Hardwick calls the goal review system a joke

[smasha]

Two cameras at the ground also.Vlad you idiot.


WE now have a review system and not only does IT NOT get used but we have 2 bloody cameras.

Lord almighty.
Amateur hour at AFL HOUSE.

[Penelope]

Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.

yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked

No it isn't when the player taking it over the line is under pressure. The walking the ball over the line by Hill being called a point is the correct call. If there had been no tiger player within say10 metres then it's a free but having Vickery standing next constitutes pressure and it's a point

bollocks
vickery wasn't pressuring him.  he was behind the goal line and no one else was within cooee

he picked the up the ball and stepped over the line...towards vickery

[Rampstar]

Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.

yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked

No it isn't when the player taking it over the line is under pressure. The walking the ball over the line by Hill being called a point is the correct call. If there had been no tiger player within say10 metres then it's a free but having Vickery standing next constitutes pressure and it's a point

bollocks
vickery wasn't pressuring him.  he was behind the goal line and no one else was within cooee

he picked the up the ball and stepped over the line...towards vickery

Correct Vickery was behind the goal line and in effect not on the field of play - and if a player is not on the field of play how can he be pressuring a defender? Its bulldust, we were robbed and thats all their is to it. Vickery could have gone back and taken 30 seconds of the clock before kicking the goal. The ball would have gone back to the centre and then its a whole new process as to who wins the tap out, who gets the clearance etc etc.

[Smokey]

Other than to win Mr Tigra we all want to, it just sometimes seem you focus your attentions on one particular point when their is a plethora of reasons as to why we win or lose overall. No hard feelings. I love your passion we all have it in different doses in our bodies and we all need it following Richmond Footy Club.

I reckon there was only 1 reason we lost Tucker - lack of heart (commitment) over 4 quarters.  Its heart that makes you gut run, its heart that makes you go for a 2nd and 3rd effort, its heart that makes you stick to the gameplan when instinct says no, its heart that makes you brave enough to leave your man to back up a teammate and its heart that we only showed for a quarter and a bit on Friday night.  Through the 2nd and 3rd quarters Fremantle gave us a lesson in how to run, spread, carry and pressure according to their plan and we came up short.  We were only ever going to beat their defensive press by running the ball well into it and then kicking over it, releasing our players up the ground into space, and we did that very well in the 1st quarter and then again later in the last quarter but in the middle of the game we went back into our familiar shells by stopping with the ball and refusing to run to create options, enabling Fremantle to pressure us into mistake after mistake and eventual turnover.  And so it was against Collingwood, Groundhog Day.  If we had played 4 committed quarters then the last gasp boundary throw-in error or goal umpiring howler would not come into play because we would have been well in front on the scoreboard.  When we play 4 quarters we smash sides but we do it sporadically and then wonder why we don't win enough games to make finals.  This season we have no age excuse, experience excuse, ability excuse or skill excuse and its time for our players to walk all their pre-season talk.

[Francois Jackson]

Other than to win Mr Tigra we all want to, it just sometimes seem you focus your attentions on one particular point when their is a plethora of reasons as to why we win or lose overall. No hard feelings. I love your passion we all have it in different doses in our bodies and we all need it following Richmond Footy Club.

I reckon there was only 1 reason we lost Tucker - lack of heart (commitment) over 4 quarters.  Its heart that makes you gut run, its heart that makes you go for a 2nd and 3rd effort, its heart that makes you stick to the gameplan when instinct says no, its heart that makes you brave enough to leave your man to back up an opponent and its heart that we only showed for a quarter and a bit on Friday night.  Through the 2nd and 3rd quarters Fremantle gave us a lesson in how to run, spread, carry and pressure according to their plan and we came up short.  We were only ever going to beat their defensive press by running the ball well into it and then kicking over it, releasing our players up the ground into space, and we did that very well in the 1st quarter and then again later in the last quarter but in the middle of the game we went back into our familiar shells by stopping with the ball and refusing to run to create options, enabling Fremantle to pressure us into mistake after mistake and eventual turnover.  And so it was against Collingwood, Groundhog Day.  If we had played 4 committed quarters then the last gasp boundary throw-in error or goal umpiring howler would not come into play because we would have been well in front on the scoreboard.  When we play 4 quarters we smash sides but we do it sporadically and then wonder why we don't win enough games to make finals.  This season we have no age excuse, experience excuse, ability excuse or skill excuse and its time for our players to walk all their pre-season talk.

Well said Smokey, one of the best posts I've seen in a while.

After watching the Port game i was even more peed off that a basket case like them in 2012 can manage to hold onto to such a gutsy win. Their team is a lot younger than ours yet seem to have no issue with the pressure at all.

I think Ramps is spot on we seem to have a list of very dumb footballers.

[Hellenic Tiger]

Other than to win Mr Tigra we all want to, it just sometimes seem you focus your attentions on one particular point when their is a plethora of reasons as to why we win or lose overall. No hard feelings. I love your passion we all have it in different doses in our bodies and we all need it following Richmond Footy Club.

