at the boundary throw in. :banghead
3) Ballantyne (their best goal sneak) allowed to run into an empty goal square. :banghead
4) we have been training for this scenario all preseason. :banghead
Back to school boys to learn basic footy fundamentals.
When the goal was scored there were 14 players behind the ball at that throw in.
What more do you want MT.
Yes we stuffed it but up until last week we seemed to have won all the close ones.
Not making excuses just presenting facts.
I think blokes like Grigg and co who stand around taking up space and not willing to get their bodies flexed or their hands dirty hurt more.
That ball bounces through for a point we don't talk about goal umps and we win another close one.
Fine line between pleasure and pain. Fact. :thumbsup
Along time to defend is two minutes we win the centre clearance with 2 players in the forward line they get the ball back.
We took a chance and we did not win it. They went forward and got the goal after the third stoppage.
What you are saying whilst it has some merit cannot be a sole contributor considering there were three stoppages before the steam rising from the cow dung bobbed up to kick the winning goal and there were 14 playes behind the ball and as for Jako tapping it goal side and not to the boundary line in that sequence. As tragic as Derickx dropping a simple mark under no pressure. It's acts like these that kill you and put unecessary added pressure to an already hot situation. Jackson's act yesterday IMHO is in the Derickx category and put pressure on his teammates that side of the contest and if anything effectively started the chain of events which won the clearance for Freo. :help
What more do I want. Um...... To win.
Yes I was spewing in didn't run through for a point at the time too. It may have been a completely different result.
Agreed there were a number of errors.
I personally think we should've stacked the back line and put numbers goal side at the stoppage too.
Jackson did ok on Fyfe when he moved onto him but undone all his good effort with the dumbest decision making and skill errors I've seen in ages.
....I love your description of Ballantyne. Classic. :clapping
Other than to win Mr Tigra we all want to, it just sometimes seem you focus your attentions on one particular point when their is a plethora of reasons as to why we win or lose overall. No hard feelings. I love your passion we all have it in different doses in our bodies and we all need it following Richmond Footy Club. :thumbsup
-
Two cameras at the ground also.Vlad you idiot.
WE now have a review system and not only does IT NOT get used but we have 2 bloody cameras.
Lord almighty.
Amateur hour at AFL HOUSE.
-
Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.
yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked
No it isn't when the player taking it over the line is under pressure. The walking the ball over the line by Hill being called a point is the correct call. If there had been no tiger player within say10 metres then it's a free but having Vickery standing next constitutes pressure and it's a point
bollocks
vickery wasn't pressuring him. he was behind the goal line and no one else was within cooee
he picked the up the ball and stepped over the line...towards vickery
-
Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.
yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked
No it isn't when the player taking it over the line is under pressure. The walking the ball over the line by Hill being called a point is the correct call. If there had been no tiger player within say10 metres then it's a free but having Vickery standing next constitutes pressure and it's a point
bollocks
vickery wasn't pressuring him. he was behind the goal line and no one else was within cooee
he picked the up the ball and stepped over the line...towards vickery
Correct Vickery was behind the goal line and in effect not on the field of play - and if a player is not on the field of play how can he be pressuring a defender? Its bulldust, we were robbed and thats all their is to it. Vickery could have gone back and taken 30 seconds of the clock before kicking the goal. The ball would have gone back to the centre and then its a whole new process as to who wins the tap out, who gets the clearance etc etc.
-
Other than to win Mr Tigra we all want to, it just sometimes seem you focus your attentions on one particular point when their is a plethora of reasons as to why we win or lose overall. No hard feelings. I love your passion we all have it in different doses in our bodies and we all need it following Richmond Footy Club. :thumbsup
I reckon there was only 1 reason we lost Tucker - lack of heart (commitment) over 4 quarters. Its heart that makes you gut run, its heart that makes you go for a 2nd and 3rd effort, its heart that makes you stick to the gameplan when instinct says no, its heart that makes you brave enough to leave your man to back up a teammate and its heart that we only showed for a quarter and a bit on Friday night. Through the 2nd and 3rd quarters Fremantle gave us a lesson in how to run, spread, carry and pressure according to their plan and we came up short. We were only ever going to beat their defensive press by running the ball well into it and then kicking over it, releasing our players up the ground into space, and we did that very well in the 1st quarter and then again later in the last quarter but in the middle of the game we went back into our familiar shells by stopping with the ball and refusing to run to create options, enabling Fremantle to pressure us into mistake after mistake and eventual turnover. And so it was against Collingwood, Groundhog Day. If we had played 4 committed quarters then the last gasp boundary throw-in error or goal umpiring howler would not come into play because we would have been well in front on the scoreboard. When we play 4 quarters we smash sides but we do it sporadically and then wonder why we don't win enough games to make finals. This season we have no age excuse, experience excuse, ability excuse or skill excuse and its time for our players to walk all their pre-season talk.
