Hardwick's aftermatch media conference

[WilliamPowell]

But Big Cho, I have to disagree on the Watts free against Newman. It was a disgrace of the highest order. Since when is it illegal for a player to hold his ground? Newman was not moving and Watts barreled into him. So what if he wasn't looking at the footy and had his arms out. The contest was coming to Newy, not the other way around.

Not looking at the ball was the killer IMO tiga, Newy was looking at the ground, needed to lift his eyes to get away with it

Not disputing the umpiring was terrible but has been the last few weeks in particular

[magic17]

You cannot possibly blame Richmond players for misinterpreting the rushed behind rule. Twice this year we've been pinged for rushed behinds when players have been under pressure... McGuane against the saints and Grigg against the bombers. It's about the easiest decision the umps can make but they got it wrong... no idea!

[Hellenic Tiger]

Grigg received the ball on the point post stopped looked around ran across the goals and then when he realised he had no option handballed through. He had the ball for a few seconds that if he got tackled he would have been pinged anyway. I wasn't too upset about that one. It's the McGuane one that is the real shocker.

[WilliamPowell]

You cannot possibly blame Richmond players for misinterpreting the rushed behind rule. Twice this year we've been pinged for rushed behinds when players have been under pressure... McGuane against the saints and Grigg against the bombers. It's about the easiest decision the umps can make but they got it wrong... no idea!

The McGuane was wrong and the AFL have admitted that

The Grigg one was 100% correct as he ran 10-15 metres under little pressure before he handballed the thing over the line  = Clueless

The week before against Lids had no trouble understanding how the rule works when he walked a behind against Brisbane

Newy made amssive mistake on Saturday not thumping that ball through - no ifs buts or maybes he got it horribly wrong there was no way in hell he would have got pinged

Time and time again this year I've seen our defenders when surrounded by 3-4 oppostition players try and handball their way out of things when all they need to do is take it over the line. If you are surrounded by opponents it's called pressure you wont get pinged.

I agree with Dimma they don't seem to understand the rule

[Muscles]

And I believe Dimma did peel some paint of the wall after the game, that's what the dude from 3AW alluded too and good onya Dimma - so you bloody should 

From the RFC site, article about Foley,

"The Tigers were subject to a passionate barrage from Hardwick in the hour after Saturday's game, which was audible to the few that waited in the rooms for the players to emerge."

http://www.richmondfc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/6301/newsid/117069/default.aspx

[TigerLand]

You cannot possibly blame Richmond players for misinterpreting the rushed behind rule. Twice this year we've been pinged for rushed behinds when players have been under pressure... McGuane against the saints and Grigg against the bombers. It's about the easiest decision the umps can make but they got it wrong... no idea!

The McGuane was wrong and the AFL have admitted that

The Grigg one was 100% correct as he ran 10-15 metres under little pressure before he handballed the thing over the line  = Clueless

The week before against Lids had no trouble understanding how the rule works when he walked a behind against Brisbane

Newy made amssive mistake on Saturday not thumping that ball through - no ifs buts or maybes he got it horribly wrong there was no way in hell he would have got pinged

Time and time again this year I've seen our defenders when surrounded by 3-4 oppostition players try and handball their way out of things when all they need to do is take it over the line. If you are surrounded by opponents it's called pressure you wont get pinged.

I agree with Dimma they don't seem to understand the rule

WP I'd agure differently, Grigg was clearly under pressure and he faked a mis handball to disguise an "deliberate" rushed behind. The decision was made that it wasn't enough pressure. Which is incorrect caus ethe rule is simply if under pressure a rushed behind is allowed. I'd loved to get the exact wording.

No single rush behind in history has been done whilst under no pressure. Making the rule pomintless.

Joel Bowdens vs Essendon rushed behind can be argued it was under pressure.

Its a grey area, whats enough pressure? Cause clearly with the Grigg one as an example it's not enough pressure yet the rule is "under pressure" so IMO even the slightest bit of pressure should be allowed.

I'm all for rushed behind rule but it should be black and white like the boundary line. Makes things simple. None of the "pressure" crap. It's to vague and immeasurable.

[Tigermonk]

You cannot possibly blame Richmond players for misinterpreting the rushed behind rule. Twice this year we've been pinged for rushed behinds when players have been under pressure... McGuane against the saints and Grigg against the bombers. It's about the easiest decision the umps can make but they got it wrong... no idea!

The McGuane was wrong and the AFL have admitted that

The Grigg one was 100% correct as he ran 10-15 metres under little pressure before he handballed the thing over the line  = Clueless

The week before against Lids had no trouble understanding how the rule works when he walked a behind against Brisbane

Newy made amssive mistake on Saturday not thumping that ball through - no ifs buts or maybes he got it horribly wrong there was no way in hell he would have got pinged

Time and time again this year I've seen our defenders when surrounded by 3-4 oppostition players try and handball their way out of things when all they need to do is take it over the line. If you are surrounded by opponents it's called pressure you wont get pinged.

I agree with Dimma they don't seem to understand the rule

WP I'd agure differently, Grigg was clearly under pressure and he faked a mis handball to disguise an "deliberate" rushed behind. The decision was made that it wasn't enough pressure. Which is incorrect caus ethe rule is simply if under pressure a rushed behind is allowed. I'd loved to get the exact wording.