I reckon there was only 1 reason we lost Tucker - lack of heart (commitment) over 4 quarters.  Its heart that makes you gut run, its heart that makes you go for a 2nd and 3rd effort, its heart that makes you stick to the gameplan when instinct says no, its heart that makes you brave enough to leave your man to back up an opponent and its heart that we only showed for a quarter and a bit on Friday night.  Through the 2nd and 3rd quarters Fremantle gave us a lesson in how to run, spread, carry and pressure according to their plan and we came up short.  We were only ever going to beat their defensive press by running the ball well into it and then kicking over it, releasing our players up the ground into space, and we did that very well in the 1st quarter and then again later in the last quarter but in the middle of the game we went back into our familiar shells by stopping with the ball and refusing to run to create options, enabling Fremantle to pressure us into mistake after mistake and eventual turnover.  And so it was against Collingwood, Groundhog Day.  If we had played 4 committed quarters then the last gasp boundary throw-in error or goal umpiring howler would not come into play because we would have been well in front on the scoreboard.  When we play 4 quarters we smash sides but we do it sporadically and then wonder why we don't win enough games to make finals.  This season we have no age excuse, experience excuse, ability excuse or skill excuse and its time for our players to walk all their pre-season talk.

Post of the post match

[Tigeritis™©®]

Maybe if we were able to get Burgess like we wanted we'd be able to actually play 4 full quarters of footy.
Port look very fit.

[Penelope]

that inconsitency is more in the head than physical fitness.

Our lapses can be in any quarter, rather than in the last which you would expect if it was a fitness issue.

just on the new fitness staff. we seem to be proactive in resting players this year, in particular the young blokes which hopefully will transfer into less wear and tear injuries and the younger blokes not tiring so much around mid season.

Maric could be the exception here.

conca is the other name that people will throw up to say its not working,        but for all we know the medical staff may have been diligent enough to have found it early rather than having him breaking down completely.

[gerkin greg]

Other than to win Mr Tigra we all want to, it just sometimes seem you focus your attentions on one particular point when their is a plethora of reasons as to why we win or lose overall. No hard feelings. I love your passion we all have it in different doses in our bodies and we all need it following Richmond Footy Club.

I reckon there was only 1 reason we lost Tucker - lack of heart (commitment) over 4 quarters.  Its heart that makes you gut run, its heart that makes you go for a 2nd and 3rd effort, its heart that makes you stick to the gameplan when instinct says no, its heart that makes you brave enough to leave your man to back up a teammate and its heart that we only showed for a quarter and a bit on Friday night.  Through the 2nd and 3rd quarters Fremantle gave us a lesson in how to run, spread, carry and pressure according to their plan and we came up short.  We were only ever going to beat their defensive press by running the ball well into it and then kicking over it, releasing our players up the ground into space, and we did that very well in the 1st quarter and then again later in the last quarter but in the middle of the game we went back into our familiar shells by stopping with the ball and refusing to run to create options, enabling Fremantle to pressure us into mistake after mistake and eventual turnover.  And so it was against Collingwood, Groundhog Day.  If we had played 4 committed quarters then the last gasp boundary throw-in error or goal umpiring howler would not come into play because we would have been well in front on the scoreboard.  When we play 4 quarters we smash sides but we do it sporadically and then wonder why we don't win enough games to make finals.  This season we have no age excuse, experience excuse, ability excuse or skill excuse and its time for our players to walk all their pre-season talk.

Very good post

[Yeahright]

Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.

yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked

No it isn't when the player taking it over the line is under pressure. The walking the ball over the line by Hill being called a point is the correct call. If there had been no tiger player within say10 metres then it's a free but having Vickery standing next constitutes pressure and it's a point

bollocks
vickery wasn't pressuring him.  he was behind the goal line and no one else was within cooee

he picked the up the ball and stepped over the line...towards vickery

Correct Vickery was behind the goal line and in effect not on the field of play - and if a player is not on the field of play how can he be pressuring a defender? Its bulldust, we were robbed and thats all their is to it. Vickery could have gone back and taken 30 seconds of the clock before kicking the goal. The ball would have gone back to the centre and then its a whole new process as to who wins the tap out, who gets the clearance etc etc.

You only have 20 seconds now don't you?

[WilliamPowell]

Isnt walking the ball through for point a free kick to the opposition team. We should have also been given a free kick for that in the Goalsquare. What a stuffen joke of a competition.

yeah, someone else raised that too. its a valid point (no pun intended) that seems to being overlooked

No it isn't when the player taking it over the line is under pressure. The walking the ball over the line by Hill being called a point is the correct call. If there had been no tiger player within say10 metres then it's a free but having Vickery standing next constitutes pressure and it's a point

bollocks
vickery wasn't pressuring him.  he was behind the goal line and no one else was within cooee

he picked the up the ball and stepped over the line...towards vickery

Al, I am not saying I agree with it, but you will find that will be the excuse that will come out from headquarters regarding why it wasn't deemed a deliberate rushed behind.

As with most rules the interpretations can be and usually are twisted to suit headquarters.