-
Other than to win Mr Tigra we all want to, it just sometimes seem you focus your attentions on one particular point when their is a plethora of reasons as to why we win or lose overall. No hard feelings. I love your passion we all have it in different doses in our bodies and we all need it following Richmond Footy Club. :thumbsup
I reckon there was only 1 reason we lost Tucker - lack of heart (commitment) over 4 quarters. Its heart that makes you gut run, its heart that makes you go for a 2nd and 3rd effort, its heart that makes you stick to the gameplan when instinct says no, its heart that makes you brave enough to leave your man to back up an opponent and its heart that we only showed for a quarter and a bit on Friday night. Through the 2nd and 3rd quarters Fremantle gave us a lesson in how to run, spread, carry and pressure according to their plan and we came up short. We were only ever going to beat their defensive press by running the ball well into it and then kicking over it, releasing our players up the ground into space, and we did that very well in the 1st quarter and then again later in the last quarter but in the middle of the game we went back into our familiar shells by stopping with the ball and refusing to run to create options, enabling Fremantle to pressure us into mistake after mistake and eventual turnover. And so it was against Collingwood, Groundhog Day. If we had played 4 committed quarters then the last gasp boundary throw-in error or goal umpiring howler would not come into play because we would have been well in front on the scoreboard. When we play 4 quarters we smash sides but we do it sporadically and then wonder why we don't win enough games to make finals. This season we have no age excuse, experience excuse, ability excuse or skill excuse and its time for our players to walk all their pre-season talk.
Well said Smokey, one of the best posts I've seen in a while.
After watching the Port game i was even more peed off that a basket case like them in 2012 can manage to hold onto to such a gutsy win. Their team is a lot younger than ours yet seem to have no issue with the pressure at all.
I think Ramps is spot on we seem to have a list of very dumb footballers.
-
Other than to win Mr Tigra we all want to, it just sometimes seem you focus your attentions on one particular point when their is a plethora of reasons as to why we win or lose overall. No hard feelings. I love your passion we all have it in different doses in our bodies and we all need it following Richmond Footy Club. :thumbsup
I reckon there was only 1 reason we lost Tucker - lack of heart (commitment) over 4 quarters. Its heart that makes you gut run, its heart that makes you go for a 2nd and 3rd effort, its heart that makes you stick to the gameplan when instinct says no, its heart that makes you brave enough to leave your man to back up an opponent and its heart that we only showed for a quarter and a bit on Friday night. Through the 2nd and 3rd quarters Fremantle gave us a lesson in how to run, spread, carry and pressure according to their plan and we came up short. We were only ever going to beat their defensive press by running the ball well into it and then kicking over it, releasing our players up the ground into space, and we did that very well in the 1st quarter and then again later in the last quarter but in the middle of the game we went back into our familiar shells by stopping with the ball and refusing to run to create options, enabling Fremantle to pressure us into mistake after mistake and eventual turnover. And so it was against Collingwood, Groundhog Day. If we had played 4 committed quarters then the last gasp boundary throw-in error or goal umpiring howler would not come into play because we would have been well in front on the scoreboard. When we play 4 quarters we smash sides but we do it sporadically and then wonder why we don't win enough games to make finals. This season we have no age excuse, experience excuse, ability excuse or skill excuse and its time for our players to walk all their pre-season talk.
Post of the post match :clapping
-
Maybe if we were able to get Burgess like we wanted we'd be able to actually play 4 full quarters of footy.
Port look very fit.
-
that inconsitency is more in the head than physical fitness.
