One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: Ox on May 23, 2010, 12:51:58 PM
-
stuffing killed us.
It's an unfair rule that's imposed by people with varying interpretations.
If a guy is coming at you with his head below your waist,wtf can u do.
It 's not as though you would just stand there and cop one to the gonads.
As for the little dogs like Davey - they're milking it and getting the easy penalty.
-
the rule encourages players to keep their head over the ball when they should be be protecting themselves. If a player turns their body at the last second to protect themselves and the opponent doesn't, the oppenent gets a free kick.
It will lead to more head injuries not less.
-
Where was this obsession with protecting the head last week? Three of our players in Webberley, Tambling and Jackson all copped whacks around the shoulders, and all we got for it was three weeks at the tribunal :banghead
Last night they were selectively hot on the holding-the-ball rule too. When I say selectively, if an Essendon player was on the bottom of the pack it was a ball up. If it was a Richmond player, they paid it.
-
It's not just these rules its all rules. All interpretations change weekly as the agenda pushes for an emphasis on this issue this week and another one the next. Real problem is when you are a team on the bottom of the ladder it seems everything is transpiring against you. Certainly was last week and to an extent last night and certainly in the second half of the third quarter in Adelaide two weeks ago.
-
It's not just these rules its all rules. All interpretations change weekly as the agenda pushes for an emphasis on this issue this week and another one the next. Real problem is when you are a team on the bottom of the ladder it seems everything is transpiring against you. Certainly was last week and to an extent last night and certainly in the second half of the third quarter in Adelaide two weeks ago.
Speaking of the Adelaide game. Do you remember that "mark" and goal that they paid to McLeod, when he dead-set dropped it like a hot potato?
And of all the rubbish they paid against us last night, the one that stuck the most in my mind was when Vickery marked it, fumbled it slightly, and the Essendon player knocked it out of his hands.
I was waiting for the 50m penalty, and the scumpire goes "play on", and they kicked a goal. It happened right in front of me, and if Vickery was deemed to have played on I'll go "Hee".
-
The thing that drives me mental is seeing players get the hard ball and getting pinned when they have absolutely no chance of getting rid of it. :banghead :banghead :banghead
They are creating a game where you are just about better off to let your opponent win the ball and tackle them. If you can pin one arm and hold the ball to the ball getter you will get the free nearly every time.
Also, why is that every person who watches football, except the umpires, seems to know that the blokes on top of the pack will try to lock the ball in, yet the bloke at the bottom of the pack gets penalised.
We will soon hear coaches telling their players "Second to the ball. You have got to be second to the ball."
:banghead :banghead :banghead :chuck
-
It's not just these rules its all rules. All interpretations change weekly as the agenda pushes for an emphasis on this issue this week and another one the next. Real problem is when you are a team on the bottom of the ladder it seems everything is transpiring against you. Certainly was last week and to an extent last night and certainly in the second half of the third quarter in Adelaide two weeks ago.
Speaking of the Adelaide game. Do you remember that "mark" and goal that they paid to McLeod, when he dead-set dropped it like a hot potato?
And of all the rubbish they paid against us last night, the one that stuck the most in my mind was when Vickery marked it, fumbled it slightly, and the Essendon player knocked it out of his hands.
I was waiting for the 50m penalty, and the scumpire goes "play on", and they kicked a goal. It happened right in front of me, and if Vickery was deemed to have played on I'll go "Hee".
Certainly do RR, sticks in my mind and how about to just return the favour on two occasions last night once in the first and once in the second the Ess player was paid the mark in the first when he slightly fumbled the ball on the first bite and the ball was punched away. One goal one to them resulted. Inequalities in umpiring with different interparetations of the rule in the same game are murdering the match and result of it as a consequence. My point is it always seems to go against the team that is struggling.
It has been hapenning for years. Dubious frees where inequities have been there for all to see. Three incidents that I remember as a general itemisation of proof to my theory are these in 1991 Fitzroy lost to Adelaide when Adelaide got 2 dubious frees very late in the game that got them over the line in a close one prompting Peter McKenna to spray the umpires on air much to the anger of Channel 7 at the time and the other two involved us. One that benefitted us and one that didn't. Fitzroy were bottom at the time for those wanting to know as a side note.
Richmond v Fitzroy in 1995 when the Fitzroy player ran the ball out and it was paid deliberate and Knighter got a 50 after Dougie Hawkins gave the ump a spray and we kicked the goal that won the game. FItzroy were bottom.
Dreamtime at the G in 2007. The Richo incident. Again we were bottom and the result hinged on that dubious decision also with the much hated hands in the back rule. We were winless then as well.
-
AFL can go stuff themselves.
Umps were blatantly biased and nothing will be done about it.
It was the first time in all my life following Richmond that I completely lost it,through my beer onto the ground and then got thrown out by the cops.
FFS,AFL what are you doing to our game?
-
,through my beer onto the ground and then got thrown out by the cops.
FFS,AFL what are you doing to our game?
What were you doing drinking at the Police Station then..... :lol :thumbsup
-
It's not just these rules its all rules. All interpretations change weekly as the agenda pushes for an emphasis on this issue this week and another one the next. Real problem is when you are a team on the bottom of the ladder it seems everything is transpiring against you. Certainly was last week and to an extent last night and certainly in the second half of the third quarter in Adelaide two weeks ago.
100% spot on Tucker
-
:sleep :sleep :sleep
when your team is on the bottom getting thrashed it all looks bad.
I wonder what Geelong supporters complain about........
....... probably the difference in the thickness of the blue hoop compared to the white hoop.
-
umps completely ignored it last week, twice should have been called :-\
-
The thing that drives me mental is seeing players get the hard ball and getting pinned when they have absolutely no chance of getting rid of it. :banghead :banghead :banghead
They are creating a game where you are just about better off to let your opponent win the ball and tackle them. If you can pin one arm and hold the ball to the ball getter you will get the free nearly every time.
Also, why is that every person who watches football, except the umpires, seems to know that the blokes on top of the pack will try to lock the ball in, yet the bloke at the bottom of the pack gets penalised.
We will soon hear coaches telling their players "Second to the ball. You have got to be second to the ball."
:banghead :banghead :banghead :chuck
I call it Vulture footy al. The Hawks did it for the whole game last week hanging off until a Richmond player took possession and then 3 Hawks would jump on top of the player. I know we don't want players diving and sliding in to kill the ball and cause ball-up after ball-up but they pay frees now against the one player trying to make the play. We should be rewarding the player who tries to make the play; not penalise them.
Does anyone know who the ump was who paid us just one free last might yet 11 to Essendon? :help
-
Does anyone know who the ump was who paid us just one free last might yet 11 to Essendon? :help
Rosebury I believe MT.
-
Does anyone know who the ump was who paid us just one free last might yet 11 to Essendon? :help
Rosebury I believe MT.
Yeah, I'd like to bury him under some roses in a shallow grave. The scumpiring on Saturday night was a DISGRACE.
-
If Rosebury gets a game next week,then the AFL is corrupt.
I knew that already but this will endorse it.
-
Does anyone know who the ump was who paid us just one free last might yet 11 to Essendon? :help
Rosebury I believe MT.
Ta smokey. I'll add him to my long list of dud umpires ;D.
-
Does anyone know who the ump was who paid us just one free last might yet 11 to Essendon? :help
Rosebury I believe MT.
Ta smokey. I'll add him to my long list of dud umpires ;D.
Are there any not on the list?