One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Bulluss on May 26, 2007, 11:18:03 PM
-
The free kick against Richo was certainly there, he didnt have to push Michael just touch his back and its a free kick.
Stupid rule, but thats the rule.
We should have been down by 6 goals at half time.
Our game plan sucks, too many short kicks and turnovers because we allow the opposition to push back and block up the holes.
We need to be more explosive, Lids showed how to break it open tonight but we kept running into traffic and over using the footy.
If we change our game plan to a more direct style with more risk taking and fast moving footy, we could be a very competitive team.
-
Free kick maybe, 50 metre penalty DEFINITELY NOT! :banghead
-
Agree FWOY.
The same thing happened in the 2nd qtr and they didnt give us 50.
-
I've just about F'n had it with umpire "Interperatations"! I almost feel like doing a Pahoff and calling on AFL fans to boycott a pre-determined round of the season to send a message that it's just not good enough. These monkeys are friggin untouchable becasue if we hurt their feelings, they won't be umpires anymore. Meanwhile, clubs like ours will endure financial setbacks for years to come because we won't be able to attract members based purely on win-loss records determined by sh ithouse umpiring decisions that go unpunished.
-
Richo didn't push Michael in the back. In fact if anything it was to Michael's side. Richo's left hand was in Michael's back but he was holding his ground as every forward should be allowed to and has been allowed to for 100 years until this year ::).
It's a dud rule. It was a dud rule from day one :banghead.
Everyone should email KB at SEN. He's on the rules committee. His new interpretation has just cost his own club a game.
hungryforsport@sen.com.au
-
Cant disagree that it was a free by the rules.
I think this new rule will really be under the pump this week.
-
Richo didn't push Michael in the back. In fact if anything it was to Michael's side. Richo's left hand was in Michael's back but he was holding his ground as every forward should be allowed to and has been allowed to for 100 years until this year ::).
It's a dud rule. It was a dud rule from day one :banghead.
Everyone should email KB at SEN. He's on the rules committee. His new interpretation has just cost his own club a game.
hungryforsport@sen.com.au
KB disregards any criticism of the rules and always handballs it to "umpire interperatations"... then spends an hour waxing with stuff who no doubt will laud the gutsy bummer win :banghead
-
I thought it was more of an 'armbar' than a push, and definitely should not have been paid. Having said that, the decision was not that far out of line with the way that's been called this year. Very soft version of it, as mt says, it was almost in the side too which made the decision softer. The umpiring was appalling tonight, both ways. Essendon supporters were visibly embarrassed at some of the frees they were receiving and likewise i was embarrassed to recieve a couple tonight too.
Can't let the Kane Johnson 50m penalty in the 2nd go unmentioned either, I asked every Essendon supporter was he off, and they ALL said 'Yes, he was off!'
MAGGOTS!
-
Spot on fwoy. They don't have to face criticism so don't have to answer to anything. As DC said the umpires paid numerous soft frees tonight for both sides.
Maybe KB would also like to explain how did Lloyd get that last goal when the ump had called play on and then the siren went. Somehow Lloyd was still allowed to take his kick ???.
Or Monfries taking 3 steps past the mark and then getting 50 because Sugar held him up. What are you supposed to do? Let your opponent run on ::). Yet when the same thing happened to us later in the game there was no 50m penalty to us.
