Richo hasn't commented on the umpires, only the rule.
Richardson slams rule after cruel loss
27 May 2007 Herald-Sun
Jackie Epstein
Richmond fans were incensed at the loss and security staff had to restrain one spectator after the final siren when he tried to run onto the ground at the Punt Rd end.
So are the AFL going to fine Gary March too?He shouldn't but who knows anymore with the AFL.
Why is it that every single living breathing life form on this planet can see the stupidity of this rule, except the (i cant think of a name bad enough!!!) people who came up with it!!!!Because these morons don't have to sit through a game and watch this crap and have forgotten that Aussie rules is meant to be a free-form contact sport based around skill, strength and better judgement. This new intepretation rewards players who misread the flight of the ball and are caught underneath it. All they have to do is run backwards into the player behind them. They either get a spoil in or it's a free to them for push in the back. Absolute garbage penalising the player who is skillful enough to judge the best position in a contest :banghead.
Well said Connolly, Lane and Hinds. Mike you're a dill. The NRL have abolished a bad new rule after 8 rounds. Why can't the AFL?Hear, Here MT!! :thumbsup :thumbsupWhy is it that every single living breathing life form on this planet can see the stupidity of this rule, except the (i cant think of a name bad enough!!!) people who came up with it!!!!Because these morons don't have to sit through a game and watch this crap and have forgotten that Aussie rules is meant to be a free-form contact sport based around skill, strength and better judgement. This new intepretation rewards players who misread the flight of the ball and are caught underneath it. All they have to do is run backwards into the player behind them. They either get a spoil in or it's a free to them for push in the back. Absolute garbage penalising the player who is skillful enough to judge the best position in a contest :banghead.
More often than not this rule is rewarding players who are out of position and not judging the flight of the ball as Mal Michael did. There was also one early on that Lloyd got where thirsty was doing nothing stronger than picking pills of the back of his jumper and got penalised for it. :banghead :bangheadSpot on tiga. Everyone understood the old rule but of course like so things Adrian Anderson and co had to "fix it" to justify their existence :banghead.
I believe that the rule should be modified to state that if a player is caught under the ball and is forcing their way back into position, the player directly behind in better position should be able to use his arms to maintain his position. This was the old rule wasn't it??
Here's a thought. Supposing Richo gets fine for his comments. Crazy John would help his move to the Richmond board and get some support from members if he offered to pay Richo's fine. Or reimbursed Richo for the fine.That's just the sort of populist,opportunistic thing I'd expect from Ilhan - cheap heroics and exploitation of a situation. It would cost him a trifle, and he would milk it. This guy is a flake, a shameless self-promoter. We must not indulge the guy's ego.
(http://oneeyed-richmond.com/images/other/sixthsense.jpg)
Well said Connolly, Lane and Hinds. Mike you're a dill. The NRL have abolished a bad new rule after 8 rounds. Why can't the AFL?Why is it that every single living breathing life form on this planet can see the stupidity of this rule, except the (i cant think of a name bad enough!!!) people who came up with it!!!!Because these morons don't have to sit through a game and watch this crap and have forgotten that Aussie rules is meant to be a free-form contact sport based around skill, strength and better judgement. This new intepretation rewards players who misread the flight of the ball and are caught underneath it. All they have to do is run backwards into the player behind them. They either get a spoil in or it's a free to them for push in the back. Absolute garbage penalising the player who is skillful enough to judge the best position in a contest :banghead.
Here's a thought. Supposing Richo gets fine for his comments. Crazy John would help his move to the Richmond board and get some support from members if he offered to pay Richo's fine. Or reimbursed Richo for the fine.
That's just the sort of populist,opportunistic thing I'd expect from Ilhan - cheap heroics and exploitation of a situation. It would cost him a trifle, and he would milk it. This guy is a flake, a shameless self-promoter. We must not indulge the guy's ego.
My new logo - Don't go down the ill-advised ill-han path....hang on, I need to work on that a little more. Something simpler is needed.
P.O.I. Pee Off Ilhan
Amazing that a stricter interpretation of an existing law has become a "rule" in its own right only nine rounds into the 2007 season. But the relevant law hasn't actually changed.
Law 15.4.5 reads as follows:
A Player makes Prohibited Contact with an opposition Player if he or she:
(b) pushes an opposition player in the back, unless such contact is incidental to a marking contest and the player is legitimately marking or attempting to mark the football.
Richo has got the all clear from his please explain. So no fine. Just reported on SEN.
