One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: WilliamPowell on May 21, 2017, 05:21:26 PM
-
Seems every week there is a rule of the week which means certain rules are front and square one week and completely disappear the next
Case in point "Deliberate out of bounds". Against the Dogs they were like Lightening on it.
Move onto round 8 and it disappears
This week it seems the good ole 50 metre penalty is MIA
What will it be next week?
Time will tell but whatever it is we will get screwed
-
That's my big issue
No review last week when the Adelaide player kicked the " goal " from the pocket which amazingly changed direction while passing the goal post
Obviously flicked the post as it passed it
Last night two GWS players claim they touched Boltons goal
Umpire which was three metres away gives all clear
One person upstairs makes a decision which was 50/50 inconclusive but the goal umpire and two field umpires , one of each side of pack see no defection or touch
The GWS onballers all run back to middle , they thought it wasn't touched either
Got an idea for the AFL , is there is no deflection, the ball hasn't been touched
Similar to the cricket , ball needs to hit middle stump for LBW , not just shaving off stump
The ball did not change direction at all last night
And furthermore the rules change each weekly actually each day
Holding the ball is a disgrace, so is the deliberate rule
-
Seems every week there is a rule of the week which means certain rules are front and square one week and completely disappear the next
Case in point "Deliberate out of bounds". Against the Dogs they were like Lightening on it.
Move onto round 8 and it disappears
This week it seems the good ole 50 metre penalty is MIA
What will it be next week?
Time will tell but whatever it is we will get screwed
Well said :banghead I am over it!
-
It was obvious on the replay that boltons kick was touched
-
It was obvious on the replay that boltons kick was touched
I haven't watched the replay; just can't face it right now
But the non 50 metre penalty is a howler, it costs us a certain goal and the game
Facts are even if Dusty went off the line the umpire had not called play on, so therefore Cameron infringed not by a step but by at least 5 metres. It was a 50 metre penalty. Shot for goal from the goal line... :banghead
The "protected area10 metre" area disappeared yesterday as well, which sent the 50 metre penalty rule MIA
-
It was obvious on the replay that boltons kick was touched
I haven't watched the replay; just can't face it right now
But the non 50 metre penalty is a howler, it costs us a certain goal and the game
Facts are even if Dusty went off the line the umpire had not called play on, so therefore Cameron infringed not by a step but by at least 5 metres. It was a 50 metre penalty. Shot for goal from the goal line... :banghead
The "protected area10 metre" area disappeared yesterday as well, which sent the 50 metre penalty rule MIA
I'm not sure if it's the lack of a 50m penalty or the lack of a play on call. I've been watching closely and to be honest the play on call just looks like it depends entirely on the different umpires in different games. Watching Carlton vs freo now I've seen several instances of plays taking sideways steps with no play on call. Even players taking a mark, standing still, opponent decides to make the mark 5-10m further back then what it was, player with ball walks forward, no play on. Appears to be completely sporadic.
Anyway in this scenario it should've been a 50 I reckon
-
It was obvious on the replay that boltons kick was touched
As Rohan Connolly says , was it obvious ?
Seriously the ball didn't deflect
Next thing will be if a hair touches the ball it's a point
I say, leave it to the umpires unless it's a howler and the ball changed course
In this instance , no deflection
Should of been awarded a goal
Next step is the AFL will umpire the game by someone watching a TV screen in the stand
-
His fingers flew back. Back in the day there would've been so many like this gone unnoticed. But I guess it will save us a game one day
-
Surely the 'Hotspot' technology they use in the cricket has a use in football? Whether it is to determine if a ball was touched or not, or if it flicked a post high up or not, there has to be a way to know for sure! 'Hotspot' would (I believe, tell me if I'm wrong) be the perfect thing to sort out these kind of decisions. If the AFL can't afford the technology after landing their multiple billion dollar broadcasting deals then I will eat my hat ... & yours too ... live on television ... in high definition with super fast frame rates ... with X-Ray Cam running so you can all watch it go down! We all put up plenty of money for memberships & travel, how about the AFL put up some technology to give us fans something back? At least we would be able to say the 'kick was touched, the replay on 'Hotspot' proved it'! Move on, get on with life. But right now we can't ... we feel ripped off by a dodgey decision that the technology couldn't prove was right.