Where's the commonsense in the rules anymore! :scream
-
Interperatations of the hands in the back rule
#1 it's not the umpires fault this stupid rule thats making our football game a sham its the AFL & those who help make the rules
#2 The hands in the back rule is however very badly judged by umpires & so if they can't Interperatate the rule properly then it should never have been passed & any new rule should not be allowed without trialing it at a lower level
#3 Richmond didnot lose the game on the Richo goal that was disallowed in the last 1/4 because it works boths way for each team you would have seen that Richo was awarded a free kick in the 2nd term which was against Mal Michael which was another bad decision as the free kick should have never been given the result a goal to us that should never have been
#4 The best way to beat this stupid rule is to act on a class action petition to the AFL by all supporters from all clubs including media & officials from clubs to have this stupid rule which is killing the game & any other stupid rule abolished from our great game as this will also prove to the AFL that it itself is not greater than the game & its supporters
#5 If the AFL didnot act on a presented petition than the fans should act show them with a non attendence & support to games until changes are made
#6 The AFL are making our greatest game into a shamble & are not there for the fans but for the mighty $$$$
the tv coverage is shocking & admission & food prices & merchandise costs are outrageous for large families & yet we except it every year
l think its time for the fans to act !! its not a family football game anymore its not enjoyable & its frustrating the fans, the media & everybody is saying this & that but we just letting the AFL & the corperate $$$ walk all over us while there dining & having a good time living it up
The umpiring this last few years has been nothing less than shocking & the Interperatations of the rules with 3 field umpires is a stuffin disgrace they change there Interperatations as the game goes 1/4 by 1/4 well l have had enough of the inconsistant decisions
Your a supporter ??? you support your club ??? who made football what it is today ??? the fans the ones the AFL is ripping off & wreaking the greatest game on earth
Be a supporter act now send your letter to the afl & your club & the media this week
vent to them about the game you love the game they are killing with stupid rules
& also get behind the Richmond football club & support the players cause the future is bright the kids are doing there best
& Richo the man who wears his heart & soul on the jumper l just love the big fella
-
Can't let the Kane Johnson 50m penalty in the 2nd go unmentioned either, I asked every Essendon supporter was he off, and they ALL said 'Yes, he was off!'
MAGGOTS!
Was that the decision that even the commentators said was the worse umpiring decision they had ever seen? And yet same thing happens to James Hird later in the game and Jimmy Boy gets away with it. Even the commentators made mention how unfair it was and that you really need your name to be James Hird.
Richo didn't push Michael in the back. In fact if anything it was to Michael's side. Richo's left hand was in Michael's back but he was holding his ground as every forward should be allowed to and has been allowed to for 100 years until this year .
To quote McEnroe: "You can't be serious?"
-
Forget about the free kick.
What about when Tambling was coming of D50 with a minute to go and had a player 25 metres ahead of him, his kick missed his teammate and sailed over his head. Couldnt hit a target 25 metres away. Hits the target and they were away.
Thats Richmonds problem,too many players who cant hit a target 25 mtres in front of them ::)
-
Forget about the free kick.
What about when Tambling was coming of D50 with a minute to go and had a player 25 metres ahead of him, his kick missed his teammate and sailed over his head. Couldnt hit a target 25 metres away. Hits the target and they were away.
Thats Richmonds problem,too many players who cant hit a target 25 mtres in front of them ::)
Back to Coburg
-
I will contend (strongly) that the push was in the side and that Richo's left hand ended up resting on Michael's back. The push was actually via Richo's right hand/arm which was clearly planted in Michael's side.
In my mind the most contentious part of the new interpretation is that a horizontal push (i.e. Richo on Michael) is a free kick, whilst a vertical push, Hird on Meyer (I think) (i.e. landing on Meyer's back) about two minutes earlier which resulted in an Essendon goal is not interpreted as in the back.
It is very apparent watching a few games that the players are totally perplexed. You constantly see a trailling player throw his hands back if his opponent in front stumbles and pitches forward in any way.
-
stupid rule, football has gone soft :banghead
-
Sadly under the the new interpretation of the rule it was a free kick. And finally the one thing everyone has spoken about adnauseum for 9 weeks has happened it has impacted on the result of a game.
However, it was the 50m penalty that is as great an issue. Let's just make that one up as we go along shall we
Kane Johnson tackles a bloke who is off and the emu flapping umpire says "50m mate".
We get a free inside 50m and the Bombers play on (McPhee kicks it 40m away - identical to what happens with Richo) the emu flapper says "no 50m mate".
Krak takes a mark gets ridden into the ground after completing the mark the emu flapper says "no 50m mate, marks here"
I could go on .. :banghead :banghead
Personally the hands in the back rule is a shocker but it's there and we still haven't one a game thanks emu flappers and the rules committee :banghead :banghead
FWOY you are right these "rules" are turning people off going to the footy. I mean I am spending as much time worrying about what the decision is going to be in every contested marking competition rather then enjoying the contest ::)
However, got to say the absolute worse decision of the night was the play on call in the final call after Wunderlich (sp?) took everyone on and Newman ran him down and he didn't dispose of it correctly and the emu flapper called play on.What is that rule about prior opportunity :banghead :banghead
-
I just drove down to Bunnings and was listening to SEN.