Our lapses can be in any quarter, rather than in the last which you would expect if it was a fitness issue.
just on the new fitness staff. we seem to be proactive in resting players this year, in particular the young blokes which hopefully will transfer into less wear and tear injuries and the younger blokes not tiring so much around mid season.
Maric could be the exception here.
conca is the other name that people will throw up to say its not working, but for all we know the medical staff may have been diligent enough to have found it early rather than having him breaking down completely.
-
Other than to win Mr Tigra we all want to, it just sometimes seem you focus your attentions on one particular point when their is a plethora of reasons as to why we win or lose overall. No hard feelings. I love your passion we all have it in different doses in our bodies and we all need it following Richmond Footy Club. :thumbsup
I reckon there was only 1 reason we lost Tucker - lack of heart (commitment) over 4 quarters. Its heart that makes you gut run, its heart that makes you go for a 2nd and 3rd effort, its heart that makes you stick to the gameplan when instinct says no, its heart that makes you brave enough to leave your man to back up a teammate and its heart that we only showed for a quarter and a bit on Friday night. Through the 2nd and 3rd quarters Fremantle gave us a lesson in how to run, spread, carry and pressure according to their plan and we came up short. We were only ever going to beat their defensive press by running the ball well into it and then kicking over it, releasing our players up the ground into space, and we did that very well in the 1st quarter and then again later in the last quarter but in the middle of the game we went back into our familiar shells by stopping with the ball and refusing to run to create options, enabling Fremantle to pressure us into mistake after mistake and eventual turnover. And so it was against Collingwood, Groundhog Day. If we had played 4 committed quarters then the last gasp boundary throw-in error or goal umpiring howler would not come into play because we would have been well in front on the scoreboard. When we play 4 quarters we smash sides but we do it sporadically and then wonder why we don't win enough games to make finals. This season we have no age excuse, experience excuse, ability excuse or skill excuse and its time for our players to walk all their pre-season talk.
Very good post
-
Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.
yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked
No it isn't when the player taking it over the line is under pressure. The walking the ball over the line by Hill being called a point is the correct call. If there had been no tiger player within say10 metres then it's a free but having Vickery standing next constitutes pressure and it's a point
bollocks
vickery wasn't pressuring him. he was behind the goal line and no one else was within cooee
he picked the up the ball and stepped over the line...towards vickery
Correct Vickery was behind the goal line and in effect not on the field of play - and if a player is not on the field of play how can he be pressuring a defender? Its bulldust, we were robbed and thats all their is to it. Vickery could have gone back and taken 30 seconds of the clock before kicking the goal. The ball would have gone back to the centre and then its a whole new process as to who wins the tap out, who gets the clearance etc etc.
You only have 20 seconds now don't you?
-
Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.
yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked
No it isn't when the player taking it over the line is under pressure. The walking the ball over the line by Hill being called a point is the correct call. If there had been no tiger player within say10 metres then it's a free but having Vickery standing next constitutes pressure and it's a point
bollocks
vickery wasn't pressuring him. he was behind the goal line and no one else was within cooee
he picked the up the ball and stepped over the line...towards vickery
Al, I am not saying I agree with it, but you will find that will be the excuse that will come out from headquarters regarding why it wasn't deemed a deliberate rushed behind.
As with most rules the interpretations can be and usually are twisted to suit headquarters.
-
for me the washup is......we was robbed
-
Other than to win Mr Tigra we all want to, it just sometimes seem you focus your attentions on one particular point when their is a plethora of reasons as to why we win or lose overall. No hard feelings. I love your passion we all have it in different doses in our bodies and we all need it following Richmond Footy Club. :thumbsup
I reckon there was only 1 reason we lost Tucker - lack of heart (commitment) over 4 quarters. Its heart that makes you gut run, its heart that makes you go for a 2nd and 3rd effort, its heart that makes you stick to the gameplan when instinct says no, its heart that makes you brave enough to leave your man to back up an opponent and its heart that we only showed for a quarter and a bit on Friday night. Through the 2nd and 3rd quarters Fremantle gave us a lesson in how to run, spread, carry and pressure according to their plan and we came up short. We were only ever going to beat their defensive press by running the ball well into it and then kicking over it, releasing our players up the ground into space, and we did that very well in the 1st quarter and then again later in the last quarter but in the middle of the game we went back into our familiar shells by stopping with the ball and refusing to run to create options, enabling Fremantle to pressure us into mistake after mistake and eventual turnover. And so it was against Collingwood, Groundhog Day. If we had played 4 committed quarters then the last gasp boundary throw-in error or goal umpiring howler would not come into play because we would have been well in front on the scoreboard. When we play 4 quarters we smash sides but we do it sporadically and then wonder why we don't win enough games to make finals. This season we have no age excuse, experience excuse, ability excuse or skill excuse and its time for our players to walk all their pre-season talk.