No single rush behind in history has been done whilst under no pressure. Making the rule pomintless.

Joel Bowdens vs Essendon rushed behind can be argued it was under pressure.

Its a grey area, whats enough pressure? Cause clearly with the Grigg one as an example it's not enough pressure yet the rule is "under pressure" so IMO even the slightest bit of pressure should be allowed.

I'm all for rushed behind rule but it should be black and white like the boundary line. Makes things simple. None of the "pressure" crap. It's to vague and immeasurable.

Joel Bowden rushed a behind, When bringing the ball back into play the umpire called play on because he was standing there wasting time. Joel stepped back again giving another point to the opposition score because he poo his pants & had a ugly brain freeze. It was terrible to watch & this is why the rule was brought into place because everyone across the country were doing it. TAC teams done it the next games, Gippy Power did it 7 times & got blasted for it.
The interpretation of the rule is ugly & it should be abolished like several other rules

[WilliamPowell]

WP I'd agure differently, Grigg was clearly under pressure and he faked a mis handball to disguise an "deliberate" rushed behind. The decision was made that it wasn't enough pressure. Which is incorrect caus ethe rule is simply if under pressure a rushed behind is allowed. I'd loved to get the exact wording.

No single rush behind in history has been done whilst under no pressure. Making the rule pomintless.

Joel Bowdens vs Essendon rushed behind can be argued it was under pressure.

Its a grey area, whats enough pressure? Cause clearly with the Grigg one as an example it's not enough pressure yet the rule is "under pressure" so IMO even the slightest bit of pressure should be allowed.

I'm all for rushed behind rule but it should be black and white like the boundary line. Makes things simple. None of the "pressure" crap. It's to vague and immeasurable.

It is because of Joel Bowden's walking back over the line in that game against the Bombers that the rule was changed to what it is today

The Grigg one is correct because he had the ball with an opponent 10+ metres away and a team-mate further up the groud, ran forward (no pressure), then sideways towards the goals (why I will never know) at that point he had McGuane for memory near the opposite point post all he needed to do was handball to McGuane who gets tackled with no prior (ball up) or McGuane punches it through because he would have been deemed to be under pressure. Instead Grigg handballed it through the sticks. Was he under pressure when he did that? Yep but he created the pressure by running back towards goal

What cost Grigg was the fact he ran one way, turned around and ran another and be default (or stupidity) he created the pressure. Absolute correct call by the umpires.

[Tigermonk]

WP I'd agure differently, Grigg was clearly under pressure and he faked a mis handball to disguise an "deliberate" rushed behind. The decision was made that it wasn't enough pressure. Which is incorrect caus ethe rule is simply if under pressure a rushed behind is allowed. I'd loved to get the exact wording.

No single rush behind in history has been done whilst under no pressure. Making the rule pomintless.

Joel Bowdens vs Essendon rushed behind can be argued it was under pressure.

Its a grey area, whats enough pressure? Cause clearly with the Grigg one as an example it's not enough pressure yet the rule is "under pressure" so IMO even the slightest bit of pressure should be allowed.

I'm all for rushed behind rule but it should be black and white like the boundary line. Makes things simple. None of the "pressure" crap. It's to vague and immeasurable.

It is because of Joel Bowden's walking back over the line in that game against the Bombers that the rule was changed to what it is today

The Grigg one is correct because he had the ball with an opponent 10+ metres away and a team-mate further up the groud, ran forward (no pressure), then sideways towards the goals (why I will never know) at that point he had McGuane for memory near the opposite point post all he needed to do was handball to McGuane who gets tackled with no prior (ball up) or McGuane punches it through because he would have been deemed to be under pressure. Instead Grigg handballed it through the sticks. Was he under pressure when he did that? Yep but he created the pressure by running back towards goal

What cost Grigg was the fact he ran one way, turned around and ran another and be default (or stupidity) he created the pressure. Absolute correct call by the umpires.

absolute correct call WP, you explained that exactly how it was 

[The Big Richo]

It's very similar to the good old prior opportunity. If you have a chance to dispose of the ball and don't and then pressure comes you can't rush a behind (Grigg) whereas if you are immediately under pressure then you shouldn't be pinged. (McGuane mistake).

[the claw]

its typical afl over kill.bowden walked across the line a few times and the nuffas jump up and down. they didnt want to see sides waste time near the end of games.
instead of this stupid rule all they had to do was insist after a point the ball must be bought back into play and must be touched by another player for the clock to start.another option would be if you walk a behind with out bringing the ball back in its a ball up at the end of the square. there were lots of options they could have gone with but they chose to ignore the most common sense ones and went with something ridiculous.

hands up anyone who is totally frustrated with the diving on the ball rule. the one sacrosanct thing in our game is to go and get the ball be first to it. this rule should be exactly the same as it is for holding the ball. that is if you dive on it take possesion and have no prior opportunity before being tackled it is a ball up. if you have had an opportunity and fail to correctly dispose  its holding the ball. it is so simple.
what really peees me is they allow huge packs to form waiting for the ball to come out. they should be blowing the whistle as soon as a pack forms and having a ball up asap.