The very least we should expect is High Definition broadcasts ... because if you can sort out the blurry vision low def vision of the Giants player 'touching' the ball from Bolton's snap & give a definitive answer then you are a legend!
-
I've seen us get crucified and also gifted games by the umps. It's the nature of the game. The best games are when they put the whistle away.
-
His fingers flew back. Back in the day there would've been so many like this gone unnoticed. But I guess it will save us a game one day
Have watched it many times
If the ball doesn't change course , it wasn't touched
-
It was clearly touched.
-
Was it any difference than the one Rance touched?
-
It was clearly touched.
Just post a nice clear screen capture showing the 'touch' & then I'll believe you! That shouldn't be hard since you said it was so clear ...
-
It was clearly touched.
No one can show me a pic of the hand touching the ball , but most claim it was touched
Next thing will be a hair touched the ball therefore it was touched
Please spare me
The AFL need to fix this
If there is no deflection , it hasn't been touched
It's not guess work
Anyone watch the Adelaide game last week when the ball skimmed the post and there was a deflection and it was still given a goal ?
Last night was a joke
Please those who claim it was touched , please post the pic
No deflection, the ball wasn't touched
And those who have played the game of football would know if the ball hits your fingertip, the ball changes course and deflects away
-
Where's the super slomo HD cameras? 1.5billion dollar TV rights my arse.
-
I can't post a pic coz I'm on the road but cmon, there's one of these reviews every week and whenever you see the fingers fly back it's obvious the ball has hit them back. Your arguement about no deflection.. the smother was so close to the boot it's impossible to tell what path the ball was on anyway and the deflection was so subtle that it wouldn't cause much of a deflection either.
Are you telling me that on the replay you can't see the ball go past the defenders hand and his fingers move back ?
-
It was touched. We should never of been in a position to be relying on it anyway. The Rance one was also fair. There were other poo decisions but I am not gonna blame the umps for our loss on this one, couple went our way, couple went their way. We missed absolute sodas, kicks a tweener would of nailed.
-
Why didn't the two field umpires standing one boundary side and the other 10 metres away in the corridor call touched ?
Goal umpire didn't call for a review either
Seriously just because the AFL introduce technology to the game doesn't mean it's right. Coming from a governing body where the rules change on a weekly basis
Similar to the cricket issue with LBW, at least they have it right , if the ball was to be hitting middle stump , 100% you are out
If its hitting leg stump , there is some doubt although little , it's given not out
Next thing the AFL will be saying if a hair touches the ball , it's touched
Goal should of been paid as per field umpires and goal umpires decisions
It wasn't a howler and no review by onfield umpires
End of story
-
All goals are reviewed whether they are asked to be or not apparently...... :shh
-
It was clearly touched.
No one can show me a pic of the hand touching the ball , but most claim it was touched
Next thing will be a hair touched the ball therefore it was touched
Please spare me
The AFL need to fix this
If there is no deflection , it hasn't been touched
It's not guess work
Anyone watch the Adelaide game last week when the ball skimmed the post and there was a deflection and it was still given a goal ?
Last night was a joke
Please those who claim it was touched , please post the pic
No deflection, the ball wasn't touched
And those who have played the game of football would know if the ball hits your fingertip, the ball changes course and deflects away
They showed the vision in slow motion and in HD and sadly there is no doubt it was touched. See a finger bend, which means it was touched
-
We lost because we are soft and have no backbone. We are timid and petrified. Too many girlsblouses in this team that are scared of their own shadow.
This is the legacy Hardwick will leave us. :clapping
Or we can live in denial and look for other excuses :rollin
-
All goals are reviewed whether they are asked to be or not apparently...... :shh
Have said a number of times. All goals are reviewed while the ball is heading back to the centre. Has been since the review system was bought in
-
Understand that
I ain't dumb
My beef is the interpretation of the rules
As I explained with what happens with the cricket
Why should technology intervene when 3 umpires within 20 metres could see a tiny fingertip or hair touch the ball ?