Post of the post match :clapping
x 2 :bow :bow
-
AFL won't pay $10k for goal-line cameras
Michelangelo Rucci
The Adelaide Advertiser
April 28, 2013 10:30PM
NOTHING annoys the AFL more than an argument that begins: "You wouldn't want a grand final decided that way."
Indeed, a Round Five game at Subiaco Oval that ultimately could determine if Richmond plays in AFL finals for the first time since 2001 is no small matter.
Today, the AFL has to deal with a storm of its own making ... because it will not spend $10,000 for goal-line cameras at each AFL venue.
Richmond was denied a critical last-quarter goal from Matt White when his kick bounced into the legs of goal umpire Dale Edwick in Friday Night Football. The play became a rushed behind for the Tigers when confused Fremantle midfielder Stephen Hill stepped over the line with ball in hand.
Now the blame game begins.
WAS the goal umpire wrong? Not at all. Edwick noted the ball had not fully crossed the line, so there can be no score.
WAS the goal umpire in the wrong position? Not by the direction every goal umpire is given. That is, straddle the goal line. This is to ensure the goal umpire can tell with certainty that the ball has completely crossed the line - untouched by any player.
The problem with this advice is that the goal umpire will put himself in a position where he runs the risk of stopping the ball crossing the goal-line. And the Laws of the Game say in this situation, the play continues with no score. Hill could have run the ball from the goalfront without a score ever registering had he kept the ball in play.
WERE the umpires wrong to not call for a score review, as expected by Richmond coach Damien Hardwick? The AFL says they were - although this would have been difficult had Hill started a rebound from defence.
Should have been a score review, AFL admits
BUT would have the score review given conclusive evidence that the ball had fully crossed the line? Such definitive video evidence is available only at the MCG where the league's telecasters have placed cameras in the goal posts. It is not at Subiaco or AAMI Stadium or any other AFL venue.
The AFL - which has a billion-dollar television deal - has repeatedly said it will not buy the cameras to place in goal posts. These are costed at $10,000. And the networks are preferring to invest in more cameras around the field than on the goalposts.
The end result is a mess.
Goal umpires are directed to position themselves where they influence a match result.
Score review is far from satisfactory.
New AFL football operations chief Mark Evans says he will consider having the goal umpires no longer compelled to straddle the goal-line. This is a good thought, but it is only half the answer if there is not goal-line technology at every AFL venue.
Getting the goal umpires off the line is ideal. But when there is a doubt about whether Jay Schulz's mark was completely inside the field of play or whether Stephen Silvagni touched the ball on the line, the goal umpire will not have a definitive answer.
It will compel the umpires to rely on video review. And if there is no goal-post camera, how does a picture on an angle from the forward pocket become conclusive?
At least a grand final will not be decided this way - provided the Seven Network keeps those $10,000 cameras in the goalposts at the MCG.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/ruccis-rip/story-fnecrvvd-1226631078919
-
Andy pandy is happy enough to constantly tinker with the rules in a vain effort to create a game that he wants, caring little that the constant changing and often the rules themselves drive many fans ape nuggets.
Yet they wond fork out a couple of hundred Ks to ensure that decisions are got right. Youd think that with so much money in the trough they could take their snouts out for a breather and get this sorted?
The other option is to have two goal umpires, one on each goal post like they do in rugby when kicking for goal. But thats an ongoing cost, so thats unlikely to happen.