:thumbsup
I've never been a fan of Humphrey-Smith's columns in the past but this one today is the most well written and well argued article of the lot on this issue IMO. The actual law hasn't been changed but the AFL rules committee has made up some stupid interpretation which contradicts the very law it is meant to enforce.
Furthermore they have distinguished between the hands and other parts of the body while no distinction is mentioned in the actual law. You tackle an opponent from behind and land on his back it's a push in the back whether your hands, forearms, hip, shoulder or torso land on his back. Why suddenly is a distinction made in marking contests but not with tackling or as Derek says in a ruck contest. Makes no sense whatsoever.
Let's break the actual law down in Richo's scenario:
i) Did Richo push Michael in the back?
No. Richo did have his left hand on the upper right side of Michael's back and his right hand on Michael's upper right arm but there was no push. The hands were used to maintain Richo's perfect positioning to take the mark; not to force Michael out of the contest as he was always out of position as he was always underneath the ball. Mark to Richo stands!
ii) Was the contact incidental to the marking contest?
Yes. In fact it was Michael who initiated the contact by charging back into Richo and Richo was simply protecting himself and holding his ground. Hence Richo's contact was incidental to the marking contest. Mark to Richo stands!
iii) Was Michael legitimately marking or attempting to mark the football?
No. Michael was out of position underneath the footy at all times and his sole intention was run back into Richo and spoil Richo's marking attempt. Mark to Richo stands!
So no infringement was made by Richo on Michael according to the actual law and the mark should have stood. Simple!
The title of The Age article is misleading.
Gieschen is defending the umpire, not the controversial rule.
It's time to shove hands-in-back rule
Robert Walls | May 29, 2007 | The Age
… And 10 more things that suck in football
Expect your please explain letter in the next few days :thumbsupYes please :pray. I'd love to give dopey Anderson and co an explanation :lol :thumbsup.
I'd like to be a fly on the wall in a meeting between Adrian Anderson and Giesh!A meeting of great footy minds there :whistle
Change hands-in-back-rule: Aker
By Western Bulldogs player Jason Akermanis
Herald-Sun
May 30, 2007
THE AFL has no problem changing rules between seasons, even when the players' representative on the laws committee urges it to leave things alone.
Why then do we need to wait until the end of a season to change something that isn't working?
We're two weeks away from the split round, and perhaps that should be the time the game has a proper look at the contentious hands-in-the-back rule.
A push in the back should be a free, but not hands on the back to hold your ground. They are different things.
To me, the rule is just not working.
I don't like to claim to speak on behalf of others, but take it as fact a lot of players feel the same way.
If the hands-in-the-back rule is proven to be bad for the game, why can't it be changed for the rest this season?
Any quality company in the world has assessment periods where ideas and rules are considered, discussed and, if necessary, changed.
Yet in the AFL, it seems, it takes six months (the off season) for ideas to manifest and rules to change.
Are we in a quality business? Can we quickly assess a problem and make swift changes?
Surely nothing is to be gained by waiting for the end of the year.
The rules committee has, for some reason, wanted to help the game with new rules and interpretations.
But this rule was never really trialled, so why fix it if it wasn't broken? Or are some too stubborn to admit a mistake in the rule and fix it?
I feel for Matthew Richardson with what happened at the weekend.
As he said, he's now in his 15th AFL season, and in the other 14, his action against Mal Michael would have been allowable.
It's an unfortunate state of affairs for one of the great, entertaining players in our game.
Some say players should just abide by the new interpretations, but, as Richo said, it's very difficult changing an ingrained habit.
And why is it better for our game, anyway?
The change to the hands-in-the-back rule was sudden and despite the fact our representative on the laws committee, Nathan Buckley, pleaded for no change.
We all try to live within the rules that govern our lives, including those that tell us that doing 66km/h in a 60km/h zone is no good.
Yes, I know, I haven't let it go yet.
But it's hard when change is so drastic and as regular as it has been in footy in many facets of the game.
Go and look at a football video from 1995. Have a look at the standard of footy then. Note the rules then, and you'll see the change in the game in my time.
The games were still exciting, but the speed of the players as a whole is just amazing. The rules, however, seem easy to understand.
Change is necessary in life. It's just that with footy, we can stuff around with things too much.
Just remember this point - when the rules committee asked our player representative to give his feedback on this rule, he told them straight. He said it wasn't a good idea.
Bucks is a well-respected man in this industry, so why did they ignore him? I admire how Buckley responded to rejection of his input.
From my understanding, he had no choice but to resign from the laws committee once he was ignored.
The players are the ones putting on the show each week and, in so doing, they risk limb and reputation.
Maybe, just maybe, our business can change its mind.