Also only two players claimed they touched it .Phil Davis being one , he was 6 inches away
Rule is wrong
Cost us the game
And please someone have a look at the Adelaide goal that hit the post last week
Even KB mentioned it on his show last Monday , ball deflected off the post and given a goal
What's fair
-
All goals are reviewed whether they are asked to be or not apparently...... :shh
It doesn't mean it's right cause they do it
They didn't look hard enough if that's the case last weekend with the Adelaide player
Clearly hit post
AFL change the rules each week
They don't have much idea about deliberate and holding the ball
How is a person in a room at the ground watching a TV going to make the correct decision when 3 umpires within 20 metres don't see it
-
All goals are reviewed whether they are asked to be or not apparently...... :shh
It doesn't mean it's right cause they do it
They didn't look hard enough if that's the case last weekend with the Adelaide player
Clearly hit post
AFL change the rules each week
They don't have much idea about deliberate and holding the ball
How is a person in a room at the ground watching a TV going to make the correct decision when 3 umpires within 20 metres don't see it
They made a mistake last week. It did not effect the result. I am happy with that rule. If we had touched he ball and it wasn't called, I'd be livered. What I'm not happy with is the constant change from week to week with rules. They should be the same for the whole year, not change from week to week and even game to game. We need to take interpretation by umpires out of it as much as possible. The more black and white rules, the better. None of this degree of intent to keep the ball in and how much pressure you're in to rush a behind. That is all rubbish.
-
I just watched it again
Wasn't clearly touched at all
The ball never deviated at all
There is some doubt that the ball was touched
It's not 100% as Rohan Connolly explained today , so why not go with the umpires call
Leave it up to the umpires I say
If they asked for a review , then review it
Technology should not be making decisions
-
Give you all a tip
" Robbo " unloads in the Herald
sun tomorrow about the 50 metres that wasn't paid and other aspects of umpiring as well
-
I just watched it again
Wasn't clearly touched at all
The ball never deviated at all
There is some doubt that the ball was touched
It's not 100% as Rohan Connolly explained today , so why not go with the umpires call
Leave it up to the umpires I say
If they asked for a review , then review it
Technology should not be making decisions
For it to be touched the ball doesn't need to deviate
I've watched it a number of times too, the finger bends = it was touched
You seem to be basing your entire case on the fact the ball didn't deviate in flight. The vision clears shows the player touched it, the fact the ball didn't deviate isn't relevant.
As for Rohan I thought you didn't rate him as a journo but today you're using him as the voice of reason on whether it was touched
Is the system perfect? No but we are stuck with it
-
WP
The cricket version of LBW works fine
The theory of it does hit middle stump it ain't out
Saturday was not 100% definitive
Human judgement should take precedent
No review
Technology cannot be umpiring the game
I know it's the rule , but doesn't mean it right
-
If it happened the other way around would you still hold the same view, Jack?
-
If it happened the other way around would you still hold the same view, Jack?
Yes
As I believe the current rule is incorrect
Please refer to LBW rule in cricket
Needs to be 100%
Not 95% and saw the little pinkie flapping in the wind
Seriously
-
I have no issue with umpires calling for a review
I have huge issues with technology taking over and making decisions when 3 employed umpires within 20 metres didn't see a thing
Either did 96% per cent of the players
Watch the replay
Phil Davis was claiming he touched it , he wasn't within 6 inches
And we know players tell lies
Watched West Coast and Bombers yesterday, Daniher kicks a goal and three west Coast players run around tapping there wrists
Please spare me
Let the umpires umpire
They miss decisions each week re holding the ball etc
-
We are all angry but that was touched Jack. Fingers don't bend back like that naturally without help. The players should of waited for the replay before running to the centre and we should ban all goal celebrations so they can keep focused on the game. Celebrate wins not goals.
-
Yes they certainly do "miss" a lot of things, many at crucial stages of games imo.
-
I think jack knows the ball was touched but he just thinks if the umpires don't call it then they decision should be left st that. But I bet if it was the other way around with Richmond smothering a game saving goal, he would be saying it was the right call. It's tough, but it will help us win games as well
-
We are all angry but that was touched Jack. Fingers don't bend back like that naturally without help. The players should of waited for the replay before running to the centre and we should ban all goal celebrations so they can keep focused on the game. Celebrate wins not goals.
I ain't angry at all
All I am saying is the review system they have is wrong
I refer back again to the cricket system with LBW review
It can be hitting the leg stump and not be given out
Also I have no issues with umpires calling for reviews , why didn't it happen here ?