So the AFL will take the third option and do nothing, just hope something like this doesnt happen again too soon, but really not care if it does. If the shouting of discontent gets too loud from the peasants, no doubt they will dip into the money trough to get extra glazing for their ivory tower so as to block out the noise.
-
Here's video of all 4 incidents this weekend - Billie Smedts and Jarryd Roughead hitting/not hitting the post, Luke Bruest at the G yesterday and, of course, the debacle on Friday night with Matty White.
http://video.news.com.au/2382128735/Goal-review-system-hits-new-low
-
The joke will remain in its current farcial format
From the AFL site
Video review system not perfect, but set to stay: AFL
By Adam McNicol
1:43pm AEST Monday, April 29, 2013
THE AFL's controversial video score review system is set to remain in place until a suitable high-tech replacement can be found.
The system has repeatedly come under fire this season, with the vision used to review scores often providing inconclusive, especially when used to determine whether a shot has been touched or has crossed the line.
"There are two options, really, for this year - you can either run the system that we have got or you can get rid of it and just go back to the goal umpire's call," AFL football operations general manager Mark Evans said on Monday.
"At the moment, the system provides the opportunity for us to reverse something that was a very clear error.
"The issue for us that we're monitoring, and we'll need to watch across the rest of the season, is that there appears to be far more inconclusive episodes this year than there was last year."
'Non-review' was wrong: AFL
Asked whether the current system was guaranteed to last out the season, Evans said: "No. I'd say we'll keep watching where we're going at the moment.
"(But) if it's going to reduce the error rate by (getting rid of) the absolute shockers, then I think it stays while we assess other options."
The League is currently involved in a global search to try and find a long-term system for score reviews.
"My personal view is that micro-chipping the ball will lead us down a path towards as better solution," Evans said.
"But there are other systems that are camera-based systems … others that use a magnetic force.
"In terms of what we can do, we've certainly contacted some technology providers in the past, and I think there'll be a technology solution over time.
"None of them, at the moment, correctly identify where the ball is in flight, whether it's been touched off the boot, whether it's gone left or right of the post.
"So we'll keep working with some of those providers to see if there's a better system for us."
As for when new technology might be introduced: "That's dependent on when we can find the right technology, first of all, then you'd need to have an appropriate time-period where that's tested.
"So I don't think it'll anytime soon."
Finding a score review system that is affordable is a key challenge for the AFL.
"There's a new system that's about to come in place for soccer – Goal Connect – and they're talking a fit-out of $250,000 per stadium and a $2,000 to $4,000 fee per match," Evans said.
"The question for us is: does it actually suit our purposes or not? So we'll talk to those people and perhaps even see if they can come out and run a trial for us."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-29/video-review-system-not-perfect-but-set-to-stay-afl
-
Guarantee you that a high tech replacement will be found as soon as the current system causes Gold Coast or GWS from winning a game/making finals :thumbsdown:
-
get rid of it.
sick to death of half measures whether its governments
or the Fuhrer and his gang.
-
If the AFL didn't have to pay for it the high tech replacment would be in place tomorrow morning before I have my Weet-bix
-
:banghead
Tigers weren't denied a goal: Gieschen
By Adam McNicol
afl.com.au
3:51pm AEST Monday, April 29, 2013
AFL UMPIRES manager Jeff Gieschen is adamant that the goal umpire who appeared to deny Richmond a goal late in the Tigers' one-point loss to Fremantle on Friday night did nothing wrong.
The umpire was standing against the goal post when a shot from Richmond's Matthew White struck him in the leg.
The ball rebounded off the umpire and was rushed through for a behind by Freo's Stephen Hill.
Tigers coach Damien Hardwick was furious after the match, believing the goal umpire was in the wrong place and should have called for a score review to check whether the ball crossed the line before striking him.
But Gieschen is happy with the way the umpire handled the situation.
"He was extremely confident, and that's the reason why he didn't call for a score review," Gieschen said on Monday.
"The goal umpire knew exactly where it hit him and where he was in relation to the line.
"The field umpire, who was down in a good position to see where it was as well, also believed it hadn't crossed the line, and there was a boundary umpire down there as well.
"So there was no doubt in any of the umpires' minds … (about whether) that ball had crossed the line. They all believed it hadn't – it stayed in play."