Just as people, businesses and sporting competitions all over the world do, why can't we?
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,21818315-23211,00.html
They can't agree because it's a crap rule. Unfortunately the AFL and the rules committee are unaccountable so all they need to say is "we are right" and there is nothing that can be done about it.Exactly. It's all a giant farce. Why do we need a standing rules committee anyway. All they are doing is fiddling with the laws of the game that are perfectly fine and have been for over 100 years to justify their existence.
Heavy handed ruling flawed
12 June 2007 Herald-Sun
Mike Sheahan
THE benefits of the hands-in-the-back interpretation, I fear, are outweighed by the negatives, Mike Sheahan writes.
That is a significant shift for me, but we have a messy situation that continues to frustrate players and infuriate supporters.
While the philosophy is correct, the implementation remains flawed, and always will be.
Better, I believe, to revert to the existing rule and impose it with more vigilance. At season's end.
.........
If the player in front is not pushed out of the contest, why is it a free kick?
The interpretation also encourages players to throw themselves forward, as Mal Michael was alleged to have done in his contest with Matthew Richardson a couple of weeks ago.
Recent history says changing rules is fraught with danger. Take the prior opportunity rule.
What is happening here? Early in the weekend players were pinged for simply planning to take possession; yesterday, players were permitted to try to elude opponents and then were dispossessed without penalty.
Nathan Buckley said recently rule changes took the focus from all that's good in the game and created more debate about umpiring inconsistency.
Perhaps we should treat the rule book like the American constitution, a body of fundamental principles that may be challenged, yet also is seen to stand the test of time.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21889813%255E19742,00.html
Umpire Allen given all-clear
Len Johnson | June 13, 2007 | The Age
THE AFL yesterday waved "play on" in the matter of senior field umpire Brett Allen, who conceded in a weekend radio interview that he wished he did not have to make the call that disallowed Matthew Richardson's potentially matchwinning goal against Essendon last month.
Allen also stated quite explicitly during the 3AW interview that he would rather the interpretation that awards a free kick for any contact with the hands to an opponent's back in a marking contest had not been brought in.
"Do I prefer to see it in? Well, probably not," Allen said.
Coaches and players have been issued a "please explain" or fined by the AFL for comments on umpires and umpiring this season, but AFL spokesman Patrick Keane said yesterday that this would not apply to Allen who, in effect, was commenting on his own decision.
Richardson thought he had sealed the Tigers' first win of the season when, with the scores level and minutes remaining in the round-nine clash, he outmarked Essendon full-back Mal Michael and kicked a goal.
But Allen ruled that Richardson had placed his hands in the back of Michael during the marking contest. The ruling was widely regarded as correct, even by Richardson.
http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/umpire-allen-given-allclear/2007/06/12/1181414299423.html
When it came to Richo, yes I think the umpires got it right but not when it came to other players. Bowden got pinged and there must have been 2 feet between him and the Melbourne player. IIRC happened to Thursty as well. Stupid rule though and really wrecks the game. Very hard after 14 years playing senior level footy and something becomes automatic to then have to change it.
Raines admits that the match will hold special significance for Matthew Richardson, who was furious when he had a goal disallowed late in the game when he was penalised for a hands in the back infringement.
“It’s still going to be in the back of our minds,” Raines said.
“The Richo decision, he wasn’t too happy with that. He might be out to make amends for it too. We’re all going out there with the same mentality we’ve had over the last few weeks, to go out there and have real crack at it and play one-on-one footy and take them on.”
http://richmondfc.com.au/Season2007/News/NewsArticle/tabid/6301/Default.aspx?newsId=49515
Richo after revenge over that free?
Adrian Anderson on the "hands in the back rule":
The Laws Committee considered "at length" a modification of the hands-in-the-back rule that would allow incidental contact, but felt it would make it impossible to umpire and would confuse fans.
Research showed a significant majority of the 289 free kicks paid for hands-in-the-back clearly affected the outcome of marking contests.
Adrian Anderson on the "hands in the back rule":
Research showed a significant majority of the 289 free kicks paid for hands-in-the-back clearly affected the outcome of marking contests.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,22839458%255E19742,00.html
The Laws Committee considered "at length" a modification of the hands-in-the-back rule
Why is it so hard? :banghead :banghead :banghead
The Laws Committee considered "at length" a modification of the hands-in-the-back rule that would allow incidental contact, but felt it would make it impossible to umpire and would confuse fans.As opposed to what the rule is currently where umps are guessing due to it being impossible to be in the right position most of the time and making most contests tosses of a coin ??? ::)