-
I think jack knows the ball was touched but he just thinks if the umpires don't call it then they decision should be left st that. But I bet if it was the other way around with Richmond smothering a game saving goal, he would be saying it was the right call. It's tough, but it will help us win games as well
Whether the ball was touched or not
Why wasn't it reviewed by the umpires on the ground ?
There was one umpire boundary side and one in the corridor who gave all clear
And most of the players didn't argue either
It's not thatyou had 18 GWS players going off there head , only two players , one who was trying to cheat and the other who had his pinkie touched
Seriously
-
They obviously missed it that's why it wasn't reviewed. The review system only reviews goals right, not tackles or deliberates or other things. That's why when the umpire missed it the folks upstairs reviewed it and called it back and the decision was right. As subtle as it may be, it was right.
Is your point that umpires are crap for missing it or do you think they should no my review it after he umpires call?
-
As I've stated, I don't mind the video review. What I don't like is why the "video umpire" doesn't recall obvious clangers by the umpires. Jeremy Cameron encroaches 3 metres over the mark and the video ump isn't allowed to tell the field umps it's a 50m penalty. Even Melbourne's Michael Hibberd was pinged for a deliberate out of bounds by the field umpire when it was clearly a smothered handball by the North player. Why can't the video ump call in obvious mistakes that could alter the outcome of a game? If they want to use technology, use it. Why be selective? If they don't want to use it, don't use it at all.
-
As I've stated, I don't mind the video review. What I don't like is why the "video umpire" doesn't recall obvious clangers by the umpires. Jeremy Cameron encroaches 3 metres over the mark and the video ump isn't allowed to tell the field umps it's a 50m penalty. Even Melbourne's Michael Hibberd was pinged for a deliberate out of bounds by the field umpire when it was clearly a smothered handball by the North player. Why can't the video ump call in obvious mistakes that could alter the outcome of a game? If they want to use technology, use it. Why be selective? If they don't want to use it, don't use it at all.
Exactly, an absolute disgrace.
If it was a goal to Shai we had to flood the backline which our players were in the process of doing, when the ball went back to the GWS for a kick in we didn't have time to set up the correct defensive structure.
It could only happen to RFC. Fingered again
-
Was it touched ??
-
According to everyone but Jackstar yes.
A bit like the Hammer is great debate.
-
Was it touched ??
90% yes ( although Martin Flanagan and others say it should of been a goal )
But not conclusive
Similar to LBW review at the cricket
E.g. Has to hit middle stump to be out , leg stump not out
-
Was it touched ??
90% yes ( although Martin Flanagan and others say it should of been a goal )
But not conclusive
Similar to LBW review at the cricket
E.g. Has to hit middle stump to be out , leg stump not out
Sorry Jack but i don't know why you keep bringing up the cricket analogy.
For a start, LBW's use video, ball tracking and snicko technology. Also, 51% of the ball needs to hitting any stump, not just leg stump and it only needs to be 1% of the ball if the original umpires call was out.
Either way, the ball was clearly touched. I am more peeed off at the 50 not being paid and our chances we did not take. The touched ball review would not have people moaning and groaning if it happened in the first five minutes of the game.
-
And those who have played the game of football would know if the ball hits your fingertip, the ball changes course and deflects away
That's just not true and now I'm seriously questioning if you've played the game :lol.
Also, I'm not sure if anyones mentioned it but you should look at the way cricket uses their reviews. It seems very similar to what you are asking for
-
Just to irk you fellas a little more (hopefully) here is another rule that happens to only apply to us and not to anyone else.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/KoY5xa7ih045G/giphy.gif)
Anyone want to try and guess how that's different to Jack's "shepherd" last week? Allowed Freo's first goal and probably helped them gain some momentum back
-
Rules change every week
-
The thing is that even if the goal was allowed GWS would have gone on the attack in the last minute and probably have kicked another goal.
End result = no difference
-
The thing is that even if the goal was allowed GWS would have gone on the attack in the last minute and probably have kicked another goal.
End result = no difference
Ah no
-
Ah yes
-
Thing is, we lose even if the decisions are good, so WGAF
-
In fact, the clubs current record under hardwick makes complaining about u pairing all the more null and void.