As for whether a video score review should have taken place anyway, Gieschen said: "Possibly, one of our score review people could've said, 'This is an interesting one, it 's quite close, let's have a look.'
"But they've only got a short period of time to make up their mind on that as well."
The incident at Patersons Stadium has ignited much discussion about whether goal umpires should be encouraged to straddle the goal-line or should stand further back.
The AFL's new general manager of football operations has asked Gieschen to look into it.
"I would think that first of all we need to get it so that the ball doesn't hit the umpire in the first place," Evans said on Monday morning.
"If the ball's rolling towards him, is there a position that the goal umpire can take so he doesn't actually come onto the field of play?"
But Gieschen is not convinced that a change is necessary.
"They do that because they want to try and adjudicate accurately touched balls on the line," he said.
"If they're not on the line people are going to say, 'Why aren't they on the line?'
"If they are on the line they run the risk of getting hit a few times and that's exactly what happened on the weekend."
The League is aiming to find a high-tech system to aid the goal umpires in the future.
Introducing two goal umpires has been thrown up as a stop-gap measure, but that has all but been ruled out.
"A goal umpire, right now, can be in the perfect position underneath the post and still not get that slight deflection off the post," Evans said.
"Having two goal umpires won't solve that; having two goal umpires won't solve whether the ball has been touched off the boot or touched in flight.
"It may assist as to whether the ball has crossed the line, but we need to try and progress towards a system – if we're going to spend money on a system – that eradicates this problem for supporters."
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-04-29/tigers-werent-denied-gieschen
-
Another tv angle ....
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BI0JHhLCQAAA-Us.jpg:large)
https://twitter.com/LoveThoseTiges/status/327928372627914754/photo/1
-
Well Giesch while your boys are confident they got it right
I am equally confident in saying that they stuffed up big time and the ball definitely crossed the bloody line
They didn't get it right because they failed the game by letting their collective egos get in the way of calling for a review when there was clearly to everyone else at least enough evidence to suggest there was doubt
Morons :banghead
-
wow that was a surprising response by the nob nibbler
-
Was Giesch the Hutt ever going to call it any different? ::)
-
An. Andy wonders why people send him death threats
-
I just cant watch that replay anymore!!!!!
-
So let's compare.
In cricket, they have cameras at right angles to the pitch for run outs and cameras in the stumps.
They also have microphones in the pitch and somehow have "snicko" for touches between bat and ball.
For every ball played in a six hour, five day match.
In tennis, they have cameras and "hawkeye" telemetry to judge whether a ball is in or out - on every serve and shot in a five set match.
Note that in both cricket and tennis there is a system where players can call for a (video) review.
In football, with a billion dollar budget the AFL cannot even put a camera on the goal line even though they have a post on that line for about a hundred shots a game.
-
Geisch is a troglodyte, why aren't they conducting dna experiments on him to prove he is the missing link?
-
So there was no mistake because the umpires backed themselves?
You're a Maffra boy like myself Giesch, but fair dinkum, you're a bell end.
-
"You cannot push, bump or hold in a marking contest... in the back, side or chest"
"The slide rule is fantastic"
Jeff Gieschen, 2013
AFL going down the sh**ter
-
Inb4 'personal space' violations. :shh
-
"You cannot push, bump or hold in a marking contest... in the back, side or chest"
"The slide rule is fantastic"
Jeff Gieschen, 2013
AFL going down the sh**ter
Yer thought wtf when he said side and chest. Thought that had always been legal? Another secret rule change or is it just the interpretation changed? Or is Geisch just saying the ump got it right to protect the lime green pus that has infected the game like he always does?
-
So there was no mistake because the umpires backed themselves?
You're a Maffra boy like myself Giesch, but fair dinkum, you're a bell end.
Think he enjoyed the pies to much
-
"You cannot push, bump or hold in a marking contest... in the back, side or chest"
"The slide rule is fantastic"
Jeff Gieschen, 2013
AFL going down the sh**ter
Yer thought wtf when he said side and chest. Thought that had always been legal? Another secret rule change or is it just the interpretation changed? Or is Geisch just saying the ump got it right to protect the lime green pus that has infected the game like he always does?
Netball.