They are doing their pre-match before the Dogs/Swans game.
KB is calling today and is getting bombarded with callers about how crap the rule is.
KB is full of poo. He keeps saying that they bought the rule in to create a fair contest and he kept saying that theres no doubt Richo pushed Michael. He stated that Michael got pushed forward just prior to Richo taking the mark.
I agree that it was a free kick under the new rule, but as for Richo pushing Michael forward :banghead :banghead
Get your hand of it KB, this rule is going to ruin football as we know it.
Even Essendon supporters were calling in and saying it stinks.
-
Big Mal was infact pushing backwards to get under the ball
-
Get your hand of it KB, this rule is going to ruin football as we know it.
Even Essendon supporters were calling in and saying it stinks.
Last night on SEN even Collingwood supporters :gobdrop :gobdrop were ringing up saying we were "dud"ed
-
Forget about the free kick.
What about when Tambling was coming of D50 with a minute to go and had a player 25 metres ahead of him, his kick missed his teammate and sailed over his head. Couldnt hit a target 25 metres away. Hits the target and they were away.
Thats Richmonds problem,too many players who cant hit a target 25 mtres in front of them ::)
True Jack but this issue is bigger than Richmond. It's about how the new interpretations are no longer in the spirit of how the game is meant to be played.
Of course Adrian Anderson says today there's nothing wrong with the new interpretations ::). This guy is a walking disaster zone for Aussie Rules.
-
Of course Adrian Anderson says today there's nothing wrong with the new interpretations ::). This guy is a walking disaster zone for Aussie Rules.
hear hear aint that so true
-
#5 If the AFL didnot act on a presented petition than the fans should act show them with a non attendence & support to games until changes are made
The problem with non-attendance is it affects your own club moreso than the AFL :-\. Better off not buying food inside the ground, the AFL Record, AFL sponsor products that aren't RFC ones etc... Also contact these sponsors telling them why. Anything that doesn't hurt the RFC in the process of targetting the AFL.
-
Here's a still of the incident from the Age:
(http://www.realfooty.com.au/ffximage/2007/05/27/2805RICHARDSON,0.jpg)
-
The free kick against Richo was certainly there, he didnt have to push Michael just touch his back and its a free kick.
Stupid rule, but thats the rule.
We should have been down by 6 goals at half time.
Our game plan sucks, too many short kicks and turnovers because we allow the opposition to push back and block up the holes.
We need to be more explosive, Lids showed how to break it open tonight but we kept running into traffic and over using the footy.
If we change our game plan to a more direct style with more risk taking and fast moving footy, we could be a very competitive team.
our game plan the past 2 weeks have been great. we have moved the ball quickly and only bad luck coast us the win. we should have been up by 6 goals at half time not down. the umpires(not the Richo incident BTW) had 2 sets of rules out there on sat night. we have no hope when the umpires deliberately help opposition teams
-
Here's a still of the incident from the Age:
(http://www.realfooty.com.au/ffximage/2007/05/27/2805RICHARDSON,0.jpg)
it was never hands in the back, it was hands in the side!
-
Richo didn't push Michael in the back. In fact if anything it was to Michael's side. Richo's left hand was in Michael's back but he was holding his ground as every forward should be allowed to and has been allowed to for 100 years until this year ::).
It's a dud rule. It was a dud rule from day one :banghead.
Everyone should email KB at SEN. He's on the rules committee. His new interpretation has just cost his own club a game.
hungryforsport@sen.com.au
0433 981 116 is the SEN mobile number to text to as well.
Let KB have it!
There is a chance that through public weight of numbers in opposition to this rule that it wil be thrown out and possibly good ole pig headed KB will get the ar se as well from the committee. :thumbsup
-
What's the use debating this after hearing KB and Patrick Smith patting each other on the back this morning ::).
KB said he had received 250 mostly negative emails but funnily enough most of those that calledthrough just happened to be in favour of this new rule :whistle.
Smith was blaming all this "frenzy" on a "media beat-up". They both kept going on about how it was a clear push in the back by Richo because Michael was propelled forward ??? and it would have been a free under the old interpretation anyway. They were even adament the 50m was clearly there too because Richo should have realised the ump hadn't called play on.