[Gigantor]

for me the washup is......we was robbed

[WilliamPowell]

Other than to win Mr Tigra we all want to, it just sometimes seem you focus your attentions on one particular point when their is a plethora of reasons as to why we win or lose overall. No hard feelings. I love your passion we all have it in different doses in our bodies and we all need it following Richmond Footy Club.

I reckon there was only 1 reason we lost Tucker - lack of heart (commitment) over 4 quarters.  Its heart that makes you gut run, its heart that makes you go for a 2nd and 3rd effort, its heart that makes you stick to the gameplan when instinct says no, its heart that makes you brave enough to leave your man to back up an opponent and its heart that we only showed for a quarter and a bit on Friday night.  Through the 2nd and 3rd quarters Fremantle gave us a lesson in how to run, spread, carry and pressure according to their plan and we came up short.  We were only ever going to beat their defensive press by running the ball well into it and then kicking over it, releasing our players up the ground into space, and we did that very well in the 1st quarter and then again later in the last quarter but in the middle of the game we went back into our familiar shells by stopping with the ball and refusing to run to create options, enabling Fremantle to pressure us into mistake after mistake and eventual turnover.  And so it was against Collingwood, Groundhog Day.  If we had played 4 committed quarters then the last gasp boundary throw-in error or goal umpiring howler would not come into play because we would have been well in front on the scoreboard.  When we play 4 quarters we smash sides but we do it sporadically and then wonder why we don't win enough games to make finals.  This season we have no age excuse, experience excuse, ability excuse or skill excuse and its time for our players to walk all their pre-season talk.

Post of the post match

x 2 

[one-eyed]

AFL won't pay $10k for goal-line cameras

    Michelangelo Rucci
    The Adelaide Advertiser
    April 28, 2013 10:30PM

NOTHING annoys the AFL more than an argument that begins: "You wouldn't want a grand final decided that way."

Indeed, a Round Five game at Subiaco Oval that ultimately could determine if Richmond plays in AFL finals for the first time since 2001 is no small matter.

Today, the AFL has to deal with a storm of its own making ... because it will not spend $10,000 for goal-line cameras at each AFL venue.

Richmond was denied a critical last-quarter goal from Matt White when his kick bounced into the legs of goal umpire Dale Edwick in Friday Night Football. The play became a rushed behind for the Tigers when confused Fremantle midfielder Stephen Hill stepped over the line with ball in hand.

Now the blame game begins.

WAS the goal umpire wrong? Not at all. Edwick noted the ball had not fully crossed the line, so there can be no score.

WAS the goal umpire in the wrong position? Not by the direction every goal umpire is given. That is, straddle the goal line. This is to ensure the goal umpire can tell with certainty that the ball has completely crossed the line - untouched by any player.

The problem with this advice is that the goal umpire will put himself in a position where he runs the risk of stopping the ball crossing the goal-line. And the Laws of the Game say in this situation, the play continues with no score. Hill could have run the ball from the goalfront without a score ever registering had he kept the ball in play.

WERE the umpires wrong to not call for a score review, as expected by Richmond coach Damien Hardwick? The AFL says they were - although this would have been difficult had Hill started a rebound from defence.

Should have been a score review, AFL admits

BUT would have the score review given conclusive evidence that the ball had fully crossed the line? Such definitive video evidence is available only at the MCG where the league's telecasters have placed cameras in the goal posts. It is not at Subiaco or AAMI Stadium or any other AFL venue.

The AFL - which has a billion-dollar television deal - has repeatedly said it will not buy the cameras to place in goal posts. These are costed at $10,000. And the networks are preferring to invest in more cameras around the field than on the goalposts.

The end result is a mess.

Goal umpires are directed to position themselves where they influence a match result.

Score review is far from satisfactory.

New AFL football operations chief Mark Evans says he will consider having the goal umpires no longer compelled to straddle the goal-line. This is a good thought, but it is only half the answer if there is not goal-line technology at every AFL venue.

Getting the goal umpires off the line is ideal. But when there is a doubt about whether Jay Schulz's mark was completely inside the field of play or whether Stephen Silvagni touched the ball on the line, the goal umpire will not have a definitive answer.

It will compel the umpires to rely on video review. And if there is no goal-post camera, how does a picture on an angle from the forward pocket become conclusive?

At least a grand final will not be decided this way - provided the Seven Network keeps those $10,000 cameras in the goalposts at the MCG.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/ruccis-rip/story-fnecrvvd-1226631078919

[Penelope]

Andy pandy is happy enough to constantly tinker with the rules in a vain effort to create a game that he wants, caring little that the constant changing and often the rules themselves drive many fans ape nuggets.

Yet they wond fork out a couple of hundred Ks to ensure that decisions are got right. Youd think that with so much money in the trough they could take their snouts out for a breather and get this sorted?

The other option is to have two goal umpires, one on each goal post like they do in rugby when kicking for goal. But thats an ongoing cost, so thats unlikely to happen.

So the AFL will take the third option and do nothing, just hope something like this doesnt happen again too soon, but really not care if it does. If the shouting of discontent gets too loud from the peasants, no doubt they will dip into the money trough to get extra glazing for their ivory tower so as to block out the noise.