-
So there was no mistake because the umpires backed themselves?
You're a Maffra boy like myself Giesch, but fair dinkum, you're a bell end.
Think he enjoyed the pies to much
;D The pies are good!
-
"You cannot push, bump or hold in a marking contest... in the back, side or chest"
"The slide rule is fantastic"
Jeff Gieschen, 2013
AFL going down the sh**ter
Yer thought wtf when he said side and chest. Thought that had always been legal? Another secret rule change or is it just the interpretation changed? Or is Geisch just saying the ump got it right to protect the lime green pus that has infected the game like he always does?
Netball.
Even netball allow you to push off an opponents t@s these days. ;D
-
no wonder the game is stuffed, too many rule changes
that we don't even know about.
-
Even netball allow you to push off an opponents t@s these days. ;D
Just signed up
-
Even netball allow you to push off an opponents t@s these days. ;D
Just signed up
:clapping
-
Another day and another gem from the Giesch
Yesterday he said the goal umps were right now he says they shouldn't on the field of play
From Twitter
“@3AWSportsToday: Gieschen admits goal umpires "shouldn't be in the field of play"”
Please give me a break :banghead
-
Goal umpire should not be on the ground or in a players way
What a revelation
-
Goal umpire dropped after gaffe
Warwick Green
From: Herald Sun
May 02, 2013 11:00PM
PERTH-based goal umpire Dale Edwick has paid the price for his gaffe in last week's Fremantle-Richmond match by being dropped from AFL action this weekend.
Edwick, who has umpired at AFL level since 2006, was the umpire who had one foot on the field when he was struck by a shot from Tigers forward Matt White in the dying minutes last Friday night.
Richmond coach Damien Hardwick was furious post-match, saying he believed the ball had already crossed the line before striking the umpire.
The incident prompted AFL football operations manager Mark Evans to ask the umpires' department to review the positioning of goal umpires.
AFL umpires' manager Jeff Gieschen backed Edwick's handling of the situation and defended goal umpires' right to straddle the line so they might determine close calls.
"(Edwick) was extremely confident and that's why he didn't call for a score review," Gieschen said.
But Gieschen's words of support were not enough to save Edwick's place for Round 6.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/goal-umpire-dropped-after-gaffe/story-e6frf9mx-1226634212910
-
Didn't do anything wrong though... ::)
-
"You cannot push, bump or hold in a marking contest... in the back, side or chest"
"The slide rule is fantastic"
Jeff Gieschen, 2013
AFL going down the sh**ter
that is very concerning. I heard bucks commenting on it earlier this week, surprised no ond else has run with it. The games rooted
-
"You cannot push, bump or hold in a marking contest... in the back, side or chest"
"The slide rule is fantastic"
Jeff Gieschen, 2013
AFL going down the sh**ter
that is very concerning. I heard bucks commenting on it earlier this week, surprised no ond else has run with it. The games rooted
Cam Mooney and Barry Hall hooked in on 360 last night also. They reckon it's terrible the way the rule is now being intepreted and that it would have seen many great players (Dunstall was one mentioned) not kick half the goals they did if done that way in the past. I reckon they started getting the hands in the back rule just about right a year or 2 back but this new interpretation of paying any contact that's not classed as "holding your position" is being waaaaayyyyyyyy over-policed.
-
Grant Thomas @Thomo_Grant
Unequivocal support from Giescha girl to goal ump last week. Sung his praises for the way he handled situation. This week he drops him......
Giescha girl :lol
-
Grant Thomas @Thomo_Grant
Unequivocal support from Giescha girl to goal ump last week. Sung his praises for the way he handled situation. This week he drops him......
Giescha girl :lol
Is that his legit account? Lmfao Grant Thomas. Just says what he thinks. Doesn't give a stuff. :lol
-
yep legit, it's a great read ;D
-
yep legit, it's a great read ;D
:lol was just having a read. Full of gold.
-
Goal umpire dropped after gaffe
Warwick Green
From: Herald Sun
May 02, 2013 11:00PM
PERTH-based goal umpire Dale Edwick has paid the price for his gaffe in last week's Fremantle-Richmond match by being dropped from AFL action this weekend.