A caller rang up about why McPhee didn't have 50m paid against him and their excuse was the time delay for Richo must have been longer than McPhee's because Richo ran away.
The only they said was a mistake was that 50m against Sugar for holding up Monfries. Of course there was an excuse for that too - "Oh yeah but that umpire was from WA and inexperienced" ???.
:help
-
Simon Beasley gave KB a good throttling on SEN this morning, saying the rule was just wrong and that he told KB that it would decide the result of a game eventually.
I think what happens is that the umpires don't want to miss out on the excitement and the players getting all the attention, so they start paying 'crowd' free kicks near the end of a game.
One thing i'll say though, after just hearing KB's bulls*#t monologue, is that WE ARE NOT saying the free kick wasn't there, it was there. We are saying it's a dumba$$ rule that ruins the game. Do you actually listen to criticism KB! It's the same as when Sugar bagged the umps, we were told the decisions were correct, WE WANTED TO know WHY the ones that were missed weren't free kicks.
It's to be expected though, KB and Giesch probably have the Richmond 'cancer' which makes them do a sh*t job.
-
What's the use debating this after hearing KB and Patrick Smith patting each other on the back this morning ::).
KB said he had received 250 mostly negative emails but funnily enough most of those that calledthrough just happened to be in favour of this new rule :whistle.
Smith was blaming all this "frenzy" on a "media beat-up". They both kept going on about how it was a clear push in the back by Richo because Michael was propelled forward ??? and it would have been a free under the old interpretation anyway. They were even adament the 50m was clearly there too because Richo should have realised the ump hadn't called play on.
A caller rang up about why McPhee didn't have 50m paid against him and their excuse was the time delay for Richo must have been longer than McPhee's because Richo ran away.
The only they said was a mistake was that 50m against Sugar for holding up Monfries. Of course there was an excuse for that too - "Oh yeah but that umpire was from WA and inexperienced" ???.
:help
I almost had to turn the car around and go home sick, such was the nauseating dribble between KB and stuff Smith this morning. As I got out of the car a caller had just commented that the KB and stuff show was compromised...hard to argue that. Quite a well scripted opening to the show.
KB: The sky...I say the sky is green stuff
stuff: Why I do concur KB sir, 'tis indeed green. :banghead
Heaven forbid Mal Michael played for a free ::) :whistle:banghead
Now I may be slightly mistaken, but didn't the NRL decide to scrap a rule change earlier this year (after a couple of rounds) for obstruction, because it was seen not to work? Why can't the elite few realise that the VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority think the rule is garbage?
-
As I got out of the car a caller had just commented that the KB and stuff show was compromised...hard to argue that. Quite a well scripted opening to the show.
You are spot on fwoy about it being scripted. I would say they had clearly read the emails KB got and to try to defend that idiotic rule they decided to come on and claim Richo had pushed Michael in the back so they could say it would have been a free kick last year anyway. Weak as and so contrived :chuck.
-
Simon Beasley gave KB a good throttling on SEN this morning, saying the rule was just wrong and that he told KB that it would decide the result of a game eventually.
They just replayed part of what Beasley said :clapping. KB is loving the attention though with no intention of scrapping the new interpretation.
-
Former umpire John Russo blamed the umps in past for not enforcing the push in the back and that encouraged the AFL to go over the top and introduce this new interpretation. Another former umpire Humphrey-Smith and Walls have also bagged the new rule. This will be in the papers tomorrow.
-
Even Derek Humphrey-Smith says the rule is confusing.
Kev, that alone makes it a no-brainer that the rule is crap.
-
Now I may be slightly mistaken, but didn't the NRL decide to scrap a rule change earlier this year (after a couple of rounds) for obstruction, because it was seen not to work? Why can't the elite few realise that the VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAST majority think the rule is garbage?
The NRL are also about to amend their goalkicking laws as well to avoid confusion.
-
How about what KB said this morning - "why would we listen to the fans" :gobdrop.
Sure you don't make rules on the run by popular vote but we as supporters and members are major stakeholders in the game.
-
How about what KB said this morning - "why would we listen to the fans" :gobdrop.
Sure you don't make rules on the run by popular vote but we as supporters and members are major stakeholders in the game.
I gave up on listening to SEN in the mornings yesterday :wallywink