-
Reckon Eddie McGuire has the right idea
If it goes through the goals touched , it a goal
Not as stupid as it sounds
-
Reckon Eddie McGuire has the right idea
If it goes through the goals touched , it a goal
Ah no.
-
90% yes ( although Martin Flanagan and others say it should of been a goal )
But not conclusive
Similar to LBW review at the cricket
E.g. Has to hit middle stump to be out , leg stump not out
Errr no.... poor analogy using cricket. Umpired cricket for a long time. Know the LBW laws back to front, so have to say you are wrong
A batsmen can be out LBW if the ball is hitting leg stump. Just like it can be out if it's going to hit off stump.
If the ball pitches outside leg you can't be out LBW but if it's pitched in line and going to hit leg it can be put. Hell under DRS the ball can be hitting less than 30% of the steps and be given out.
Anyway back to the footy
I've said this a number of times. All goals are reviewed, they don't have to be called for. Review rakes place while the ball is going back to the centre. On Saturday, central ump was told they could not bounce the ball as they were still reviewing. The ball was touched. It's just the way it is
The thing people should be peeved about IMHO is non 50 metre penalty against Cameron not the review
-
Just to irk you fellas a little more (hopefully) here is another rule that happens to only apply to us and not to anyone else.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/KoY5xa7ih045G/giphy.gif)
Anyone want to try and guess how that's different to Jack's "shepherd" last week? Allowed Freo's first goal and probably helped them gain some momentum back
That is just so stuffing frustrating and a perfect example of why more and more fans are getting fed up with the game and losing the passion for it.
If I was at richmond I'd be highlighting that vs the jack one publicly in the media and asking for a please explain
-
Reckon Eddie McGuire has the right idea
If it goes through the goals touched , it a goal
Ah no.
And why not
A ball goes through the points touched and it's still a point 🤔
-
Reckon Eddie McGuire has the right idea
If it goes through the goals touched , it a goal
Ah no.
And why not
A ball goes through the points touched and it's still a point 🤔
So?
-
FMD
-
Just to irk you fellas a little more (hopefully) here is another rule that happens to only apply to us and not to anyone else.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/KoY5xa7ih045G/giphy.gif)
Anyone want to try and guess how that's different to Jack's "shepherd" last week? Allowed Freo's first goal and probably helped them gain some momentum back
That is just so stuffing frustrating and a perfect example of why more and more fans are getting fed up with the game and losing the passion for it.
If I was at richmond I'd be highlighting that vs the jack one publicly in the media and asking for a please explain
I'll try and get the jack one up some time tomorrow so we can compare for ourselves.
-
The past 48 hours just goes to show how bad the umpiring and decision making of the AFL is
Now trying to ban the " bounce " due to OH&S issues
The rules are stuffed
If a goal decision is not asked to be reviewed by field umpires , it should not be over turned by a person watching on a TV
Eddie McGuire is correct
-
Round 10:
holding the Ball
Deliberate rushed behind
and the 50 metre penalty for encroaching over the mark is still no where to found
Also, MIA is the dictionary .... umps need it so they can learn the meaning of CONSISTENCY
::)
-
Umpire no
11
Curtis Deboy
Thinks he is more important than the game
Got a tip for him, better off not making a decision rather than making things up
If in doubt , don't pay
-
Umpire no
11
Curtis Deboy
Thinks he is more important than the game
Got a tip for him, better off not making a decision rather than making things up
If in doubt , don't pay
With a name like that what do you expect
de boy, plus Curtis, poor bastard never had a chance.
Must have got absolute poo at school now he is taking it out on all the richmond kids who bullied him.
-
Round 11
I thought Holding the ball went missing last week
How wrong was I?
Gone completely this week.
Will we ever see it again?
Doesn't look like it.
If you find it lock it up and please return to AFL house at Docklands. No guarantee they will use it again but we can only hope
-
They were 50m happy last night. Felt the umps played catch up too, meaning they made a mistake and gave a cheap one the other way to compensate.
Jack's 50m was ridiculous as he was right next to another player and clear mistake.
The 50m to Caddy 50m was ridiculous.
Then after Tarrant complained, he got a soft as 50m too.
Not the right way to umpire being consistently wrong.