Edwick, who has umpired at AFL level since 2006, was the umpire who had one foot on the field when he was struck by a shot from Tigers forward Matt White in the dying minutes last Friday night.
Richmond coach Damien Hardwick was furious post-match, saying he believed the ball had already crossed the line before striking the umpire.
The incident prompted AFL football operations manager Mark Evans to ask the umpires' department to review the positioning of goal umpires.
AFL umpires' manager Jeff Gieschen backed Edwick's handling of the situation and defended goal umpires' right to straddle the line so they might determine close calls.
"(Edwick) was extremely confident and that's why he didn't call for a score review," Gieschen said.
But Gieschen's words of support were not enough to save Edwick's place for Round 6.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/goal-umpire-dropped-after-gaffe/story-e6frf9mx-1226634212910
prick >:(
-
Goal umpire dropped after gaffe
Warwick Green
From: Herald Sun
May 02, 2013 11:00PM
PERTH-based goal umpire Dale Edwick has paid the price for his gaffe in last week's Fremantle-Richmond match by being dropped from AFL action this weekend.
Edwick, who has umpired at AFL level since 2006, was the umpire who had one foot on the field when he was struck by a shot from Tigers forward Matt White in the dying minutes last Friday night.
Richmond coach Damien Hardwick was furious post-match, saying he believed the ball had already crossed the line before striking the umpire.
The incident prompted AFL football operations manager Mark Evans to ask the umpires' department to review the positioning of goal umpires.
AFL umpires' manager Jeff Gieschen backed Edwick's handling of the situation and defended goal umpires' right to straddle the line so they might determine close calls.
"(Edwick) was extremely confident and that's why he didn't call for a score review," Gieschen said.
But Gieschen's words of support were not enough to save Edwick's place for Round 6.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/teams/goal-umpire-dropped-after-gaffe/story-e6frf9mx-1226634212910
prick >:(
The Umpire, Mark Evans, Hardwick or Gieschen?
-
1 & 4 :shh
-
Happy Umpire Appreciation Round
-
Didn't do anything wrong though... ::)
Laughable isn't it! Giesch should have been sacked as well for trying to treat the whole footy public as fools ::).
"He was extremely confident, and that's the reason why he didn't call for a score review," Gieschen said on Monday.
"The goal umpire knew exactly where it hit him and where he was in relation to the line.
Yep Giesch, the ump knew so exactly where the ball was and was going that he got in the way and it hit him ::). You utter moron! :banghead
-
Irrespective of whether the goal umpire was in front of or behind the line when the ball struck him, shouldn't the real issue be, given the trajectory of the ball, it would definitely have rolled through for a goal if he hadn't gotten in the way. Therefore, as the goal umpire is not a Fremantle player trying to block the shot, but an impartial observer paid solely to adjudicate on where each shot lands , shouldn't common sense prevail and the goal stand? Or am I naïve to think that common sense ever applies to any of the dribble which emanates from Jeff Gieschen's pie-hole.
-
Irrespective of whether the goal umpire was in front of or behind the line when the ball struck him, shouldn't the real issue be, given the trajectory of the ball, it would definitely have rolled through for a goal if he hadn't gotten in the way. Therefore, as the goal umpire is not a Fremantle player trying to block the shot, but an impartial observer paid solely to adjudicate on where each shot lands , shouldn't common sense prevail and the goal stand? Or am I naïve to think that common sense ever applies to any of the dribble which emanates from Jeff Gieschen's pie-hole.
That one.
-
Irrespective of whether the goal umpire was in front of or behind the line when the ball struck him, shouldn't the real issue be, given the trajectory of the ball, it would definitely have rolled through for a goal if he hadn't gotten in the way. Therefore, as the goal umpire is not a Fremantle player trying to block the shot, but an impartial observer paid solely to adjudicate on where each shot lands , shouldn't common sense prevail and the goal stand? Or am I naïve to think that common sense ever applies to any of the dribble which emanates from Jeff Gieschen's pie-hole.
That one.
:lol
-
Yes the umpire confidently interfered with what would of definite goal its all just great, just be confident. Kosi should get off this week coz he confidently clubbed Jamieson in the chops with his elbow, he showed he felt confident his actions were correct, the match review board should respect this.