Footy Classified

[Life goes on]

I reckon the Bombers will get Mark Thompson before Daniher
Also reckon that Mark Harvey will go to the Demons.

[blaisee]

getting sheedy would be a disgace.

He is finished has been ofr 10 years.

How interesting that all of a sudden now that the bummers dont want him he is interested.

Stuff him He is a pr!ck who turned his back on us for the last 27 years, He is an essendon man now. has been for a long long time

[the_boy_jake]

I've been sayin it for years Caro causes more problems for us than she solves.

On the balance of her work she has as many contacts inside Richmond as all the other league clubs combined.

She might be balanced but the problem is that whilst every other club releases good publicity thru PR and shelters their bad publicity, we release our good publicity thru PR (and Caro) but the bad news also gets out thru Caro too. Maybe we are a shambles but she doesn't help. She survives thru people reading her stuff and in this way promotes herself to the detriment of the RFC.

Will be a great day when the wrinkly old bag hangs up her pen.   

[WilliamPowell]

Because ""Richmond "" want him back.

Richmond ??? as oppsed to "People at Richmond"

So who makes up "Richmond". What is it exactly

Give me a break.

[mightytiges]

Because ""Richmond "" want him back.

You mean the usual old has-beens want him back  . Their egos are so huge they still refuse to recognise the majority of members easily rejected them in 2004 and blame Miller instead .

It'd be typical Richmond to get Sheeds back as coach now that he is past it  . Romanticism won't add 10-15 middle-age players to our list. 

[one-eyed]

Sheeds wants to coach on....

The coach, however, is not yet ready to walk away, saying yesterday he plans to coach next year and would be happy to do so at another club. He has also put an end to the notion he could remain at Essendon as anything other than the senior coach.

"I wouldn't do that to any person. I will be out, don't worry about that," Sheedy said of the difficulties of him remaining at the club with a new senior coach arriving.

"There's a lot of work to be done in footy if I don't coach. But if I do coach either Essendon or I coach against Essendon I will really coach well, I can tell you. That's just the way it goes. So that will happen one way or the other."

"I would like to think I could work in all areas of the footy club, or most areas of the footy club. Forty-two years' experience is a lot of experience so if I don't coach anywhere, I don't coach. I will go on holiday or chase some knowledge in Europe or America and come back and you could have 12 months off and go and become a sensational coach."

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/sheedy-wants-to-coach-on/2007/05/16/1178995236214.html

[torch]

if sheedy come back to us ...

would he be coach ??? ...

i think we should get him back as something ...

an assistant coach maybe ???

Terry and Kevin ... our coachs ... LMAO ... be maddd as ...

[mightytiges]

if sheedy come back to us ...

would he be coach ??? ...

i think we should get him back as something ...

an assistant coach maybe ???

Terry and Kevin ... our coachs ... LMAO ... be maddd as ...

Hell would need to freeze over before Sheeds and Miller work together  . Sheeds wouldn't want to be a assistant coach either nor work under Wallace and his "basketball crap".

[one-eyed]

Lyon and Carey are in favour of the new rule whereas Caro and Hutchy aren't. Lyon kept going on about not using your hands and pulled out some footage of Mooney using his forearm and shoulder against a Port player on the weekend to say that's how you do it. 

[mightytiges]

Yes Gary the rule now is no hands but it was never that in the past. It was always push in the back. So you're now allowed to push with your forearm in the back and that's okay  ???. lol pulling out some vision of a skinny Port kid and comparing him to big Mal pushing back.

[DallasCrane]

Yes Gary the rule now is no hands but it was never that in the past. It was always push in the back. So you're now allowed to push with your forearm in the back and that's okay  ???. lol pulling out some vision of a skinny Port kid and comparing him to big Mal pushing back.

Gaddy's little stunts are becoming tiresome. It seemed like he was trying to manufacture support for the hands in the back rule just to swim against the tide. The funny thing about the skinny port kid vision is that I actually saw a lot better examples over the weekend that supported his point, he must have been up at Falls Creek for the weekend and missed them.

Gaddy has also been using his priviledged position in the football media to absolutely tee off at Jeff Kennett lately at every available opportunity*, including digging up old tape of him as well. It seems a very bitter and personal attack by Gaddy, he must still want revenge over Kennett's footy show comments, get over it Garry your just being a big sook.


*I should qualify that I am to this day bagging Kennett on issues like loss of nurses, schools, public holidays, Citylink etc, but these are merely peripheral issues, I'm talking about footy here.

[one-eyed]

Former North Melbourne champion Wayne Carey said yesterday he supported the new interpretation, but added umpires were not consistent.

"Everyone was told about the new rule at the start of the season, and the only thing I'm against is the consistency of the umpires," Carey said.

"If they are consistent in every decision, I'm all for it."

Carey said players such as Richardson had to learn to use their forearms, which was legal, when making contact with an opponent's back in a marking contest.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21810863%255E19742,00.html

[one-eyed]

Lyon: Law's easy to handle
29 May 2007   Herald-Sun
Garry Lyon

THE "hands-in-the-back" rule has been one of the best directions given to football in recent times, Garry Lyon writes.

It is as close to black and white in its interpretation as we are likely to get in our game.

You can argue all you like about whether you think it's good for the game or not. But in terms of instruction to players, it is breathtakingly simple.

The two things at the ends of your arms (hands) cannot be placed into the back of an opposition player.

If you do it, you will give away a free kick. Simple. End of story.

It makes for a more even, honest marking contest, and smart players will adjust and use their bodies more effectively.

That is not to say that umpires will not get it wrong on occasions, but how is that different to any other free kick that may be missed during a game?

And as for the suggestion that the rule is dangerous -- give me a break.

Running with the flight of the ball, Jonathan-Brown style, into a pack is dangerous.

Emerging with the mark is magnificent.

Now we wouldn't want to change that, would we?

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21810822%255E19742,00.html

[one-eyed]

Yep the new rule is black and white Garry


No whistle: the roles were reversed, but without a free kick when Essendon defender Mal Michael touched Tiger Matthew Richardson's back in the last quarter at the MCG on Saturday. Picture: Wayne Ludbey

[mightytiges]

It's so "breathtakingly simple" and "close to black and white" Garry that every marking contest is now like a toss of coin . Will it be a free; won't it be a free  . It's a utter disaster as the above pic alongside the Richo non-mark shows.